Usually when people say Catholics aren’t “Christians,” they mean they aren’t born-again believers who believe in salvation through faith alone, not through confession to a priest or absolution by the Pope, or by “good performance” in terms of abiding by laws/rules. etc.
FWIW, here is a Presbyterian (PCA) blogger expressing perplexity over what she sees as a trend of congregations adopting Catholic practices.
You have this in common with people who are religious … so you’re not alone …
or listened to that fool tony Alamo and whats left of his so called church …
A few of its members were known to hand out anti catholic pamphlets in English and Spanish at the swap meet I worked at and I gave one to the owner when I paid the space rent and after being surprised by what she read she said "this will sort its self out " and it did when they tried it on a Sunday when a lot of the Hispanic customers were shopping/strolling there after church …
After the 4th fist fight the sheriff was called to save them , needless to say we never saw them there after that
Think of it like a fight between Star Wars fans and Star Trek fans as to which one is better, but with a lot more killing.
The reason that this is A Big Deal if you’re a Presbyterian is that “wants to have as little to do with the Catholic way of worshipping as possible” is practically a defining feature of Presbyterianism. You have to go a loooong way outside the mainstream of different Christian churches to find one LESS like the Catholics than the Presbyterians. All the ‘problematic’ practises she lists are ones you could easily find, say, an Anglican/Episcopalian church, and it would be totally NBD.
So any internet commentator who starts off with “Presbyterian!! Practically next door to a Catholic!!” is very much living in their own little world. The displeasure that that author is showing over the thought of her church doing something that might be like the catholic way of doing things, is just more proof of that.
Told this before. After 9/11 our Evangelical Lutheran pastor arranged a field trip to the Muslim center down the street. As the imam explained their beliefs I turned to our pastor and whispered, “Still closer than the Mormons.” One shouldn’t make his pastor giggle in a mosque.
And it will be the end of Pope Frankie’s attempts at reconciliation with us until some two someones put on their grown-up pants and decide to accept reconciliation while the theologians duke out the detail in Rome and Park Ridge for the next couple hundred years. FFS, when the RCC changes its liturgy we change ours! It’s like the Reformation ended long ago, with the Lutherans winning.
Except for the Missouri Synod, who ran off with the Baptists long ago.
I’ve noticed especially in the South a tendency to use protestant and christian interchangeably. From there it’s a small step to not protestant = not christian.
I remember my SC father in law being “very sad” that I was going to hell, for being a Catholic. On further questioning, the exact reason why Catholics were hell-bound wasn’t clear, except that that’s “how it is, not being Christian” I didn’t explain that if there was any hell-bounding, it’d more likely be my atheism doing me in.
Part of what made my divorce so great was no longer having to repress the urge to tell him to shove his opinions on fantasy books, tithing and, I kid you not, the TBS channel. (Ted Turner is apparently the most hell-bound sinner walking this earth. But since my divorce was well before Obama, this may have changed and I simply wasn’t informed)
IRT the bolded part: Only because working light sabers, disrupters, phasers, and blasters haven’t gotten out of the labs and into the scifi conventions yet.
How do you (does one) respond to those assertions (in the name of fighting ignorance)?
Brilliant! I guess we’ll just have to hope they remain unarmed. 
Well, we do believe in a hierarchical church, and we believe that God meant it to be that way. And when Jesus said to Peter “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it,” He meant that Peter was head of the Church, and the first Pope. There’s scriptural support for the papacy.
We do not. We do, however believe in intercessory prayer, and we pray to Mary. We do not believe she is divine. We believe she was human.
We do pray to saints (just like we pray to Mary). I don’t think we’d call them “mediators.”
Jesus said “Take, eat; this is my body.” That’s the basis of the Eucharist. Confession (the Sacrament of Reconciliation) is based in scripture too – Jesus said to the disciples “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”
We are not fundamentalists. The Bible is indeed the Word of God. But it’s not a science textbook, or a history textbook.
The real Church still exists, although many of our fellow Christians have fallen away from it.
Well, Luther might have had a point with that one. It’s gotten better.
Saintly Loser got here with all the answers before I did, but I’ll just add to #4. Roman Catholics believe that all the sacraments – there are seven, according to Catholic doctrine – were directly instituted by Jesus, and they can show exactly where in the Bible each one came from.
Which refutes another common objection by the not-Christian group. Catholics DO SO read the Bible. Nyah nyah nyah.
Did I really waste 45 minutes, times two, answering this, only to have a cogent, theologically-open, response eaten by Chrome?
Which includes, as I recall my education, getting the wedding guests drinking some primo wine. Jesus, his own damn self, Patron Saint of Wedding Receptions. And whining at his mom, “All the cool kids are failing and that cute girl from Magdala is here!”
First off, the Catholic Church is definitely not the original Christian Church. There were a variety of Christian Churches that never unified, some of which still have branches today. The Catholic Church descended from one of those sects, but is not the only one to do so. Even when the Roman empire had one official church, that Church split shortly after the turn of the last millennium (traditionally in 1054, though the situation is more complicated than that). The Eastern Orthodox Church can trace it’s ‘originality’ back as well as the Catholics do (since they were the same Church at one point), but would argue that they are the one that properly maintained the Church’s doctrines, and that the Pope was a usurper who was violating the core principles of the Church. If you’re going to argue that Protestant Churches are not ‘original’, the same arguments that say the Protestant Churches count as new religions instead of a reform to the old tradition are likely to apply to the Catholic Church with regard to the split from the Orthodox Church.
Getting back to the original question, the trick with it is that, if the person is not just using ‘not Christian’ as a slam on a group, there isn’t a clear and unambiguous definition of “Christian”. “Do they accept Jesus and the Bible” is too vague. There are multiple version of the Bible, and not just different translations, but ones that include different books - Mormons and Catholics both use a fundamentally different Bible than most other groups. Do they need to accept the doctrine of the Holy Trinity to count as accepting Jesus? Well, Jehova’s Witnesses and Mormons (as well as others) don’t, but still consider themselves Christian. Do they need to be monotheistic? Well, some argue that the Trinity is actually three gods, so no one but the ones who don’t accept the Trinity count. Do they need to accept that God is the only god? Well, Catholics pray to Mary and to saints, which some argue is treating them as gods, but Catholics argue is not. Do they need to trace their Church back to Jesus and his disciples directly? Well, AFAIK all churches do that, though various churches argue that other’s line isn’t legitimate.
So while it’s easy to think that ‘is that religion Christian or not’ is a simple factual question, it’s actually mired in interpretation, definition, and strongly held but differing beliefs. Coming up with a definition that includes whatever churches you consider ‘real’, but excludes whichever ones you don’t is a hard thing to do, and it’s unlikely that people will accept all of your exclusions even if you do. And it’s even harder if you don’t want to ignore important parts of the history of Christianity, like the Catholic-Orthodox split, or the Churches that were never part of the line that leads to Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant today.
The RC teaching, IIUC, is that those groups were all part of one “universal, catholic church” and that it, the Roman Catholic Church, is the surviving element of correct teaching, tradition, practice, and belief.
Just like the RC’s approach, huh?
The Protestants do count as new churches. They started out, for the most part, as reform movements but soon discovered that the outfit they were trying to reform was rather too entrenched for it to be doable. Thus the Reformation begat (sorry) a number of new denominations.
Both Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses use the Protestant version of the Holy Bible. While the JWs have their own interpretations of it, they still use a number of available translations of the Protestant Canon. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints uses the King James Version for English and, for other languages, the predominant translation of the Protestant Canon in other countries. The LDS do, of course, have additional scripture, but their Bible is not “fundamentally different than most other groups”. Now, if you’re referring to the Community of Christ (formerly called the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints), they do use both the Inspired Version and various other translations of the Protestant Canon. The Inspired Version can be said to be different owing to the lack of the Song of Solomon and a few revisions/deletions/additions of verses; however, I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s “fundamentally different”.
Roman Catholics aren’t worshiping the saints as gods/goddesses.
That’s spot-on. But I’d like to add one thing: if a particular outfit considers itself Christian, why not go with their consideration?
John 3:16. Defines the basic Christian message. Catholics and Protestants adhere to this scripture and are Christians.
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
It all depends how you define Christian. Historically what little evidence there is suggests that Christ and his original followers would have been aghast at modern RC beliefs. Concepts like the divinity of Jesus, the Trinity, Mary as the Mother of God, etc he would have considered blasphemous.
But Christian beliefs of course are a moveable feast changing with the centuries. By the 4th century the 1st Council of Nicaea had established many of the tenets that would become the bedrock beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church. The Great Schism of the 11th century marked the final divide between Western and Eastern Christianity with both the RCs and the Orthodox churches of the East claiming that they were the ones that were faithful to the original Christian message and with the later rise of Protestantism we get to the position today with hundreds of different churches claiming that they represent real Christianity.
They’re alL Christian, although many of them would deny that name to their opponents. You pays yer money and you takes yer choice, as the saying has it.
Quite possibly most modern Christian churches’ theologies, liturgies, hierarchies, attitudes to state power, you name it…
I suspect he might have struggled to want St Paul for a sunbeam.
As someone once said of the modern Christmas, “What it’s got to do with Jesus, Jesus only knows”.