Is this some sort of remnant of evangelical puritan protestant ideology?
I don’t understaun this.
If you ask me, it’d make as much sense as Orthodox and Christians… or Shia and Muslim…
I know not all Christians are Catholics but for feck’s sake…
They’re all Christians to me…
Edit:
It’s a U.S thing but this is the sort of things I hear…
https://www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-Christian.html
I am a Catholic. Why should I consider becoming a Christian?
I now know more distinctions (apparently Catholicism requires duty and salvation is process, unlike Protestantism?) but I still think they’re of a similar branch (Christianity) so I just wonder the social factor
Catholics aren’t Christians by many definitions, it is a different religion.
Care to share these definitions?
That is totally new to me.
Can you give me one or two of those many definitions for my understanding?
Many protestant churched consider themselves churches of Christ, Catholicism is the church of Paul, and isn’t strictly monotheistic, trinitarianism and unitarianism aside. They pray to beings other than God as a matter of course. Anglicanism and Orthodox are the same religion as Catholicism. Most of the protestant churches are not. Then you have stuff like Mormons and Jehovahs Witnesses which are a different thing again, if you call those Christian, then Islam is Christian (Jesus is an important prophet in Islam) but no one would say that.
Catholicism is the church of Paul, and isn’t strictly monotheistic, trinitarianism and unitarianism aside.
That is just plain wrong, no two ways about it.
To me it sounds like you listened to some protestant that doesn’t care much for the catholic church and just repeat his rant without questioning it much.
And don’t get me wrong, I couldn’t care less about christian infighting. I was just curious about the reasoning how the catholic church, which is one of the oldest and most “original” christian churches, could be considered not christian at all.
After your post I don’t believe there is much basis to this claim at all.FFS read a book. I am Catholic, btw.
So by your own claim you are part of the polytheistic church of Paul?
That just is not catholicism.
Which is so easy to prove because the catholics love to write down their many rules.So I honestly would just answer right back at you:
FFS read a book.
And btw, while I have been an atheist for many years now, I was raised strictly catholic in a highly religious area by my catholic family that included a catholic nun and the headmaster of a catholic school and I intensively studied christianity before I made my break with this religion.
You can’t bullshit me.
Oh look. An atheist that thinks he’s clever but doesn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground. How original.
Roman Catholic is the original Church, so you tell me
Fucking bingo dude. The original church was Catholic*. The Christian church came later.
This sounds like a semantic backflip.
Catholics themselves see themselves as Christian and since they are the largest Christian denomination, saying they aren’t is just No True Scotsman.
Ask a catholic what religion they are and they answer Catholic, while protestants say Christian.
Maybe in your part of the world, not in mine. Christians normally just say Christian unless they’re trying to recruit you (they are less than half the population).
Anyway that’s like saying if you ask me what my meal is and I say “steak” that means it’s somehow not meat because I was specific about the kind of meat.
Try it sometime
Mystery solved, see OP’s edit.
I might quibble about the Catholic Church being the “original” church since Catholicism only came about after Theodosius I made Christianity the official religion of the Roman state in 380. You could argue that Catholicism started a bit earlier under Constantine I at the First Ccouncil of Nicaea in 325, which is when the Roman state started to consolidate the various early Christian beliefs under an official “catholic” orthodoxy. The word “catholic” literally means “including a wide variety of things”. The point being that there was already a wide variety of Christian sects prior to the Council of Nicaea.
The Protestant argument against Catholicism boils down to the belief that the Catholic Church is a corrupted Christianity, not that it is non-Christian. And there is some truth to that. The pre-Nicaean churches were free-wheeling spiritualists with a wide variety of beliefs, but that all changed when the Roman state decided to create an orthodox, singular religion under its control. Protestants argue that this adaptation of religious belief to the needs of maintaining state power is the original corruption of the Catholic Church.
Now, two key facts influenced the early history of Roman Catholicism:
-
The Roman state recognized the descendants of Caesar, the Emperors, as the Pontifex Maximus, or head priest, of the Roman state. They also required that everyone adhere to the cult of the Emperor. This was purely ritualistic and was meant as a bulwark to the power of the state.
-
The vast majority of the Empire’s citizens were pagan.
Because of #1, the Roman Emperor became the head of the newly formed Catholic Church, which was a unification of Church and State. This is called Caesaropapism, and is also why the Catholic Church retains a hierarchical structure to this day and its seat is still located in the heart of the Western Roman Empire. The Pope is the spiritual successor of the Western Roman Emperor.
Because of #2, Catholicism is highly ritualistic, like paganism, and early Catholicism adopted the worship of saints, which are basically small gods. Saint worship was the bridge between paganism and Christianity.
During the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century, Luther and others made the point that the union of state power with Christianity was a corruption of “original” pre-Catholic Christianity, which was more spiritually-oriented and valued personal conviction over state orthodoxy. Interestingly, the split between Protestantism and Catholicism in Europe also more or less follows the geographic outline of the Western Roman Empire, with southern Europe largely retaining Catholicism and northern Europe largely adopting Protestantism. This implies a political dimension to the schism, not just a religious one. England is the odd man out here because their response to the schism was to create the Church of England, which is basically Catholicism without the Pope, substituting the English monarch as the head of the Church and toning down the saint worship.
The great irony of any Protestant movement that craves Christo-fascist state power is that they are advocating to become the very evil they swore to destroy back in the 1500s.
-
because historically lumping protestants and catholics together has not ended well.
as someone that grew up in the South and was surrounded by evangelicals, Catholics were seen as weird/possibly satanic, depending on the person, and not really Christians because of the saints and Mary worship. They’re polytheistic since they don’t just focus on Jesus Christ.
Because America is built by non-catholic faiths composed of heretics that love to burn women alive, abusers that craft abusive personality cults in hills-have-eyes country, false prophet grifters who tell you god’s gonna cure your terminal ilness if you help them get a private jet for their dogs, the hate-worshiping demons that blight the south ‘evangelicals’ that drive modern american politics, and misogynistic polytheistic pagans wearing the Christian mask while dressed in their weird underwear and tell you you’re not allowed to drink coffee but monster energy drinks are a-okay, who all want to be acknowledged as the real Christian faith instead of being labeled as schismatic protestants and chose to go with the common moniker “catholics & christians” instead of “catholics and protestants”
I mean a lot of Christianity in the US is like that, but I don’t like you implying that there’s another type of Christianity (presumably the one you believe in) that’s so much better.
Most of the Christianity outside the USA is not like that. Still bad, but way less bad.
Because religion is all about dividing people into arbitrary groups. Catholicism is a specific type of dogmatic Christian theology
You won’t find me using this dichotomy—I just use the blanket term “Assholes.”
some sort of remnant of evangelical puritan protestant ideology?
Yes. It’s weird.
Catholics see themselves as the root form of Christianity that other versions forked from. Whilst it’s not technically true, as there are many versions of Christianity that pre-date Catholicism, in most countries where the term “Catholics and Christians” is used, it’s accurate enough
Growing up in a “non-denominational”, independent fundamental Baptist house I was always taught that Catholics weren’t Christians because they worship idols. Now that I’ve left the faith I would easily classify them as being Christian.
While I think many people actually do classify them as Christians they do have some significant differences in their beliefs and practices than most Protestant denominations; and being themselves the largest Christian denomination by far it can be useful in some analysis to treat them as a distinct entity (the answer to “percentage of global population that subscribe to a particular religion” is much more interesting when broken into “Christian Catholic: %” and “Christian Other: %”).
What does “non-denominational” mean? Isn’t Baptist the denomination?
In this context it was meant as a joke. Several Baptist institutions incorrectly label themselves as being “non-denominational” even though they are completely ideologically aligned with the independent Baptist movement.
All the non-denominational churches are just a denominational church in denial. Pentecostals use it a lot too, but it’s pretty obvious once you know
Oh shit! Independent Fundamental Baptist! I had to deal with living with that shit, too. At the end of the day, if the king james bible was good enough for Peter and Paul, it’s good enough for me. Also, rock music is the devil.
I went to Bob Jones. There was a kid there got in trouble playing the guitar cause what he was strumming had “that sound.” No lyrics, just him strumming it wrong was sinful. Ain’t no way that kinda teaching gonna fuck someone up for life.
I went to a small private Christian high school too. Our Junior year we did a “college tour” to check out Christian Colleges. We visited Bob Jones, and I was blown away. That place is fucking wild. I’m glad I settled on Penn State in the long run.
If anything Catholicism is much more traditionally Christian, as it’s the stablish status quo outside of the anglosphere.
That’s seen as a negative. “Holy tradition” is seen as an extreme departure, although most Protestants wouldn’t even know the term because opening the catechism is nearly as bad as the satanic bible (especially among evangelicals).
Catholics are Christians, but Christians are not necessarily Catholic. For example, Orthodox Christians are not Catholic. Being Catholic requires, at the bare minimum, agreement with the Holy See and implicitly the dogma he endorses. Even this “minor” difference can be used to find non-Catholic Christians.
Precisely, Catholic ⊊ Christian.
The reason why this is the case has to do with the history of Christianity, specifically the various schisms throughout the ages as the Christian faith evolved. That’s an incredibly complicated topic which I’m not qualified to discuss.
Catholics are Christians, but Christians are not necessarily Catholic. For example, Orthodox Christians are not Catholic. Being Catholic requires, at the bare minimum, agreement with the Holy See and implicitly the dogma he endorses. Even this “minor” difference can be used to find non-Catholic Christians.
I know that, but if you ask me, it’s like saying Sunni and Muslim, one kinda emphasizes, if not “otherizes” (orientalize or occidentalize) the other… usually in a not good way…
One kinda emphasizes, if not “otherizes” the other… usually in a not good way…
Yeah. People have been killed over being Catholic in a non-Catholic Christian society and people have also been killed over being a non-Catholic Christian in a Catholic society.
But that doesn’t mean that we can’t or shouldn’t differentiate at all between the dogmas of Catholics and the wider practice of Christianity.
(orientalize or occidentalize)
I mean there are lots of non-Catholic Churches with European origins, for example Lutheranism and Anglicanism. So I think it’s a bit more complicated than “otherizing” with respect to that specific dichotomy.
I have never heard anyone say that. Presumably they say it because they don’t know any better.
I was raised Catholic in a deeply Evengelical town. The little girls were saying out of the blue that I wasn’t Christian. I was like 8, they were like 6. They were absolutely parroting what their parents said, there’s no way the little girls I played with daily came up with that shit on their own, and since then I’ve noticed that’s one of the “protestant culture” things that gets passed around in those circles and occasionally escapes. That Catholics aren’t Christian because saints or whatever.
They get all wound up about the “pagan” elements of Catholicism then turn around and worship their dollar bill golden idols. Hypocrites!
But basically, Catholics get crapped on when there’s no other minority around and they are tired of talking about Jewish folks.
I don’t practice, I’m atheist, but in the USA from a culture perspective Catholics aren’t in the WASP good old boy group, even if you are otherwise white. And WASP types are happy to let you know it, although its less common than it was a few decades back.
Biden being Catholic, and JFK before him, is basically a dog whistle to certain rightwing groups to make them lose their shit, it’s just less obvious than, say, Obama being black esp if you don’t have a family background that would expose you to that stuff.
I’m aware of the history, but didn’t know it still lingered. Maybe it’s a regional thing. I haven’t run into this the metropolitan Northeast or metropolitan West Coast regions. But also I’ve been atheist my whole life, so the topic has seldom come up.
I’ve run into it when interacting with folks who grew up in the south. It seems moderately common there. With folks who grew up in the northeast, I haven’t seen this be a thing.
This is alive and well in west coast evangelical culture.
I grew up going to various Christian schools as a kid. While it wasn’t a common viewpoint, I did hear of it from time to time.
The reason behind it, to my knowledge, was that Catholic practices would often be significantly different from other denominations’ practices. The biggest thing I can think of is the veneration of and praying to saints.
The biggest thing I can think of is the veneration of and praying to saints.
Which, ironically, is a core part of Abrahamic religions which was abandoned by Protestantism. I.e. Catholicism didn’t add minor gods, Protestantism removed them.
Fun fact: the “-el” at the end of all angel names (except Lucifer and Satan, I guess) means “god”. Not as in “from god”, but as in “the god of”.
Lucifer’s Hebrew name is Helel!
Well spotted
Genuine question (and I don’t know if you’ve gone down this rabbit hole) but does “el” in the context of Hebrew names refer to the concept of any god generically or was “el” the name of the one monotheistic god (before being combined with the monotheistic god with the other name) and the “els” in the names of the angels meant to be an attachment to the court of the one god in a similar way to “isra-el” being not another god but a kingdom/people bearing the name of the god it served (of course talking about biblical Israel and not the modern state).
The early Abrahamic and general Canaanite religions are super interesting, I absolutely recommend reading on them. Now, considering I’m neither a historian nor a linguistics expert, take anything I say with a grain of salt.
From my understanding and memory on the subject, “El” was used as the noun “god”, as the name of the Canaanite chief god, who would later be usurped by YHWH, and as a title of sorts, meant to indicate gods and important people supposedly affiliated with the pantheon chieftain. I believe the latter is related to the older Assyrian culture, it certainly follows the same pattern. The first and second cases weren’t widely concurrent, however - there is a clear trace telling us the original pantheon leader lost influence over time before being relegated to “just another god” and finally getting absorbed into the figure of YHWH, a bit like how Odinn slowly faded into the background of Nordic religion as Thor became the figure you’d pray to.In short: both of your scenarios are right, but at different points in history (except they weren’t monotheistic at first).
This is true about El.
I don’t remember if YHWH is associated with Assyrian culture though.
But if anyone is interested, I recommend reading Mark S. Smith’s The Early History of God. It’s very dry and dense, but extremely informative.
I didn’t mean to imply a relation between YHWH and Assyria, but rather link the Assyrian culture of appending god names to important figures’ names and the Canaanite culture of appending “-el” to indicate allegiance.
Me neither. Literally never seen or heard anyone say that.
It sounds super weird.
I’m guessing from the other comments in this thread that it’s just a USA thing. Super weird.
I think it has to be. In worldwide terms, Catholocism is the biggest Christian sect/denomination.
They have the next outgroup to eliminate lined up in case they run out of minorities to discriminate against.
Catholics are one of America’s og boogeyman. They used to fear the idea of a catholic president who could be influenced by the pope. I’m not sure when that went away.
There was (manufactured?) outrage when Tony Blair converted after his premiership. I don’t think the topic of the current UK prime minister’s religion even came up when he was appointed. I guess that’s progress.
I don’t think the topic of the current UK prime minister’s religion even came up when he was appointed.
oh it came up, along with worse.
there’s are reasons why Rishi Sunak is an unfit bastard to be PM, but it’s the same reasons as Boris Johnson and Theresa May.
I guess I didn’t notice in the coverage I watched. Was it the daily mail or just the dreges of the internet?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPYdzIt7p7s
and it got worse after he became PM, then the storm blew over.
didn’t help that there was a Hindu celebration that of course he participated in soon after he became PM. I’m not saying it was bad that he did it, I’m saying that it made his standing worse.
Random racists is just background noise these days. I was comparing media coverage and comments from panelists on things like question time. It was certainly an area of comment for Blair and less so for Sunak from my recollection.
Platypuses and mammals.
Platypuses are mammals, but they’re weird enough that you can’t usefully generalise from them to anything else, to the point that lumping them in together could be actively misleading.
Same deal.
Platypuses are mammals, but they’re weird enough that you can’t usefully generalise from them to anything else, to the point that lumping them in together could be actively misleading
I would argue that they’re “lumpable” with other monotremes :)
Wait do you randomly drop “and platypuses” when you’re talking about mammals??
Kind Sir, please never drop a platypus. I thank you kindly.
(Insert smirk for my dumb joke)
Please never drop a platypus
for that could make it flat-ypus
Platypuses are mammals, but they’re weird enough
We probably wouldn’t consider them nearly as weird if they were more numerous than any other mammal species and lived all over the world. So their comparison to catholicism is weird.
Cocaine and crack are different, technically, but they come from the same shit.
That distinction comes from racism though, which is probably not too different than Catholics and Christians.
The distinction between cocaine and crack does not have anything to do with racism. It has to do with the way the drug is processed and consumed.
The criminal distinction is absolutely about racism as crack users are historically urban minorities while cocaine users are primarily wealthy white people so crack gets 10x harsher penalties when compared to cocaine. If we compare this to other drugs, would you consider weed edibles different from flower? They’re processed differently and consumed differently much in the same way.
I still argue that it’s not a racial thing. You can find cheap cocaine in urban areas. And you can find expensive rocks in rich neighborhoods.
I don’t make any distinction between edibles and weed. I’ve known rich people who smoke tons of weed and poor people who love to make weed brownies.
I know rich people who have used meth and poor people who used ecstasy.
Where are mushrooms in your book? I know rich artists who swear by it and fast food employees who never go to work without tripping—and I don’t blame them.
The specific drug isn’t about race. The quality could be about income status, but there are plenty of poor white people using shitty drugs cut with law knows what.
Would you feel better if he said “it’s like squares and rectangles, but they’re still both shapes”. Hopefully that’s not racist, too.
Yes, in the context of the 1980s and 1990s when discussing the criminality of cocaine and crack cocaine use, there is a racial component. But it was you who took that leap here in this thread, not the person who made the comparison of two products derived by the same source (hence his point in the first place).
As an ex catholic who grew up near Protestant land, it’s because they don’t think of Catholics as Christians. Some think of them as more like Mormons, others more like Satanists. The plus side is that it was a great card to pull to these people when they proselytized. They’ll tell Protestants they need a better version of jesus, but Catholics scare them.
I grew up protestant, this is 100% correct haha
Growing up in west Texas, I talked to one uber-Baptist who for some unfathomable reason believed that the Catholics “worship Mary”, therefore they don’t follow the “there is only one God” rule and therefore aren’t Christian.
Yeah. The Southern Baptist sect was literally founded on the belief that chattel slavery was a good and “godly” thing, it doesn’t get better from there. A woman having any deference is pretty offensive to them (the woman’s “place” being purely in service of the patriarch of the family, whether husband or father). Mary being venerated as a saint is pure anathema.
