Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Catholicism versus Protestantism down the centuries
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 991 of 1000 (729235)
06-07-2014 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 990 by Faith
06-06-2014 9:45 PM


Re: definition of true church
Sorry but there is no biblical way to support gay marriage.
Says the arrogant, prideful, and fallible Faith.
Other Christians disagree with you, and they are Christians no matter what you think.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 990 by Faith, posted 06-06-2014 9:45 PM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 992 of 1000 (729242)
06-07-2014 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 990 by Faith
06-06-2014 9:45 PM


Re: definition of true church
Religious beliefs and religious dogma are totally irrelevant to marriage. The Bible is irrelevant to marriage.
You have the right not to approve of or join in a same sex marriage, but that is your only rights related to marriage. If your chapter of Club Christian does not want same sex marriages then your chapter of Club Christian is free to refuse to perform same sex marriages, but that is its only recourse.
Marriage is and has always been a social contract.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 990 by Faith, posted 06-06-2014 9:45 PM Faith has not replied

  
AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 993 of 1000 (729256)
06-07-2014 12:27 PM


Since we have now arrived at a discussion of same-sex marriage (in a third different recent thread), a contemporary issue, with which Faith's 4 sects of Protestantism and the Catholic Church are not in significant divergence, I think that marks the conclusion of
'Catholicism vs Protestantism down the centuries.

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(6)
Message 994 of 1000 (729297)
06-07-2014 10:51 PM


There is no real difference between Catholocism and Protestantism
Except that the Catholics have always done it so much better.
[voice=Londo Mollari]Oh, yes, you have all these piddly little insignificant differences that make you "entirely different". Like with the Cheronians (sorry, cross-over to Star Trek TOS):
quote:
Bele: Are you blind, Commander Spock? Well, look at me. Look at me!
Captain James T. Kirk: You are black on one side and white on the other.
Bele: I am black on the right side!
[/voice]
In reality and in truth, there are no real differences between Catholics and Protestants, except that historically the Catholics know what to do. Which means that the Protestants do not know what they are doing. That makes the Protestants the much more dangerous camp.
The Catholic Church had entered the Empire at the ground level. They had started as a grass-roots organization, but imperial sponsorship came with a strong hierarchical organization. In the subsequent centuries, as the Unified and Universal Church spread its influence, it learned how to insinuate itself into the offices of secular power. It learned the ways of politics. And because the Church held its own territories, the Papal States, it learned and came to know actual political power and how to administrate that power both politically and militarily.
The Protestant churches came later. They never had the opportunity to hold actual political power. OK, there are a few exceptions, such as England's regicide and the subsequent rule of Puritanism during the English Civil War -- perhaps some of our British members could enlighten us about that "glorious Protestant period".
I have to admit that I have always had a problem with Protestantism, even though my entire Christian experience and training has been Protestant. I mean, after 1500 years of Roman control over Christianity, suddenly the Protestants had recreated the "original unblemished form of Christianity"? Really? Like Catholicism had had absolutely no influence? Really? The Council of Nicea, what with its decisions of what was to be considered canon and what was to be considered heresy, that wasn't a Catholic filter on what the Protestants would later be working with?
Are you at all familiar with the writings of a medical doctor, Michael Crichton? It was his sixth novel that had gained our attention, The Andromeda Strain. An important plot twist (or rather an almost "deux ex machina"solution to the overall problem) was something that MDs know: a new pathogen which at first appears very virulent will evolve into something much less virulent. The reason for this is simple Darwinian evolution. An extremely virulent disease will very quickly kill off its victims, usually before they have had a chance to infect others. A less virulent disease will have many more chances of infecting others. Therefore, a less virulent disease will eventually prevail over a more virulent disease.
So then, let us consider the Catholics. They have had nearly two millennia to learn how to control political systems. And, being unified, they somewhat have a unified vision and set of goals to achieve. They know what they want to do and, with nearly two millennia of practical experience, they know how to do it.
Now let us consider the Protestants. They have barely 500 years of experience, the vast majority of which has been circumvented by humanism. To begin with, they are extremely fragmented. The most fundamental nature of Protestantism is that they fracture and splinter away at the first sign of disagreement. Bertrand Russel observed that when one became a free-thinker, a Catholic would become an atheist whereas a Protestant free-thinker would merely create a new church -- think about that!. We have much more than a millennium of Catholics holding political power, but what examples do we have a Protestants holding such power? Cromwell in England perhaps. Brits, please inform us of how that had turned out! But very shortly after the spread of Protestantism we also had the spread of humanism. So not only did Protestantism not have that much political influence, what with its eternal splintering off, but there was also a movement towards secular governments.
So then in comparing Catholic and Protestant meddling with politics, we find that Catholic meddling is fairly well defined and not overly virulent, albeit very unwelcome, whereas Protestant meddling is a largely unknown factor which promises to be extremely virulent.
The most representative Protestant political movement in the USA would be the Christian Reconstructionist movement, also referred to as Dominion Theology. This is a movement to replace the US Constitution with an Old Testament theocracy. While it is theologically different from most fundamentalists (post-millennial, meaning that the 1000 years of Christian rule will precede the Christ's return), it nonetheless served as the political mentor of the pre-millennialist Radical Religious Right (RRR) of the 1980's. In Christianity Today's article, Democracy as Heresy (Christianity Today, 20 Feb 87 -- sorry, it's apparently not on-line), Christian Reconstructionists are quoted as denouncing the Founding Fathers' concepts of democracy and republican representative government, as well as all concepts of human rights as non-Christian (they go so far as to name the origin of these concepts as Satan himself). The same article even quotes one Christian Reconstructionist as using moral relativism ("the ends justify the means") by his applauding the use of appeals to "religious liberty in order to derive our opponents of their own religious liberties", which of course immediately reminds me of Faith's own self-serving appeals to religious liberty.
To reiterate, while the Catholics have had millennia of political experience, the Protestants have not. The Catholics have had millennia of opportunity to learn what happens when ideology and fanaticism rule your actions, while the Protestants have not. As a result, the Catholics know better than to act mindlessly on their ideologies, whereas the Protestants do not. Couple with that an inherent Protestant fanaticism and you have the ideal ingredients for a bloodbath.
Faith has already detailed to us the totalitarian Protestant state that she so fervently dreams of. Truly Hell on Earth!

Replies to this message:
 Message 995 by Phat, posted 06-08-2014 10:01 AM dwise1 has replied
 Message 997 by Omnivorous, posted 06-10-2014 6:15 AM dwise1 has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 995 of 1000 (729298)
06-08-2014 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 994 by dwise1
06-07-2014 10:51 PM


Re: There is no real difference between Catholocism and Protestantism
Dwise1 writes:
Except that the Catholics have always done it so much better.
Done what? Doing religion correctly,if such a thing could even be claimed, is much more than political and societal organizational skills. There were initially five cities where Christianity was based and 4 of them split while Rome declared itself first among equals. So much for religion and politics!
Christianity is---first and foremost--a personal relationship with the Creator of all seen and unseen which is made possible through the humanity of Jesus Christ Who lives today. All other such humanistic and political fluff is exactly that--fluff!
Admittedly the Protestants are much less organized and much more divisive---but this does not detract from them having arguably more members who actually are in communion with God and not merely using Him for social and financial gain.
Bertrand Russel observed that when one became a free-thinker, a Catholic would become an atheist whereas a Protestant free-thinker would merely create a new church ...
Being a Christian is not about being a freethinker. The very definition of a relationship with the living God requires one to essentially surrender the freewill free thinking aspect of thought---which is probably why you and many of the intellectuals here at EvC are not Christians. Few people can logically accept a living God and a communion in the heart and mind both.
Many would argue that church is all about humanism anyway, so I suppose my point is moot.

When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to meannothing more nor less.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 994 by dwise1, posted 06-07-2014 10:51 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 996 by Modulous, posted 06-08-2014 8:12 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied
 Message 999 by dwise1, posted 06-11-2014 1:06 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 996 of 1000 (729320)
06-08-2014 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 995 by Phat
06-08-2014 10:01 AM


Re: There is no real difference between Catholocism and Protestantism
Christianity is---first and foremost--a personal relationship with the Creator of all seen and unseen which is made possible through the humanity of Jesus Christ Who lives today.
Maybe you could start a thread on this 'personal relationship' business. It always sounded like the kind of talk that could get you executed until the late 19th Century / early 20th century to me. Not characteristic of Christianity as it has mostly been practiced and discussed historically as far as I have seen. Any idea where this theology / definition of Christianity actually came about? But yeah - another thread probably.
Admittedly the Protestants are much less organized and much more divisive---but this does not detract from them having arguably more members who actually are in communion with God and not merely using Him for social and financial gain.
I'm not sure how you would make that argument. How would you tell if someone was in actual communion with God? Didn't Jesus say that the relationship, such as it is, is a secret one? That making public show of religiosity by praying or giving to charity in front of others is doing so to be seen and rewarded by men, but that doing it in secret will be rewarded by God in secret?
It seems that from a Biblical standpoint it might be difficult to tell who is in communion with God, and that it is probably pride that is driving your view, and since humility seems to the path you should be on...
Frankly, since you probably continue praying after you fart (without any intervening ritual), you are probably not in Communion with God. You don't proclaim God is Great as the opening to your prayer or even have a clue abut the salat in general. American Christians lack the Pillar of Faith by slovenly staying in bed during Fajr, proving their faith is all about social and financial gains.
Being a Christian is not about being a freethinker.
Indeed. But nevertheless: Protestants. A group of people who wanted to consider the scripture for themselves and have it printed in their common tongue. Who wanted to come to understand God through such study, not second hand through corrupt clergy.
For 16th Century Europe that's as badass freethinking as you'll find anywhere.
And then...the American schisms in an environment of freedom of religion the Protestants went wild creating new churches left and right when their own free thoughts about theology conflicted with their previous church.
Maybe Christianity isn't about freethinking, but Protestantism is infected with it.
All other such humanistic and political fluff is exactly that--fluff!
What about Jesus' second commandment, Matt 22:39. That sounds pretty humanistic and I don't think Jesus is describing it as 'fluff'.
The very definition of a relationship with the living God requires one to essentially surrender the freewill free thinking aspect of thought
I thought that was Islam? I thought in Christianity you had free will and you freely chose to follow Christ etc? I mean 'surrender to God' you could argue from James 4 (submission) or Romans 6 (slavery). But it's not clear as Paul warns he speaking metaphorically. My reading is that you are to reject those choices that are sins and to only follow the options that glorify god in their righteousness. But you both get to choose different ways of glorifying God and to choose sin while remaining a Christian - unless it is the unforgivable sin or you don't repent or recant or whatever sufficiently.
which is probably why you and many of the intellectuals here at EvC are not Christians.
Maybe, but strangely it doesn't explain why you are Christian, you could have submitted to Allah. I guess, given his existence nullifies your freewill, the only explanation is that 'No soul can believe, except by the will of Allah, and He will place doubt (or obscurity) on those who will not understand. ' {10.99-100 The Glorious Qur'an}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 995 by Phat, posted 06-08-2014 10:01 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 997 of 1000 (729354)
06-10-2014 6:15 AM
Reply to: Message 994 by dwise1
06-07-2014 10:51 PM


Re: There is no real difference between Catholocism and Protestantism
dwise1 writes:
Except that the Catholics have always done it so much better.
Historically (mid to late 20th century), it was somewhat harder to get in a Catholic girl's pants.
Evangelical Protestant girls, on the other hand, tended to be sexual time-bombs.
Coincidence? The heavy hand of Catholic guilt? Rampant Protestant misogyny?
Further research is necessary. I'll need another life for that.

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 994 by dwise1, posted 06-07-2014 10:51 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 998 by dwise1, posted 06-11-2014 1:03 AM Omnivorous has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 998 of 1000 (729389)
06-11-2014 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 997 by Omnivorous
06-10-2014 6:15 AM


Re: There is no real difference between Catholocism and Protestantism
To be honest, I have no idea what the differences are supposed to be, nor have I ever understood comments in the movies (eg, Hudson Hawk) about how much trouble Catholic girls are supposed to be. Before marrying a nominally Catholic girl who had never practiced the faith outside of playing hooky from cathecism class, I had a Jewish girl friend who turned out to be nothing but a massive headache; I doubt very much that either of them was typical or even stereotypical, neither of their religion nor even of their gender ... plus I have serious doubts how much the ex-wife could even be considered human.
I don't believe that your study will hold much promise, since the two populations covered by your study are too dissimilar. While the Catholic population should be of sufficient uniformity to draw statistical conclusions, the Protestant population, being so extremely fragmented and widely varied into so many different churches, sects, and church cultures, is significantly lacking in any uniformity and hence not conducive to drawing valid statitistical conclusions. It should also be noted that references to "uniformity" have nothing whatsoever to do with school attire and must not be taken as any suggestion as where you should seek out test subjects.
Though there is one general difference between Catholics and Protestants that might possibly have some bearing on your study, which is the role and practice of the Confessional. Catholics are taught to report to a priest, albeit "anonymously", to confess their sins whereupon they are advised what not to do anymore and given some kind of penance to perform, a form of punishment. In contrast, Protestants are taught that they have a personal relationship with whatever form of god their particular sect teaches, a kind of invisible friend that's always with them. So when a Protestant does something they think is wrong, they just confess to their invisible friend and as for forgiveness, which no invisible friend would not give ... except for the invisible friends of the extremely guilt-ridden; their invisible friends directly mirror themselves, including as to what groups they hate. They are both basically doing the same thing in order to deal with the feeling that they've done something wrong (eg, having engaged in sexual activity), but while the Protestant can just conduct that business inside her own head, she finds it much easier than the Catholic would who does not have the direct access to her invisible friend but rather has to go through a human intermediary to whom she must vocalize and describe what she's "done wrong", whom she can feel passes judgement on her, and who gives her some kind of punishment. A Protestant's invisible friend never passes judgement on her (unless she feels that he should) and never punishes her (unless she feels that she should, but that's her own mental health issue). So receiving forgiveness is a lot easier and less bothersome for a Protestant than for a Catholic.
Does that help your research any?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 997 by Omnivorous, posted 06-10-2014 6:15 AM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1000 by Omnivorous, posted 06-11-2014 7:15 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 999 of 1000 (729390)
06-11-2014 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 995 by Phat
06-08-2014 10:01 AM


Re: There is no real difference between Catholocism and Protestantism
Sorry, Phat, but your reply is almost entirely irrelevant. The discussion has nothing to do with individual personal religious practices, but rather with the practices of entire religious organizations. On that scale, what is important is how the entire organization behaves, while individual personal practices are meaningless. FWIW, I do believe that actual religious practice needs to be on the individual personal level and no longer exists on the large-scale organizational level. Unfortunately, it is what happens at the large-scale organizational level that has had and will have the most impact on everybody's lives both within and outside of the organization, AKA "The Church".
DWise1 writes:
Bertrand Russel observed that when one became a free-thinker, a Catholic would become an atheist whereas a Protestant free-thinker would merely create a new church ...
Being a Christian is not about being a freethinker. ...
Yes, obviously being a Christian is not about being a freethinker. Especially not within the context of the indirect quote, which included the British free-thinking tradition of questioning and even rejecting what churches teach. Refer to Wikipedia for more background information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_thought.
You completely missed the point, which was to illustrate the Protestant tendency to form ever more splinter groups.
In that comparison, Russel saw the Catholic tradition as teaching that there is only one Universal Truth and any other view is heresy, so when a Catholic would find himself questioning what the One True Universal Church was teaching, the only option he had been taught was to leave religion altogether and become an atheist. Yes, that is kind of simplistic and interviewing a number of people who had left the Catholic Church should paint a fully picture. Yet at the same time, we witness the most extreme Protestant groups, including fundamentalists and creationists (YEC especially) who routinely preach and teach and apparently even believe that you must choose either between young-earth creationism and atheism and that there is absolutely no middle position possible. So we have real live Protestant churches explicitly teaching what Russel described as the consequences of a Catholic starting to think for himself.
In Russel's comparison, what does a Protestant do when he disagrees with what his church teaches? He forms his own church. That is the origins story of Protestantism and of the legions of Protestant churches and sects. The first generation of Protestant churches split off from the Catholic Church and then every time there was a disagreement or difference of opinion they split again, and again, and again. That's why Faith's dream of uniting Protestants will never work, because they're just going to splinter even more when they inevitably disagree. The only solution is to institute an old-style Catholic Church type of system in which a central authority decides what the doctrine will be and will not allow anybody to deviate, kind of like with the fundamentalist take-over of the Southern Baptist Conference.
Many would argue that church is all about humanism anyway, so I suppose my point is moot.
Yes, and all sailors know for a fact that the US Navy depends on evolution for its every-day operation. Oh yeah, different meaning of evolution. Just as you had applied different meanings fo "humanism" and even of "church". So your "point" doesn't qualify as moot, since it is clearly irrelevent.
Now, just what were you supposedly "replying" to there? To this (abridged and with emphasis added):
DWise1 writes:
Now let us consider the Protestants. They have barely 500 years of experience, the vast majority of which has been circumvented by humanism. ... We have much more than a millennium of Catholics holding political power, but what examples do we have a Protestants holding such power? Cromwell in England perhaps. Brits, please inform us of how that had turned out! But very shortly after the spread of Protestantism we also had the spread of humanism. So not only did Protestantism not have that much political influence, what with its eternal splintering off, but there was also a movement towards secular governments.
While there are many different aspects to humanism, basically it sets Man as the Measure, not religious doctrine. And a less than two centuries after the Reformation had started, humanism developed into the Age of Enlightenment. More specific to my point, we have humanism standing in constrast to the concept of the Divine Right of Kings, an idea with roots in medieval Europe based on an interpretation of Roman law, but brought to the fore and strongly promoted by a Protestant king, King James I of England (1603—1625), who even commissioned a special translation of the Bible to support that idea -- though the Catholics and many other cultures held similar views. Wikipedia describes the concept:
quote:
The divine right of kings, or divine-right theory of kingship, is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving the right to rule directly from the will of God. The king is thus not subject to the will of his people, the aristocracy, or any other estate of the realm, including (in the view of some, especially in Protestant countries) the Church. According to this doctrine, only God can judge an unjust king. The doctrine implies that any attempt to depose the king or to restrict his powers runs contrary to the will of God and may constitute a sacrilegious act.
Contrast that with such humanistic declaration as our Declaration of Independence proclaiming that the government instead derives its power from the consent of the governed and is to be judged by how well it governs and is subject to dismissal by the governed:
quote:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Or contrast with the mind-set of the Divine Right of Kings, the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States:
quote:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The People of the United States forming its own government for its own benefit? According to the Radical Religious Right in the early 1980's, that is pure secular humanism! Not the kind that your "reply" is talking about.
In short, my point there is that the rise of humanistic thought and of the Age of the Enlightenment cut much shorter the very little time that Protestantism had to form that many political establishments. The only ones I can think of off-hand are the rule of King James I and of the Puritans after the execution of King Charles I.
My time on this forum is very limited, since it is limited to what few hours I am at home. I will post more of my reply later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 995 by Phat, posted 06-08-2014 10:01 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


(1)
Message 1000 of 1000 (729393)
06-11-2014 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 998 by dwise1
06-11-2014 1:03 AM


Re: There is no real difference between Catholocism and Protestantism
Straggler writes:
I have serious doubts how much the ex-wife could even be considered human.
I have three. I call them the Fates: Minnesotan Lutheran, Korean Buddhist, and Jewish atheist, in that order. There's probably a narrative arc there.
...but while the Protestant can just conduct that business inside her own head, she finds it much easier than the Catholic would who does not have the direct access to her invisible friend but rather has to go through a human intermediary to whom she must vocalize and describe what she's "done wrong", whom she can feel passes judgement on her, and who gives her some kind of punishment. A Protestant's invisible friend never passes judgement on her (unless she feels that he should) and never punishes her (unless she feels that she should, but that's her own mental health issue). So receiving forgiveness is a lot easier and less bothersome for a Protestant than for a Catholic.
I considered the impact of the confessional and came to similar conclusions.
Does that help your research any?
Alas, these are all historical questions now. Looking back, I see I approached the question like an early 19th century British gentleman naturalist: a keen eye, lots of enthusiasm...but statistically naive; still, anything for science.

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 998 by dwise1, posted 06-11-2014 1:03 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024