I know this sounds like a silly question to a lot of people, but unfortunately a lot of people in this world don’t know the answer. Personally, I’ve encountered many protestants (and even some Catholics) that thought that Catholics were not Christian.
I’m not sure why though. I think some Catholics have just been really, really poorly catechized and some others have been influenced by some very anti-Catholic groups who spread misinformation.
So let’s set the record straight. Christianity started about 2000 years ago with a man (who was also God) – Jesus Christ. This man, Jesus, started a single Church with his apostles.
Where is this Church today?
The line of authority of those same apostles (in particular, the head of the apostles, Peter) can literally be traced to the leaders of the present day Catholic Church. In other words, the apostles of Jesus were the first leaders of the Catholic Church. In studying these early Christians, we also see that they are undeniably “Catholic” in their beliefs.
For over 1000 years there was only this one Church – the Catholic Church.
In the year 1054, a schism occurred in the Church. The “eastern” part of the Church split off and is known today as the Eastern Orthodox church.
And it wasn’t until almost 1500 years after Jesus founded his Church that any “denomination” appeared on the scene. This was what is known as the protestant reformation, where some Catholics decided to break off from the Catholic Church and start their own churches.
Protestants are “protesting.” That’s where they get their name. So what are they protesting? They are protesting the Catholic Church – the original Church that Jesus founded.
So the answer to the question is a resounding yes. And not only are Catholics Christians, they were the first Christians.
Related Posts
- In Search of the Giant
- Not Just Another Denomination: Part 1 of 2
- Why should we believe in the Bible?
- Found difficult and left untried
Loading ...
{ 1 trackback }
{ 29 comments… read them below or add one }
Very well written. Brief and to the point. Catholic is a faith of God and WE not a faith of God and ME. Let us pray that President Obama doesn’t divide us yet again….
Great post. I was completely confused the first time I heard someone question whether or not Catholics were Christian….say what?! Lol You did a great job of explaining it.
Thanks so much for this teaching. With over 30,000 eclisial communities now in place, I see why it was the Lord’s prayer near the end of his physical life on earth “that they be one as I am one with you Father”
it gies to show what pride and disobidience can do to individuals and groups for generations.
Let us be one in Him and have full life in Him
read John 6:54. Pevtro@gmail.com
It is both good instruction and correction well done, Thank you Matt.
May the peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with all of you on your journey in the faith. jim
Excellent points made! I appreciate your ability to be succinct!
Ditto.
This is a question, in my opinion, that can only be asked by people who are completely ignorant about the Catholic faith, about our liturgy, and about our history. Sometimes the asker is ignorant because he or she has been misinformed (misled, lied to), sometimes the asker is simply refusing to accept the truth. But growing up in Texas and living here (almost) all of my life, I’ve sure heard a lot of ignorance about Catholicism.
A good answer might be, “Of course Catholics are Christian! How could anyone think otherwise?” The other person should then come back with something more specific that you can easily refute.
I am with Bill on this one. When you live in the buckle of the “Bible Belt” Catholicism is clumped in with Mormonism and JW’s as being non-Christian which is ignorant.
Ignorance like this really shouldn’t exist anymore with the vast amount of information that is so easily accessible.
I have to keep in mind that me and my family may be the only Catholics friends and neighbors will ever know. How important it is for us to live out our faith.
I used to date a Texan girl who had very religious, bible-thumping Baptist grandparents. She told me I should not mention that I used to be Catholic – and of course also shut my mouth about my agnosticism. But being Catholic seemed to be slightly worse than being a Satanist. I think it had to do with worshiping Mary, which to them seemed blasphemous. Ahhh, the fun that comes with different denominations…
And just for a chuckle:
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said “Stop! Don’t do it!”
“Why shouldn’t I?” he said.
I said, “Well, there’s so much to live for!”
He said, “Like what?”
I said, “Well…are you religious or atheist?”
He said, “Religious.”
I said, “Me too! Are you christian or buddhist?”
He said,”Christian.”
I said, “Me too! Are you catholic or protestant?”
He said, “Protestant.”
I said, “Me too! Are you episcopalian or baptist?”
He said, “Baptist!”
I said,”Wow! Me too! Are you baptist church of god or baptist church of the lord?”
He said, “Baptist church of god!”
I said, “Me too! Are you original baptist church of god, or are you reformed baptist church of god?”
He said,”Reformed Baptist church of god!”
I said, “Me too! Are you reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?”
He said, “Reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!”
I said, “Die, heretic scum”, and pushed him off”
Worshiping Mary is wrong. Asking “praying” for Mary’s intercession is what we as Catholics are able to do. I agree Andreas that divisions within Christianity are scandalous.
http://markshea.blogspot.com/2009/07/semi-permeable-membrane-of.html
I thought this was a pretty good article, very straight forward and accurate representation.
I’m a member of the Conservative Baptist Convention, and I’ll start by tipping my hat to Andreas – that was funny! That being said, I’d like to throw a few things out there for comment and thought:
In the circles I travel in, no one wonders if Catholics are Christian. We wonder how many Catholics are SAVED. That is to say, how many are depending on their own merit to get into heaven? I wholly expect good works to follow when someone becomes Christian, but those works can’t get you into heaven. I know your catechism doesn’t teach that your works will save you, but I know many former Catholics who believed it did and who still have loved ones with the same issue. Oh, before anyone chimes in, the same Q can be applied to protestants too.
Another though to ponder: Are you aware the difference between Catholic and catholic? Big C = Holy Mother Church; little c = the whole holy church. I have put my faith in Christ as my Lord and Savior. God is the creator, sustainer and redeemer. I don’t, however, put any faith in the Pope. I don’t pray the rosary or attend Mass. I do worship at a church, but it’s catholic, not Catholic. I confess to God but not a priest. Where is the line before I’m not Christian by Catholic standards?
My biggest concern (from my limited, fallible perspective) is that the Catholic church has done for Christianity what the pharisees did to Judaism. Take the Lord’s commandments and bury them in human structure, system and rules. See what I’m saying?
Chris – thanks for the thoughts! They are good questions.
My thoughts in return would be this:
1) As Catholics we believe Christ founded One Church. Not a catholic Church and a Catholic Church and a Southern Baptist Church and an Anglican Church, etc. All Christians are somehow a part of this One Church in one way or another – whether explicitly or implicitly. But we believe that the Catholic Church is that same One Church. So, from our Catholic perspective, we believe you to be a part of the Catholic (big C) Church (same as the catholic Church) through your baptism, but it is an imperfect membership because you don’t recognize and practice the fullness of God’s deposit of faith He gave to His Church. I understand you won’t agree with that, but just telling you where we’re coming from so you can understand better. And the Church has very good reason for taking this position.
2) I totally understand your concerns of what the pharisees did to Judaism. And there is no doubt that leaders within the Catholic Church and other denominations have all been like the pharisees at different points. But remember that Jesus wasn’t condemning all rules and human structure (in fact, he was obedient to it all his whole life as a good jew). He was condemning the way the pharisees hid behind such structure and missed the spirit of the law.
We shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just need to view the structure in the proper light.
Another significant difference here worth mentioning is that Christ founded The Church personally, gave it his Holy Spirit to guide it, gave direct authority and power to its leaders, commissioned them to “go forward as he had done”, and promised that the gates of hell will not prevail against it – among other things. Not to mention that this Church also happens to literally and mysteriously be Christ’s Body.
This institution is entirely unique from any kind of pre-resurrection Jewish institution or leadership.
Forgive me another pair of questions here, if you please:
What is “the fullness of God’s deposit of faith He gave to His Church”, and what does it look like to recognize and practice it?
Good question, sir.
I would say that the fullness of faith would include everything that God gave us through his Church (his Church being the vehicle He chose to do so). This includes everything that Jesus taught his Apostles – not just what happened to get written down. The Bible admits even that not everything Jesus did was written down.
Many non-Catholic Christians believe this entire deposit of faith can be found and understood fully in scripture alone. Of course, this was an idea that only popped up after the reformation and wasn’t the case at all for the early Christians. The early Christians held fast to the Traditions given to them by the Apostles and those with apostolic authority – both written and oral (full explanation here with scripture verses if interested.).
So the fullness of faith includes ALL that Jesus’ Apostles taught and practiced. And I believe you can find this in the Catholic Church.
And since we share so much with non-Catholics and agree on so much, the Catholic Church doesn’t view other denominations as totally wrong. It is usually more accurate to say that they just don’t have this “fullness” of faith (of the truth) found in the Catholic Church. They only have part of it.
Hope that helps!
I think it would have been helpful for those unfamiliar with the Reformation,
to mention Martin Luther. Also, the word/name, “Christ” is in the word “Christian.”
Of course Catholics, who belong to Christ, and He to them, are Christians.
Chris, if you don’t know what the full deposit of faith looks like you don’t have it for Jesus said “You shall KNOW the truth and the truth shall set you free.” and “those who worship God shall worship in spirit and TRUTH”. The truth is knowable.
Catholics are not Christians!!! Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: and also among many more scriptures Revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. The teachings of Mary are adding to God’s Word…immaculate conception..Added…patron Saints…Added…absolution from a priest…Added..having a pope with infallibilty….Added…confirmation…Added…the eucharist…added…lent and ash wednesday…Added. I can go on and on. Catholics make the Word of God of none effect just like the Pharisees did!!! You focus on your made up history and I focus on the Word of God. 1 John 4:6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. You know why you all don’t and won’t hear me because you are not of God and reveal who you really are…NOT of God and definitely not Christians!!
Father, forgive them, they no not what they do…
mjackson, I will say this as lovelingly as I can. You are quoting scripture to justify your opinions. I can do exactly the same to justify all the blasphemy you list. For example, Luke 1,28 is the justification for the immaculate conception.doe Catholics interpret this incorrectly? You can argue that, but I can just as easily aruge the same of the passages you quite from Revelation, which is unquestionably the most symbolic book of the new testament.
How about John 5, 39-40….Christ’s own words encouraging all to seek revelation BEYOND the scriptures.
I have many Baptist friends. But I fear for anyone who condemns others based how they interpret scripture.
Good points, Dave.
The other extremely problematic thing with mjackson’s case is that when the book of Revelation warns against adding unto the prophecy of “this book”…it could only be referring to the book of Revelation…as it was not a part of any biblical canon at the time that it was written. So – if anything – if we take this passage as mjackson is interpreting it…it would be “not of God” to believe anything that isn’t explicitly written in solely the book of Revelation. Which is certainly not a Christian belief.
All of this demonstrates a point of view that ignores the historical context of the bible, how it came together by the Authority of the Church, and is a good example of how a belief in the “bible alone” (a belief that is itself something that has been “added” outside of the bible…only in the past few hundred years in fact) ultimately falls short.
Many prayers for you mjackson.
Hello, all. First off, I consider myself a Reformed Christian in the tradition of Augustine, John Calvin, and Jonathan Edwards (the greatest American theologian). I have a question.
This blog post defines Christianity strictly according to apostolic succession. I ask, why is it so important that you have the ability to point to some man today who stands in line with Peter? Early in church history, when heretics were as common as orthodox believers and all claimed super-special, super-secret knowledge of Christ, it most definitely proved useful. It proved that the message being preached was “apostle-approved”.
But ever since the canon of Scripture was discovered at Nicea in 354, apostolic succession should have become obsolete. It existed to safeguard the “apostles’ teaching” (Acts 2:42), and it served its purpose. Now we have that teaching collected and leatherbound. So why is it still so crucial? What’s the use of the thing? So you see my point. The Christian religion consists solely in the content of its teachings as found in the Bible. Not content plus a token holy man.
Does he interpret the Bible? But why should Benedict be a better interpreter than John Calvin or Martin Luther?
Interesting thoughts, Kyle! Thanks for sharing.
Those are good questions, but I think there are lots of reasons why we need apostolic succession and why Jesus and the apostles set it up that way. Here are a few quick ones off the top of my head:
1) That’s how Jesus set it up. He started a Church – not a book – and gave authority to its leaders to forgive sins, bind on earth and heaven, preach the gospel…to be sent as “the Father sent Him”. The apostles commissioned new leaders and instructed them (all in scripture) to hold to these traditions (the ones by letter and by oral tradition). And they told these leaders to continue to pass this authority down.
2) If Jesus had thought all we needed was a book (with no authority especially commissioned by Him and given special guidance from the Holy Spirit to interpret it) then it seems reasonable that he would have just given us that book. But he didn’t. And nowhere does he instruct the apostles to do so. And nowhere does the Bible claim He has done so. Instead, He gave us a Church led by members with apostolic succession and authority.
3) Nowhere in the bible is the idea supported that the authority of the Church is only useful or that it “runs out” after some list of apostolic letters are canonized (354).
4) If the Church had the authority to define the canon of the Bible (this book that you believe contains the entirety of the Christian religion), why would it suddenly lose that authority once it canonized the bible?
5) If you think there was division and confusion in the early Church…what do you make of today? There are thousands more divisions than there ever was in the early Church. A book by itself does not establish unity. In fact, it is the belief that all we need is the bible (sola scriptura) and no authoritative Church that has led to the biggest splintering of Christianity in all of our history (these past 400-500 hundred years since the reformation). If we needed this central unifying figure and protector of apostolic teaching in the first years of Christianity…then we need it more than ever now. The more Christians have denied the central authority commissioned by Jesus (Apostolic succession), the more divided we’ve become…not unified. That’s a fact.
The list goes on and on. But finally, I think you have a misunderstanding of what the Pope does. He can’t do anything that is not in total agreement with what the Church has always taught. And simply calling him an interpreter leads to even bigger misunderstandings.
John Calvin and Martin Luther came along and took up beliefs that were not consistent with what the Church had always taught. You can’t find their teachings in the early Christian life or historical Christianity. They took it upon themselves to come up with their own interpretations of scripture without the context of apostolic teaching.
The Pope does nothing of the sort. So comparing these people is like comparing apples to oranges. The pope has been ordained the authoritative leader of Jesus’ Church. Through the laying on of hands and the apostolic authority passed down directly and personally from Jesus to the apostles and to the present day. He is in communion with that same Church and all of the Bishops who were similarly ordained and given authority passed down from the apostles directly and personally. Everything the Pope teaches is in accordance and agreement with the totality of apostolic authority, Tradition and scripture. He is working directly within the commissioned organization that Jesus Christ himself founded and started. His predecessor was given the Keys to the Kingdom by Jesus Christ himself. He claims no right to change Church dogma or to interpret it any differently than it has always been interpreted when it pertains to faith and morals.
Sorry to get so long here. I hope that helps give you a little bit more of the Catholic perspective on it. I’m very glad that you commented and shared your thoughts.
The bottom line is that Jesus started a Church with real leaders. A Church with a real, human leadership (Peter and the apostles) and gave them authority. The Church Jesus started had an official leadership. A head of that leadership (not a token holy man). And they passed down that authority to others and told those that received it to continue passing it down (2 Tim. 2:2). That’s Jesus’ Church.
More reading on Apostolic Succession here if interested.
God bless you.
Mathew,
I thankyou for this article and helping me to realise my catholic faith is just as good as any other christian demoniation. After hearing those who have something against the Catholic church i began to doubt myself. You helped me realise there is no doubt. So thank you. And may God help those who are unable to see past their closed minds.
God Bless.
Catholics were hardly the first Christians. It was hundreds of years after the Resurrection before the trappings of the Catholic Church were invented. It is those trappings that Protestants are protesting. Protestants broke away from the Catholic Church in response to the selling of indulgences and many other corruptions perpetrated by the Catholic Church. Are you saying Jesus would have sold indulgences, or approved of them? Of course not, and to my understanding, the modern Catholic Church rightly condemns them. To equate the modern Catholic Church with the Catholic Church that Protestants broke away from and then to equate both of those with Jesus’ original Church is to deny simple historical fact.
Scott – I encourage you to read the post a little more and some of the comment thread here. You should also check out the writings of the early Christians. It’s very easy to see that they were Catholic in belief and practice. And I’m not sure what “trappings” you are referring to that were “invented” hundreds of years later? If you can be more specific maybe somebody can address them.
The Church is not defined by customs or abuses of a certain time period. The fact that the Church has had sinners in it (for instance, who abused indulgences) is not an anomaly of any one time period. Jesus gave authority in His Church to humans – imperfect ones. The rationale you are using to identify the Church is flawed.
Jesus established the local church through his disciples, namely Peter. Not the Baptist church. Not the Presbyterian church. Not the Catholic church. He established the local church. The church at Ephesus. The Corinthian church. The church at Philippi. The church at Thessalonica. The church in downtown New York. The church in China. The church in Burkina Faso.
Yes, we are part of the church…but not necessarily the Catholic church.
I do believe some Catholics are Christians. I do believe some Baptists are Christians. I do believe some Episcopalians are Christians. But there are plenty of self-proclaimed Catholics, Baptists and Episcopalians who have not been regenerated by the power of the Holy Spirit through the Word of God. So to make the claim “So the answer to the question is a resounding yes. And not only are Catholics Christians, they were the first Christians.” is somewhat over realized.
Peter, Paul, James, John, Luke and the others writers of the New Testament never found their identity in a church of any sort – they only found their identity in Jesus, because He alone is the only one worthy of our boast.
Thomas, though there were local communities of the Church with organized, locally authoritative leaders (bishops), Jesus created only one Church. And if you read the writings of the early Christians (and scripture along with them), they had a very different understanding of the Church than the one you are portraying here. They adhered to the authority of the bishops and their leader (Peter and his successors). They also believed the same things the Catholic Church believes. They believed in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The sacraments. Apostolic succession and Tradition. It’s all there. And all a very interesting read. That Catholic Church traces its leadership, authority and teaching directly and historically back to that same Church.
Check out here for much of what the early Christians (many of them students of the apostles) believed and practiced.
And this is an overall good read if you are interested in a Catholic perspective on the Church.
God bless ya!
As a Protestant returning to the authority of the original Church, I think this is a brilliantly succinct and objective summary. Well done.
The only thing I would point out, however, is that there were 12 Apostles in the original Church. Peter was one. When the schism of the 2nd Council of Niceae occurred, the Roman Church left all other eleven apostolic patriarchies. So I would suggest that, having the majority of the Church leaders, the Orthodox Churches have greater authority than Rome.
Thanks, Jason!
However, I wasn’t aware of any schism at the 2nd Council of Niceae. And of course, the Church is not a democracy anyway. Even if what you say is true, Jesus made Peter head of His Church. Additionally, by the time of the 2nd council of Niceae in the 8th century there were hundreds of bishops, each valid and all succeeding from the Apostles. It would not have been a matter of which particular “apostolic patriarchy” they succeeded from when it came to their position on a matter. Still, can you please provide a reference to what you are claiming? I’d be interested in checking it out and learning some more. Thanks for any help! God bless!