According to Webster a Christian is “someone who professes belief in the Teachings of Jesus Christ”. This covers My RC father, my Missouri Synod Luthern Mother, and my Episcopal husband. And Fundies. And snake handlers. We don’t agree on the details, but we all believe in Jesus, don’t we?
Now if you want to talk about heresy… but that wasn’t the original post, was it?
And I always though asking Mary for intersession was an effort to get the Mother of God on our side, since even Jesus was supposed to honor his mother. Or is this just something I made up to fill in the gaps in my Christian education?
I might have to quibble just a bit with that Webster’s definition. After all, even such heathens as Thomas Jefferson believed in the “teachings of Jesus” (as he interpreted them). I prefer the American Heritage Dictionary’s definition, “Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.” I think that first part–“belief in Jesus as Christ”, i.e., the crucified and resurrected Savior and “Son of God” and, in orthodox teaching, God Incarnate–is the core of Christianity, as distinct from all other religions. Of course, you could look at Webster’s defition and argue that those who profess “belief in the Teachings of Jesus Christ” (Christians) are distinct from those who profess “belief in the teachings of Jesus ‘of Nazareth’” (assorted Unitarians and Deists and what-not).
Of course, by this definition, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and Protestants are all undeniably Christians, no matter how much they may call each other heretics, schismatics, dupes of the Whore of Babylon, hell-bound wreckers of the unity of God’s Holy Church, etc.
[75] I answered and said, “If I have found favor in thy sight, O Lord, show this also to thy servant: whether after death, as soon as every one of us yields up his soul, we shall be kept in rest until those times come when thou wilt renew the creation, or whether we shall be tormented at once?”
[76] He answered me and said, "I will show you that also, but do not be associated with those who have shown scorn, nor number yourself among those who are tormented.
[77] For you have a treasure of works laid up with the Most High; but it will not be shown to you until the last times.
[78] Now, concerning death, the teaching is: When the decisive decree has gone forth from the Most High that a man shall die, as the spirit leaves the body to return again to him who gave it, first of all it adores the glory of the Most High. [79] And if it is one of those who have shown scorn and have not kept the way of the Most High, and who have despised his law, and who have hated those who fear God –
[80] such spirits shall not enter into habitations, but shall immediately wander about in torments, ever grieving and sad, in seven ways.
[81] The first way, because they have scorned the law of the Most High. [82] The second way, because they cannot now make a good repentance that they may live.
[83] The third way, they shall see the reward laid up for those who have trusted the covenants of the Most High.
[84] The fourth way, they shall consider the torment laid up for themselves in the last days.
[85] The fifth way, they shall see how the habitations of the others are guarded by angels in profound quiet.
[86] The sixth way, they shall see how some of them will pass over into torments.
[87] The seventh way, which is worse than all the ways that have been mentioned, because they shall utterly waste away in confusion and be consumed with shame, and shall wither with fear at seeing the glory of the Most High before whom they sinned while they were alive, and before whom they are to be judged in the last times.
[102] I answered and said, “If I have found favor in thy sight, show further to me, thy servant, whether on the day of judgment the righteous will be able to intercede for the ungodly or to entreat the Most High for them,
[103] fathers for sons or sons for parents, brothers for brothers, relatives for their kinsmen, or friends for those who are most dear.”
[104]He answered me and said, “Since you have found favor in my sight, I will show you this also. The day of judgment is decisive and displays to all the seal of truth. Just as now a father does not send his son, or a son his father, or a master his servant, or a friend his dearest friend, to be ill or sleep or eat or be healed in his stead,
[105] so no one shall ever pray for another on that day, neither shall any one lay a burden on another; for then every one shall bear his own righteousness and unrighteousness.”
This may be topic for another debate, and will probably cast me as a pot-stirrer (especially since it was something that I stumbled across on a fundier type web site), but isn’t the Church being a wee bit hypocritical in keeping the Deutero-Canonical books as Scripture to justify Purgatory but excising the above passages, which are interpreted as refuting Purgatory and praying for the dead, from some versions of 4 Ezra? Or were those passages frauds found only in certain versions? What is the Church’s official word on this matter?
I’m curious on this point, too. Was my MIL being superstitious when she sprinkled us with holy water before a long car trip or is that an approved use? What are approved uses?
The primary reason that 4 Ezra (aka 2 Esdras) is not included in either the Jewish or Christian canon is that it was written in the Jewish community at about the time that the Jewish canon was irrevocably closed and after Christianity had completely broken with Judaism. Although it was popular among the early Christians as a devotional work, it was written at about the same time as the Christian book Revelation (and for many of the same reasons).
It was too new for the Jews to accept as Scripture and in the wrong tradition for Christians to accept as Scripture.
As to the sprinkling with holy water: it is generally an action performed to remind us of Baptism. I can’t look into your mom’s heart, but if it was done to protect you from traffic accidents, it sounds as though that action was bordering on the superstitious.
I purused this thread with great interest, but noticed how long it took before someone finally pointed out the definition of Christianity. I was wondering what the distinction between faith/good works and transubstantiation/constubstantiation had to do with the OP.
Hijack by parable…
reminds me of the comedy routine by Emo Whatshisname…which I will butcher here…
"I was crossing a bridge, and came upon a man, greatly upset, and preparing to jump.
“Don’t jump!”, I said…“Do you believe in God?”
“yes…”
“Why, so do I. Are you a Christian, Jew…?”
“Christian.”
“This is great. So am I! What denomination?”
“Baptist.”
"Me too! " …
…yadayada…
.
.
“Synod of 1820 or 1834?”
“1834.”
"So I said “Die, heretic, and pushed him off.”
“Umm, I think Coptics, Eastern Orthodox and the other small sects in the Middle East may take issue with this, but it does not really affect the rest of your argument.”
The reason is all of those denominations are generally consider to fall under the Catholic beliefs. They either :
Follow a similiar ritual, calendar, lithurgy, just does not respond to the Pope, but to another person.(Eastern Orthodox, their long name, as I remembered, is Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church)
Answer to the Pope, but have a different ritual. Also, keep many beliefs that the RCC accepts. (Those coptics, and other small sects in the middle east. The copts are called the Catholic Coptic Church.)
There are a number of different rites within the Catholic Church and most of them are from the East end of the Mediterranean and are, thus, frequently called “Eastern Rites.” These include (but are not limited to) the Maronites, the Chaldean Rite, the Greek Catholic Church, and several others. They are all Catholic and all acknowledge the pope as the ultimate head of the church (although they are not bound, in many cases, by the rules of the Latin Rite (based in Rome)).
These churches, however, are different than the Orthodox churches who separated with Rome in the Great Schism of 1054. The majority of the churches of Eastern Europe are Orthodox, each under the leadership of a national patriarch, and have no association with the Catholic Church, at all. (In fact, since the breakup of the U.S.S.R., the Russian Orthodox Church has been at pains to have Russia enact legislation that severely restricts the activities of any of the Catholic churches–as well as any Protestant denominations.)