So my friend and I are zipping down the highway listening to talk radio, when they start talking about Christians. Apparently some sect of Chistians has decided that Islam = teh evul and is going to head into the holyland and try and convert all the Muslims.
<sarcam> Yay! </sarcasm>
So… anyways… the ensuing conversation went like this:
Me: I swear, there aren’t any good extremeists, but those hard-core Christians have their own special brand of screwed up.
Friend: Excuse me! I’m a Christian!
Me: I… uh… thought you were Catholic?
Friend: Catholics -are- Christians! Anyone who believes in Jesus is a Christian!
Now, I know that’s not true. I’m also sure there’re some pretty fundamental differences between Catholics and Chirstians concerning the nature of the Messiah, communion, etc. I just don’t know what they are, I’d also prefer to hear about the differences, you know, objectively.
So if any of you can help me out, I’d apprecaite it.
Well - I think to a point your friend is correct - those who accept Jesus as their messiah are genearlly considered to be Christian.
There are Messianic Jews, who are Jewish but belive that Jesus was the saviour they were waiting for.
And as far as differences go - Catholics are christian, and have their own idiosyncratic things that go on at church - as do all other Christian religions.
Sorry - it kinda sounds like you’re trying to pick a fight with your friend that you really can’t win.
Catholics are Christians. There are THOUSANDS of Christian sects, all with differences in rituals and interpretations and things. There are also, I’m sure, people who accept some of Jesus’ teachings or ideas who don’t count themselves as Christians, but if you think he was the Messiah, you’re probably one.
Jews for Jesus are just cheating.
But anyway, sorry, your friend is essentially right. If he’s not, he’s much closer to right than you are.
It is worth noting that certain conservative Protestant denominations don’t consider Catholics Christian, due to what they consider “pagan” practices by the church. However a certain amount of that can be chalked up to a misunderstanding of Catholic doctrine, plus parochial hostility. But this is a minority viewpoint. Generally speaking the vast majority ( we’ll leave a tiny bit of wiggle room for possible oddball exceptions ) of people who consider Jesus divine and accept the New Testament as the final religious revelation, can be considered to be Christians.
Catholicism is the largest of the three main groupings of Christianity, the others being Protestantism ( which I rather suspect is the group you are referring to as “Christians” ) and Eastern Orthodoxy. Each ( and particularly Protestantism ) has numerous subsects. Plus there are several smaller sects that can be said to fall outside those three large sects.
So for the most part your friend is correct. Christianity is extremely varied and Catholicism is one of many facets.
No, they are not Jews; they are a group founded and funded by the Southern Baptists. Jews for Jesus was founded by an ordained Baptist minister named Martin (Moishe) Rosen. They are Christians, dishonest Christians, but Christians.
And yes, Catholics are Christians.
Moderator’s Notes:
Religious discussion ususally turn into Great Debates. So, I’m moving this to Great Debates.
Hey - I’ve never been the type to get really up in arms about such things. If they wanna call themselves Jews, and follow Jewish dietary laws and observe Jewish ritual, and just happen to think that Jesus is the messiah, and they consider themsleves Jewish, who am I to argue?
Now, if a more traditional Jewish person wants to argue, that’s their perogative. I however, will avoid that particular debate.
There are thousands of Messianic (also called Nazerene) Jews in America who have no affiliation or particular affinity for the organization “Jews for Jesus” which is a strictly evangelical organization, the members of which tend to be indistinguishable from evangelical Christians in practice and belief, and many of whom are not Jews (by the “born to a Jewish mother” standard) at all.
Messianic Jews, on the other hand, may be personally evangelical but are not organized for that purpose in part or on the whole. Unlike “Jews for Jesus” members, they retain the Jewish sabbath, holy days and feasts, the laws of kashrus and family purity, Jewish traditions and as a matter of lifestyle tend toward a level of observance similar to traditional Orthodox Jews. The Messianic shabbos liturgy (I’m sure that there’s a better word, but it will suffice) is the same as those of traditional Jews but have additions reflecting that their faith includes a recognition of Jesus (Y’shua) as the messiah.
The overlap between these two groups is minimal, at best. Because of continued confusion on this issue, Messianic Jews – who are Jews by the “born to a Jewish mother” standard – have frequently found themselves ostracized and unwelcome within their own community. But in the interest of fighting ignorance, it is important to recognize that there is a difference, and that it is quite unfair and incorrect to presume that all who self-identify as Messianic Jewish believers are JfJ affiliated or that they are something other than Jews.
Ech, in that first paragraph, strike “strictly evangelical organization” and replace it with “strictly missionary organization” to clarify my point a bit.
It’s also worth pointing out with regard to the OP that Roman Catholicism is widely regarded as the oldest of the main branches of Christianity, traditionally dating back to St Peter’s ministry in Rome in the first century AD. The Orthodox church split from the RC church in the 11th century, and the Protestant church split in the 16th century.
IIRC, it’s the RC that split off from the Orthodox Church, by coming up with the idea that the patriarch of Rome was superior to all other patriarchs. That being a new idea I would say the Orthodox branch is the older one.
I’ll just pull out one of my stock GD questions. If Catholics aren’t Christians, what were the first 1000 to 1500 years of followers of Christ?
Up until shortly after 1000 A.D., the main form of Christianity was Catholicism (there were Coptic Christians in Egypt). In 1054, if I recall, the Eastern Orthodox church split off from the Catholic Church. Martin Luther didn’t come along until the 1500’s, and he considered himself Catholic, despite his role in founding Protestantism.
I think the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism are rather distorted by the “Catholics aren’t Christians” crowd, but I’m a bit biased. You see I’m Episcopalian, which is roughly halfway between Protestant and Catholic. A lot of the things which I’ve read Catholics criticized for doing are things Episcopalians also do.
Well, SimonX, it’s only been seven hours. He could be sleeping or otherwise busy.
To address the point, yes, Catholics are Christians. I first heard the opposite view from LostCause and was frankly flabbergasted; I’d never imagined anyone thinking Catholics aren’t Christians. I’ll say now what I said then: I believe this view of yours is quite idiosyncratic.
You’re both wrong. They’re the same age. You can’t seperate the two for the most part during the early years. And since they both excommunicated each other and claimed the mantle of legitimacy…
No. It would be more correct to say that the Catholic Church split from the Orthodox Church, but even that is not really correct. During the early years, the Bishop of Rome was considered the first among equals of the Big 5 of Bishops - Rome, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch and Constantinople. They all technically had the same power, but the Bishop of Rome had a bit more informal authority.
The problem was when the Western Roman Empire fell. Rome then became isolated from their counterparts in the east, and differences in practices began to spring up. And because Rome was the only Patriarch left in the west, power solidified quite solidly around the Bishop of Rome in that area. Language differences hastened the split between the two as the western church and the eastern church began to be more and more isolated from each other. The Bishop of Rome began to claim officially that he was the top dog among the bishops, and while that was true in an informal sense, it wasn’t true officially and that didn’t sit will with the eastern patriarchs - especially Constantinople who had begun to be the top dog in the East after the fall of Rome.
This sort of thing kept going and the split intensified until it all came to a head with the ugliness in 1054.
More or less, though 1054 was the date of one of many mutual excommunications between RCC and Orthodox leaders, the last one of which occurred in the 1430s – and in any case the present Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarch before the current one mutually revoked those excommunications about 20 years ago. Catholics and Orthodox are not in “full communion” owing to a lot of doctrinal issues, but they’re much in the same position as Lutherans and Anglicans before the recent establishment of full communion – welcome in each others’ churches, and entitled to receive the Eucharist, when circumstances call for it, but with cautionary instructions from their leadership based on the doctrinal questions where each sees the other as remaining in error.
I might also point out that our mutual friends Oblio and Working On It, and probably Dogface here, would say that the Roman Catholics withdrew from Orthodoxy in the 11th Century, as opposed to our Western perspective that you stated.
This would go for me as well.
As regards doctrinal issues, both Catholics and Protestants (and Orthodox, Copts, Jacobites, Nestorians, and anybody else you care to name among those who call themselves Christian) believe in the salvific effect of Christ’s Atonement through His Crucifixion and Resurrection, and differ on a lot of specific questions – just as many Protestant groups differ among themselves. There are a lot of discussions in the archives here on some of those differences; searching for such threads or asking specific questions which a good Catholic or someone who understands Catholic doctrine can answer may help to resolve the issues you raise.
And, BTW, deciding that someone is “not Christian” or so terming them as such on the basis of differences in practice or theological emphasis, so long as they meet Paul’s basic rules on what constitutes a Christian and so term themselves, is probably very judgmental as well as being highly offensive to those people.
