NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, there is a metric shitload of people hopping about the internet, insisting that Christianity is different from Catholicism. I'm going to explain this ONCE. If you don't get it the first time... :sniper: :gundge: :sniper: :gundge:




Christianity
Catholicism Protestantism
Baptist
Methodist
Evangelist
(and so on)








Now, do you understand?! And yes, there are different sects of Catholicism as well, but I'll leave it up to the rest of you to name them. (I'll add them once they're mentioned, if you like.)


Anyway, here's the Cliff's Notes version:

Christianity = big umbrella term

Catholicism= UNDER umbrella
Protestantism= UNDER umbrella

Christianity = big umbrella term

Catholicism= UNDER umbrella
Protestantism= UNDER umbrella
*resists urge to write "Science = getting out of the rain"*

But yeah, people make out like catholicism is some sort of weird sect for uptight authoritarians, completely separate from any of the other 20,000 or so other registered denominations. Just because it's the biggest doesn't make it separate.

But yeah, people make out like catholicism is some sort of weird sect for uptight authoritarians

Having been to a Catholic school, i'm inclined to agree. Hahaha :p

*resists urge to write "Science = getting out of the rain"*

But yeah, people make out like catholicism is some sort of weird sect for uptight authoritarians, completely separate from any of the other 20,000 or so other registered denominations. Just because it's the biggest doesn't make it separate.


Some people don't realize that it is indeed a SECT, meaning that it is part of a whole -- not a separate entity in itself.

Technically (nearly) all Christians are in fact 'Catholic', however I think the term 'Roman Catholic' is the one you intended to use beneath your general umbrella term.


Do the Orthodox churches not exist in your world?

Some people don't realize that it is indeed a SECT, meaning that it is part of a whole -- not a separate entity in itself.

I would personally say it isn't a sect, because it never separated from anything. Catholicism was the orignial Church (in Europe/Middle East) and the Eastern Orthodox/Protestants broke away from them to form sects.

I would personally say it isn't a sect, because it never separated from anything. Catholicism was the orignial Church (in Europe/Middle East) and the Eastern Orthodox/Protestants broke away from them to form sects.

The Eastern Orthodox however claim themselves to be the branch which never separated from anything, and view the Roman Catholic church as a split-off branch.

Technically (nearly) all Christians are in fact 'Catholic', however I think the term 'Roman Catholic' is the one you intended to use beneath your general umbrella term.


Do the Orthodox churches not exist in your world?


I'm focusing on the gelatinous blob of confusion that spawned in the Religions?? (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=435401) thread a few days ago.

I would personally say it isn't a sect, because it never separated from anything. Catholicism was the orignial Church (in Europe/Middle East) and the Eastern Orthodox/Protestants broke away from them to form sects.


Any part of a religion that is separate (not saying that the church itself did the separating) is usually referred to as a sect, is it not? If there is another term I could use, please show me.

I'm focusing on the gelatinous blob of confusion that spawned in the Religions?? (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=435401) thread a few days ago.

Possibly, but wouldn't it be more rigorous to provide something like this:


Christian (AKA 'Catholic')

- Roman Catholic
- Orthodox
- Protestant
- Miscellaneous

The Eastern Orthodox however claim themselves to be the branch which never separated from anything, and view the Roman Catholic church as a split-off branch.

Well, they are almost identical; in reality, there are no major theological differences but almost all cultural and secular differences. They pretty much broke away from each other over a hundred or so years.

Possibly, but wouldn't it be more rigorous to provide something like this:


Christian (AKA 'Catholic')

- Roman Catholic
- Orthodox
- Protestant
- Miscellaneous


No. Hasn't it been argued by biblical scholars that early Christians were not Catholic? The Catholic Church (or the Church of England, whatever you want to refer to) was a creation and organization of man. There was something before that which was not designated as Catholic, Protestant, or anything. It was simply Christianity. (It may still exist today.) Catholicism is the organization assigned to it by humans.

I would personally say it isn't a sect, because it never separated from anything. Catholicism was the orignial Church (in Europe/Middle East) and the Eastern Orthodox/Protestants broke away from them to form sects.

Technically not true.

The vast majority of the dogma claimed by Roman Catholicism was not in any of the various original churches, nor did the original churches agree on everything.

Also, from an objective viewpoint, one cannot say that the Eastern Orthodox "broke away to form a sect." In fact, the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox broke away from each other - mutually. Both sides excommunicated the vast majority of the other side - and both sides had equal authority to do so. The idea of a single bishop - the pope - being the head of the chuch didn't come into fruition until after the East/West split, and was in fact part of the reason for the split.

Meanwhile, I know that most of the people perpetuating the idea that Catholics are not Christian are among Protestant sects. However, I did hear a girl on the radio the other day actually state, "I'm not Christian, I'm Catholic!" I couldn't help but laugh.

Any part of a religion that is separate (not saying that the church itself did the separating) is usually referred to as a sect, is it not? If there is another term I could use, please show me.

It depends; usually sect implies a theological breaking away from an original organization, but can also mean an organization with different beliefs than others in the same overall group. The Catholics/Orthodox were the original group (their split had no theological change so it wasn't really a sect), and the Protestants broke away from the Catholics so they are a sect, with further divisions within the overall Protestant umbrella.

The etymology is the Latin word sectus , which is the PP of the verb to cut . I would think this implies separation from another group rather than simply difference.

No. Hasn't it been argued by biblical scholars that early Christians were not Catholic? The Catholic Church (or the Church of England, whatever you want to refer to) was a creation and organization of man. There was something before that which was not designated as Catholic, Protestant, or anything. It was simply Christianity. (It may still exist today.) Catholicism is the organization assigned to it by humans.

I'm using the term 'Catholic' here in the sense of 'universal', rather than to specify adherence to a particular tradition. Thus Protestant and Orthodox churches fit into the category.

Note that I am distinguishing between 'Catholic' and 'Roman Catholic'.

Well, they are almost identical; in reality, there are no major theological differences but almost all cultural and secular differences. They pretty much broke away from each other over a hundred or so years.

Incorrect. There are quite a few theological differences. They are, however, mostly in the realm of those things that only theologians think about - and your lay-believer does not.

For instance, the view of each sect on icons is very different. The view on the Trinity, and how Christ could be both human and divine, are explained quite differently in the two sects - mostly stemming from a difference in interpretation of the word homousious (a Greek word that I may have just misspelled). The idea that there is a "pope" that has some sort of special significance above all other church leaders is strictly Roman Catholic, and the Roman bishop trying to exert such power was a big catalyst in the East/West split.

Technically not true.

The vast majority of the dogma claimed by Roman Catholicism was not in any of the various original churches, nor did the original churches agree on everything.

Also, from an objective viewpoint, one cannot say that the Eastern Orthodox "broke away to form a sect." In fact, the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox broke away from each other - mutually. Both sides excommunicated the vast majority of the other side - and both sides had equal authority to do so. The idea of a single bishop - the pope - being the head of the chuch didn't come into fruition until after the East/West split, and was in fact part of the reason for the split.

Meanwhile, I know that most of the people perpetuating the idea that Catholics are not Christian are among Protestant sects. However, I did hear a girl on the radio the other day actually state, "I'm not Christian, I'm Catholic!" I couldn't help but laugh.

Actually, the majority of the early Churches had a unified dogma, because the "heretical" sects were effectively crushed even in the Church's earliest days. The Nicene Creed's purpose was to reinforce that dogma which had been developed in the majority Churches and counteract heresy. The tradition of the Church is drawn from these early Councils and the precedents laid down by the oral tradition of the first Churches.

The Orthodox isn't a sect, because the breakaway was both mutual and there was no significant change in the theology; it was entirely cultural and inevitable due to the huge language barrier. There were Patriarchs in the early Church, with the Patriarch of Rome also acting as its Bishop, which was a big motivation for the split.

Too many Catholics don't know their faith well enough, and end up saying something stupid like that. I also dislike "Catholic Christian", because it's really redundant.

I quit. The taco sitting next to the keyboard is far more appealing than this debate.

It depends; usually sect implies a theological breaking away from an original organization, but can also mean an organization with different beliefs than others in the same overall group. The Catholics/Orthodox were the original group (their split had no theological change so it wasn't really a sect), ....


Erm... there is a significant theologic difference between the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox--the Filioque clause. Not to mention some other dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church--papal infallibility, the immaculate conception of Mary, etc.

PS I'm using 'Roman Catholic' because, well, the Eastern Orthodox Church is officially also 'Catholic'. :)

Incorrect. There are quite a few theological differences. They are, however, mostly in the realm of those things that only theologians think about - and your lay-believer does not.

For instance, the view of each sect on icons is very different. The view on the Trinity, and how Christ could be both human and divine, are explained quite differently in the two sects - mostly stemming from a difference in interpretation of the word homousious (a Greek word that I may have just misspelled). The idea that there is a "pope" that has some sort of special significance above all other church leaders is strictly Roman Catholic, and the Roman bishop trying to exert such power was a big catalyst in the East/West split.

That's correct; the Orthodox opposed the statues used in the West due to the belief that they cannot and should not recreate the image of God; this is why icons are always stylized and never like portraiture. The filioque clause in the Nicene Creed (the Holy Spirit procceds from the father and the Son) was also a major difference. However, the core was similar enough that much of the theology remained similar; it was the Reformation that brought about the biggest change with its ideas of Sola Fide/Sola Scriptura and so classify as a sect because they actually broke away from, rather than simply varied from the original doctrine of the Church.

*resists urge to write "Science = getting out of the rain"*

Testify! :p

Testify! :p


I'm starting to get amused. (I said AMUSED,not aroused, you pervert!)

Anyway, I'm going to simplify this -- Catholicism, Protestantism, and all of that other shit is a part of Christianity. There. Over and done with.

And another thing -- why do so-called Christians get so caught up in the dogma and minute differences in beliefs? You're all believing generally the same thing, hopefully not killing or condemning anyone, so just chill out and be nice for once. oi.

Actually, the majority of the early Churches had a unified dogma, because the "heretical" sects were effectively crushed even in the Church's earliest days.

What is and is not "heretical" is still being determined to this day. There were certainly some things which the majority of early churches agreed on, but there was hardly a completely unified faith. The early churches were begun when the various apostles went out and started preaching. While there was some communication, there were quite a few differences in early churches. They used very different documents and, in some cases, taught very different things, all with the same underlying theme.

Meanwhile, the fact that "heretical" sects were often persecuted does not change the fact that they were early Christian churches, and they were there. Thus, their very existence proves the fact that there has never been a single, unified, Christian doctrine.

The Nicene Creed's purpose was to reinforce that dogma which had been developed in the majority Churches and counteract heresy.

Yes, and it was compiled from all of the different similar creeds used in the various churches. Again, there were churches who had less complicated creeds, leaving out some of the portions of the eventual Nicene creed. There were other churches who added to it. The Nicene creed was used to compile those beliefs, figure out what everyone seemed to be teaching, and give a more codified view.

The Orthodox isn't a sect, because the breakaway was both mutual and there was no significant change in the theology; it was entirely cultural and inevitable due to the huge language barrier.

...and the fact that, partly due to the language barrier, there were pretty different theological views on certain issues.

Meanwhile:
sect:1 a : a dissenting or schismatic religious body; especially : one regarded as extreme or heretical b : a religious denomination

The two certainly dissented and there was a schism between them. Neither really meets the "extreme or heretical" clause, except in the eyes of the particular sects. However, no one can argue definition 1b.

Erm... there is a significant theologic difference between the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox--the Filioque clause. Not to mention some other dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church--papal infallibility, the immaculate conception of Mary, etc.

PS I'm using 'Roman Catholic' because, well, the Eastern Orthodox Church is officially also 'Catholic'. :)

Well, the filioque is the major difference theologically, but the other ideas still hold to the same core principles of the Catholic Church; that's why the Church regards the Eastern as equally valid (at present, not in the past) to itself. Papal infallibility is much less important to the average churchgoer.
They still believe Mary was sinless, but it refers to her conduct after birth.

Clarification: There are no major theological differences to the average member of with Church. They may have different interpretation, but they don't contradict each other. It's at the higher levels that there are differences (other than the filioque)

I'm starting to get amused. (I said AMUSED,not aroused, you pervert!)

I resent that! Us perverts read just as well as anyone else.

And another thing -- why do so-called Christians get so caught up in the dogma and minute differences in beliefs? You're all believing generally the same thing, hopefully not killing or condemning anyone, so just chill out and be nice for once. oi.

I'm not sure why people get so caught up in the dogma. Studying the history of the church, I thought a lot of the arguments were pretty silly. Human beings cannot possibly come up with a "scientific" explanation for how Christ could be man and God or how the Trinity might work - they are outside the realm of human understanding. Why fight over those particulars?

I resent that! Us perverts read just as well as anyone else.



roflmao

Thank you, Fass. I needed a laugh today.

...

Clarification: There are no major theological differences to the average member of with Church. They may have different interpretation, but they don't contradict each other. It's at the higher levels that there are differences (other than the filioque)
Yes, it's fair to say so. The Churches recognize the apostolic succession of each other's bishops, for example, despite the fact that Rome denied that recognition to the C of E bishops in 1896.

What is and is not "heretical" is still being determined to this day. There were certainly some things which the majority of early churches agreed on, but there was hardly a completely unified faith. The early churches were begun when the various apostles went out and started preaching. While there was some communication, there were quite a few differences in early churches. They used very different documents and, in some cases, taught very different things, all with the same underlying theme.

That's the point, because it was their definition that became dogma and so there couldn't be different interpretations regardless of veracity. That's why I don't like "heresy", because it is impossible to prove or determine without papal infallibility, which is a debate in itself. The underlying ideas were common, even though small differences were present; there wasn't enough to consider them sects, however.



There had to be a unified doctrine, or otherwise there could not have been heresy, nor could there have been an organized structure or even a Schism.

[QUOTE]Yes, and it was compiled from all of the different similar creeds used in the various churches. Again, there were churches who had less complicated creeds, leaving out some of the portions of the eventual Nicene creed. There were other churches who added to it. The Nicene creed was used to compile those beliefs, figure out what everyone seemed to be teaching, and give a more codified view.

The Nicene Creed was constructed to codify the majority doctrine and supress the rise of sects (like Arianism). Adding to it would have been heresy because the words were defined by Church Council, so they would not represent the "true" doctrine of the Church. There wasn't even a defined New Testament until the late 4th century, so that makes it even more difficult.

...and the fact that, partly due to the language barrier, there were pretty different theological views on certain issues.

But not significant enough to actually contradict each other beyond a superficial level; Sola Scriptura was an outright contradiction of the established dogma and so is an example of a sectarian belief. The same goes with the other "heresies" because they outright contradicted dogma. The East and West see each other as equal because they share the similarities within their dogma, with only changes in interpretation rather than contradiction.

Meanwhile:
sect:1 a : a dissenting or schismatic religious body; especially : one regarded as extreme or heretical b : a religious denomination

The two certainly dissented and there was a schism between them. Neither really meets the "extreme or heretical" clause, except in the eyes of the particular sects. However, no one can argue definition 1b.

But since they broke away simultaneously, they can't both be considered sects because sects have to break away from a larger body, and that larger body was the combination of the two; that would imply they are not sects but rather two divisions of Catholicism.

I resent that! Us perverts read just as well as anyone else.

Hey, some people get aroused by science!

Yes, it's fair to say so. The Churches recognize the apostolic succession of each other's bishops, for example, despite the fact that Rome denied that recognition to the C of E bishops in 1896.

I'd say that was a political move, because the Church of England was more favorable to the liberalization movements of the late 19th century, which clashed with the Church's new Syllabus of Errors. Thus, to save face and reinforce their commitment, they shafted the Church of England.

Really, the only differences are the use of the KJV, the Book of Common Prayer (whose doctrine comes from the three Catholic Creeds), and the 39 articles (again, no real contradiction). The only difference is political authority, and a wise one at that (kept the Church out of English politics, a definite benefit).

The Nicene Creed was constructed to codify the majority doctrine and supress the rise of sects (like Arianism). Adding to it would have been heresy because the words were defined by Church Council, so they would not represent the "true" doctrine of the Church. There wasn't even a defined New Testament until the late 4th century, so that makes it even more difficult.

You read it incorrectly. I said that the various churches had similiar creeds prior to the adoption of the Nicene creed. Some of the various churches used creeds that did not include everything that the Nicene creed included. Others included ideas that were not included in the Nicene creed.

Once the Nicene creed was adopted, deletions or additions would be considered heresy. But before it was adopted, various churches used various versions. The same is true of the various Scriptures. The "true" doctrine of the Church was always developed and decided upon after various versions had already been put into use in the various churches. Churches who did not begin to use those "true" doctrines once they were voted upon were considered heretical, but they had various doctrines prior to those votes.

But since they broke away simultaneously, they can't both be considered sects because sects have to break away from a larger body, and that larger body was the combination of the two; that would imply they are not sects but rather two divisions of Catholicism.

I just posted the definition of sect. Nowhere in it does it say that a sect has to "break away" from anything. In fact, saying that they are two different sects is exactly the same thing as saying that they are two divisions.

A few other differences:
Protestants and Roman Catholics also differ on the divinity of Marry and the various saints as well as purgatory, Communion/The Lord’s Super and the role and responsibilities of holy men and women.

I think some people, like me, believe in Christ but think the Pope is just an old guy in a funny hat. Which is all well and good. But Catholicism is a form of christianity. The form with the loudest voice and the creepiest dogmas to be sure. But they certainly aren't a cult. Yet.

Hey, some people get aroused by science!

Did I say I no one had gotten aroused? No, I didn't.

Hey, some people get aroused by science!
How does that one work?

"Hey honey, it says here the universe might be pringle shaped"

"I want you. Now"

*lovemaking ensues*

How does that one work?

"Hey honey, it says here the universe might be pringle shaped"

"I want you. Now"

*lovemaking ensues*

Works for me. ;)