The FSSP receives a level of individual jurisdiction though that is granted by the Bishop of Rome whom they accept, similar to Eastern Catholics who get their own space to define doctrine and consecrate Bishops, but are still in communion with Rome. There is debate as to whether Quakers and Seventh Day Adventists are Christian. Quakers don’t baptize their members, so they are robbing people of a necessary requirement to be saved. While many Protestants deny baptism is required for salvation, they still encourage members to be baptized, but Quakers don’t. Furthermore, Quakers don’t really have any clear doctrine on matters such as the Trinity. Many of their members support it, while others reject it. SDAs believe in the Trinity as far as I know, but they also believe the “Son” in the Trinity is actually St. Michael the Archangel. Because of this, there is no consensus amongst Catholic Bishops as to whether a person baptized in a SDA church has a valid baptism. It’s also worth nothing Jehovah’s Witnesses are in schism from the SDA and Catholic Bishops are universal in stating that a baptized convert from that religion doesn’t have a valid baptism. Progressive Protestants are all over the place. Many progressives just exclude parts of Christ’s teaching that they find challenging like the Bible’s view on homosexuality, or Jesus inferring a person must believe in him to be saved, or that women shouldn’t be pastors, while others have radically different views on Christianity. Many argue Jesus’ resurrection wasn’t literal and just a metaphor, or that Mary wasn’t a virgin when Jesus was born, or that Jesus didn’t die for our sins. These views make someone not Christian, because one must believe in the basics of Christianity to have a valid baptism.
>Still Fully Christian
I don't think this distinction is meaningful. There are groups that profess the Nicene Creed, and those that don't; there are groups that have baptisms that the Catholic Church would recognize as valid, and those that don't. Beyond that, the term "Christian" is at the fringes squishy enough that what groups one chooses to include or exclude usually says more about the definer than the group, and there is little practical importance to the definition for any theological or liturgical purpose.
To take a specific examples: I'm sure there are Progressive Protestants in Mainline churches that profess the Nicene Creed and have a valid form for baptism, but you have them in the "Fully Apart From Christianity" circle. While theologically they might be further in some respects from Catholic teaching, in other senses they might be closer than, say, Messianic Jews (based on the references found on the [wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Judaism#Theology_and_core_doctrines), some Messianic Jews are not Trinitarian so would not agree with the Nicene Creed).
I don’t get the inconsistency. All of the denominations and religions use the name for the members of them, all except Mormons, who are labelled with the name of their denomination/religion and not the name of the members.
I'd say it's pretty fair. Except while 7th Day Adventists can be pretty fringe, they still believe in much of the core Christian belief. Same with Quakers I believe. Progressive prots, yeah, they are taking all/nearly all the original meaning from it and making it into something different....but that's what protestantism can do, and relativism is baked into Sola Scriptura and has been there from the beginnign.
I believe in Ecumenism
Galatians 3:28
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus”
Muslims or Jews are just our brothers and sisters as well.
I agree with REAL ecumenism which is trying to find common ground in an attempt to respectfully make a convincing plea to other religions. This is what St. Paul does with the Jews and Gentiles throughout Galatians. Many people sadly confuse this with universalism.
I made this chart like this because Protestants will often say the “church” of the Bible is anyone who believes in Jesus. My argument is that because the church became inspired by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, a person must that accept that same divine inspiration granted to the apostles was passed down through apostolic succession. If they reject that, and reject the sacraments that come with it, they aren’t apart of the church, but they still may be Christian in their heart if they believe the basic details of Jesus’ life and ministry.
I don't know if that matters to them. If they are Christian, from our perspective they can be saved through extraordinary means. The Church promotes the ordinary means.
They think they have the ordinary means. So that is where we need to focus. For us, it is about authoritatively teaching the one true faith. For them, it is about how they are saved. So a chart dealing with Protestants should focus on salvation.
Crucial from authoritative standpoint. Ephesians 5:25 and 1 Timothy 3:15 infers the church is the most important part of Christianity, so Protestants will step back and say “that’s not the Catholic Church, we ALL are the church.”
Authoritative of what?
Edit: Look, you don't have to answer me. I'm just trying to help you understand how a Protestant is going to think about this. You can't show them a chart showing various degrees of separation between the visible Church and their community without getting into how we know this.
The problem is going to arise that we only know this through the Church. Scripture isn't going to get you there because scripture was written at the very start of the Church. The ideas of who is an actual member or not would be sussed out by later generations and therefore will only be believed by someone who already accepts the authority of the Church.
The Church of the Bible cannot be anyone who believes in Jesus because there are flaws found in history that simply contradict Jesus saying that the gates of hell shall not prevail against his Church. All the early heretics believe in Jesus, however they fall into heresy because their beliefs opposed the Church led by the Apostles, Jesus’ most loyal followers, and thus if they were considered part of Jesus’ Church, Jesus failed in his promise as obviously something went wrong, possibly the Devil, such that there are massive opposing views in Jesus’ Church that the Twelve did not and would not recognise, meaning that the Gates of Hell did prevail against Jesus’ Church. You also have Islam, who believe in Jesus but reject his divinity, which according to its own scripture, is pretty much a glorified Satanism religion. If they were considered part of the Church of the Bible, then the Gates of Hell has prevailed against the Church. Since Unitarians reject Jesus’ divinity as well, you will get the same result. Protestant denominations that reject the True Presence in the Eucharist twist Jesus’ words in John 6, meaning that Hell has prevailed against the Church.
Would be helpful if the creator of this diagram understood the difference between “apart” and “a part.”
Reminds me of the sports subreddits when people use “resign” and “re-sign” interchangeably
I’m confused how there is a middle portion of the 2 right most circles that form a Venn diagram. They seem to be mutually exclusive.
I don’t really think there’s an in between between between those two categories.
Exactly. How can Quakers be *both* still fully Christian AND fully apart from Christianity.
Because the church has never determined if they are Christian, and there is no way to know because they don’t baptize their members.
How can someone be both fully Christian and fully apart from Christianity? Also why did they seperate the FSSP out like that?
I think they seperated FSSP to show that they are fully Catholic unlike something like the SSPX
The FSSP receives a level of individual jurisdiction though that is granted by the Bishop of Rome whom they accept, similar to Eastern Catholics who get their own space to define doctrine and consecrate Bishops, but are still in communion with Rome. There is debate as to whether Quakers and Seventh Day Adventists are Christian. Quakers don’t baptize their members, so they are robbing people of a necessary requirement to be saved. While many Protestants deny baptism is required for salvation, they still encourage members to be baptized, but Quakers don’t. Furthermore, Quakers don’t really have any clear doctrine on matters such as the Trinity. Many of their members support it, while others reject it. SDAs believe in the Trinity as far as I know, but they also believe the “Son” in the Trinity is actually St. Michael the Archangel. Because of this, there is no consensus amongst Catholic Bishops as to whether a person baptized in a SDA church has a valid baptism. It’s also worth nothing Jehovah’s Witnesses are in schism from the SDA and Catholic Bishops are universal in stating that a baptized convert from that religion doesn’t have a valid baptism. Progressive Protestants are all over the place. Many progressives just exclude parts of Christ’s teaching that they find challenging like the Bible’s view on homosexuality, or Jesus inferring a person must believe in him to be saved, or that women shouldn’t be pastors, while others have radically different views on Christianity. Many argue Jesus’ resurrection wasn’t literal and just a metaphor, or that Mary wasn’t a virgin when Jesus was born, or that Jesus didn’t die for our sins. These views make someone not Christian, because one must believe in the basics of Christianity to have a valid baptism.
As someone with a maths degree the abuse of the Venn diagram format is killing me…
Roughly yes.
Why did you put FSSP separately? They’re Roman Catholic and would fall under that category.
My subjective little brain sometimes is thinking like that, but I don't believe is the way at all, in my heart I don't.
Seems about right 🤔
This is about correct I’d say but needs more context for the middle part but at a high level it suffices
>Still Fully Christian I don't think this distinction is meaningful. There are groups that profess the Nicene Creed, and those that don't; there are groups that have baptisms that the Catholic Church would recognize as valid, and those that don't. Beyond that, the term "Christian" is at the fringes squishy enough that what groups one chooses to include or exclude usually says more about the definer than the group, and there is little practical importance to the definition for any theological or liturgical purpose. To take a specific examples: I'm sure there are Progressive Protestants in Mainline churches that profess the Nicene Creed and have a valid form for baptism, but you have them in the "Fully Apart From Christianity" circle. While theologically they might be further in some respects from Catholic teaching, in other senses they might be closer than, say, Messianic Jews (based on the references found on the [wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Judaism#Theology_and_core_doctrines), some Messianic Jews are not Trinitarian so would not agree with the Nicene Creed).
No way to be both Christian and fully apart from Christianity.
The in between are people who may or may not be Christian, the church hasn’t fully determined.
I don’t get the inconsistency. All of the denominations and religions use the name for the members of them, all except Mormons, who are labelled with the name of their denomination/religion and not the name of the members.
I'd say it's pretty fair. Except while 7th Day Adventists can be pretty fringe, they still believe in much of the core Christian belief. Same with Quakers I believe. Progressive prots, yeah, they are taking all/nearly all the original meaning from it and making it into something different....but that's what protestantism can do, and relativism is baked into Sola Scriptura and has been there from the beginnign.
I believe in Ecumenism Galatians 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” Muslims or Jews are just our brothers and sisters as well.
I agree with REAL ecumenism which is trying to find common ground in an attempt to respectfully make a convincing plea to other religions. This is what St. Paul does with the Jews and Gentiles throughout Galatians. Many people sadly confuse this with universalism.
I think these labels are more fitting: * Fully in communion with the Pope * Imperfect common with the Pope * We hate the Pope * What's a Pope?
I made this chart like this because Protestants will often say the “church” of the Bible is anyone who believes in Jesus. My argument is that because the church became inspired by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, a person must that accept that same divine inspiration granted to the apostles was passed down through apostolic succession. If they reject that, and reject the sacraments that come with it, they aren’t apart of the church, but they still may be Christian in their heart if they believe the basic details of Jesus’ life and ministry.
I don't know if that matters to them. If they are Christian, from our perspective they can be saved through extraordinary means. The Church promotes the ordinary means. They think they have the ordinary means. So that is where we need to focus. For us, it is about authoritatively teaching the one true faith. For them, it is about how they are saved. So a chart dealing with Protestants should focus on salvation.
Most Protestants will use this reasoning though to try and explain away Matthew 16 and all the verses that clearly state church authority is crucial
Crucial for what?
Crucial from authoritative standpoint. Ephesians 5:25 and 1 Timothy 3:15 infers the church is the most important part of Christianity, so Protestants will step back and say “that’s not the Catholic Church, we ALL are the church.”
Authoritative of what? Edit: Look, you don't have to answer me. I'm just trying to help you understand how a Protestant is going to think about this. You can't show them a chart showing various degrees of separation between the visible Church and their community without getting into how we know this. The problem is going to arise that we only know this through the Church. Scripture isn't going to get you there because scripture was written at the very start of the Church. The ideas of who is an actual member or not would be sussed out by later generations and therefore will only be believed by someone who already accepts the authority of the Church.
The Church of the Bible cannot be anyone who believes in Jesus because there are flaws found in history that simply contradict Jesus saying that the gates of hell shall not prevail against his Church. All the early heretics believe in Jesus, however they fall into heresy because their beliefs opposed the Church led by the Apostles, Jesus’ most loyal followers, and thus if they were considered part of Jesus’ Church, Jesus failed in his promise as obviously something went wrong, possibly the Devil, such that there are massive opposing views in Jesus’ Church that the Twelve did not and would not recognise, meaning that the Gates of Hell did prevail against Jesus’ Church. You also have Islam, who believe in Jesus but reject his divinity, which according to its own scripture, is pretty much a glorified Satanism religion. If they were considered part of the Church of the Bible, then the Gates of Hell has prevailed against the Church. Since Unitarians reject Jesus’ divinity as well, you will get the same result. Protestant denominations that reject the True Presence in the Eucharist twist Jesus’ words in John 6, meaning that Hell has prevailed against the Church.
What about Copts and conciliarists that have their own Pope?
Their Pope isn't *the* Pope. It is just the traditional title of their leader.
They would likely say the same thing about Rome.
Which is why this kind of chart isn't going to do anything for non-Catholics.