+- Deny Ignorance (https://denyignorance.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic (https://denyignorance.com/Section-Off-Topic)
+--- Forum: Religion, Faith, & Theology (https://denyignorance.com/Section-Religion-Faith-Theology)
+--- Thread: The difference between Christianity and Catholicism (/Thread-The-difference-between-Christianity-and-Catholicism)
The difference between Christianity and Catholicism - Maxmars - 04-08-2024
This is a sticky wicket.
Truth is, at one point at least, Catholicism was the Christian religion... whether it is debatable or not, the numbers of believers reflected the fact plainly. But since humankind is nothing if not litigious (prone to a fault of compulsively dissecting words and statements,) it stands to reason that any group of would-be like-minded individuals will soon descend into discussion and dispute over minutiae. Pride and vainglory being what they are, compounded with "tradition" versus "progress," we soon find schisms and fractures among the different opinions... hence, it is now proposed that "Catholicism" is "distinct" and "separate" from "common" Christianity.
Here is an article which I found fairly useful in the arguments about the differences... although some points merit special focus, and others seem simple enough.
From HowStuffWorks.com: Catholic vs. Christian: Overlap and Differences in the Religions
All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares; the same goes for the Catholic vs. Christian distinction. All Catholics are Christian, but not all Christians consider themselves Catholic.
First, I would like to address something basic... the word/name "Catholic." The word Catholic (comes from the ancient Greek (katholikos) 'universal') and embraces the notion of 'the whole, according to the whole, in general.' The first known record of the use of "Catholic" was by Saint Ignatius of Antioch (about 110 AD). In a second century communication (Letter to the to the Smyrnaeans) in he coined the phrase "...just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church," which we might take to mean "A universal church of faithful, an all-embracing 'brotherhood' of faith.") The name stuck. 2nd Century marketing at work there. Many take it to be regarded as a collective word expressing that all are welcome to belong, and in fact do... even if they are unaware of their standing as beloved of God.
The author carries out his task with respect and skill, but my own "litigious" nature compels me to interject a few things...
All Christian religions are based on the teachings of a Judean religious leader named Jesus Christ, who is believed to have lived in the 1st Century C.E. in what is now modern-day Israel and Palestine.
That Jesus Christ was a religious "leader" is questionably posited. He was an upstart, a radical, someone who raised concerns about tradition and cultural 'laws.' "Leading" was of course, how we look upon it as a historical perspective... but that might be a wrong-minded approach to considering how it was that he was received and dealt with by the powers that were. He was the progenitor of a movement, and the inspiration of a New Testament. It stood to reason that entrenched institutionalized concerns were threatened by the man... enlisting the sympathy from the local overlords of an occupying empire was an act of self-service.
... However, even within the ranks of this relatively young belief system, there were some who had opposing views on how to best spread the word of God.
The disagreements were on "how to spread the word"... not the word itself. In that regard, there was no relationship to dissent for the faith, only it's proselytization. This was before there was any realistic "institution" to fracture... there wasn't even an actual "body" of faith to follow... the New Testament was to follow later... that's when the fracturing problems began.
The author moves on to consider the so-called "schism" of the 11th century. If we are realistic about the situation which gave rise to it, we have to acknowledge that it was about political power, institutional regulations, and in a few cases, scriptural interpretation.
By the time the faith had spread and "prospered" 1,000 years later, the institution it spawned was embroiled in political power struggles, as well as "traditional" views on what makes a priest worthy of anointment, and to some extent, metaphysical interpretation... (For example... objections to the Nicene Creed, were metaphysical contrivances, not "practice" matters like the "required" or "mandated" celibacy for clergy.)
Hundreds of years later came the 'reformation' movement which - for the most part - was inspired by the then mammoth institutions' affliction with the power-hungry, prideful behaviors of corrupted leaders and high-level officers of the clergy. At that point we were still beset with the ideological form of mandating 'acceptance' and 'compliance' due to the standing of the leaders of the church itself, rather than any enlightenment... dissent was blasphemy by definition at that time... and people were still impressed by violent suppression of blasphemy.
Of course, rather than distinguish themselves by actually reforming the church, the proponents simply took the path of least resistance by divorcing themselves from the institution entirely and creating a 'new' church... All things being equal, we would all eventually see that it is not churches that become corrupted... it is the 'actors' in the church who become corrupted... and all churches feature actors who can fall to that sin.
The author continues by discussing several similarities and differences within the Catholic v Christian paradigm. The similarities speak for themselves, as they all are endorsed scripturally. But the differences speak to something that should be more fruitful for debate...
Rather than belabor the content more... I suggest you read and think on the differences, listed or otherwise and open a discussion... if you're game.
RE: The difference between Christianity and Catholicism - BeTheGoddess - 04-08-2024
(04-08-2024, 01:50 AM)Maxmars Wrote: Truth is, at one point at least, Catholicism was the Christian religion.
Youlost me here dude. While "on this rock I build my church" is supposed to be Jesus own words, they didnt all go to Rome. Some even went as far as ndia. Catholocism can caqll back on its roots, its still worth understanduing the Orthodox Christians, and Coptics. Catholosism was what withouttthem well there would be no western christianity.
RE: The difference between Christianity and Catholicism - quintessentone - 04-08-2024
From my readings of the lost/secret/discarded gospels, the early Christian faith had many different branches or sects, all disagreeing on many facets of the emerging religion and to this day it remains so.
RE: The difference between Christianity and Catholicism - FlyersFan - 04-08-2024
(04-08-2024, 01:50 AM)Maxmars Wrote: Hundreds of years later came the 'reformation' movement which - for the most part - was inspired by the then mammoth institutions' affliction with the power-hungry, prideful behaviors of corrupted leaders and high-level officers of the clergy.
I'm not sure what the point of this thread is. I've read it through twice and don't get it. While not understanding the point, I will say that I have two comments.
1 - There is no 'catholic vs christian'. Catholics ARE Christians. The original Christians. (See Matthew 16:18-19 where Peter is appointed first head of the church, then see ACTs where apostolic succession takes place). It was the Catholic Council of Carthage in 397AD that put the bible together .. taking the Jewish holy books, and the writings of the early Catholic church ... and putting them together to form the bible.
2 - The quote from your opening post that I have above .. saying that the 'reformation' came about because of corruption in the Catholic church ... I disagree. Read 'The Facts About Luther" by Patrick O'Hare. Martin Luther was a monk who couldn't handle being a monk. He never should have been one. His ego was so bad that he couldn't deal with being obedient to the church, he couldn't deal with celibacy, he couldn't deal with the rules of being a christian. When he broke off from the Catholic church to make his own, he tried to rewrite the bible inserting 'scripture alone', and of course rewriting the bible is forbidden by the bible. When he broke off, he tried to rewrite the bible in other ways, even to the point of trying to throw out the Ten Commandments and he had to be talked out of that by his contemporaries. He also famously said "If the wife is unwilling, then take the maid" - advocating for both adultery and rape. He isn't the wonderful reformer that the Protestants try to make him out to be. He had a lot of flaws, and so many that his contemporaries who wanted reform and who also broke away, thought he was a bit out of control.
Anyways ... like I said, I'm not sure what this thread is supposed to be about and I did read the opening post a few times to try to follow, but I can't. Those are my two comments ... for whatever they are worth to the premise of this thread.
RE: The difference between Christianity and Catholicism - Creaky - 04-08-2024
(04-08-2024, 01:50 AM)Maxmars Wrote: This is a sticky wicket.
Sticky?
more a naive statement
catholicism is not a religion, it’s a word
Roman Catholicism is a religion, significant difference.
On its own, that simple statement overturns your whole position
as for flyers fan denying Roman Catholic corruption, bold, even RC faithful admit it
https://www.occrp.org/en/daily/13354-pope-francis-corruption-is-an-ancient-evil-devil-s-dung
blind faith is a poison
RE: The difference between Christianity and Catholicism - quintessentone - 04-08-2024
(04-08-2024, 07:38 AM)Creaky Wrote: Sticky?
more a naive statement
catholicism is not a religion, it’s a word
Roman Catholicism is a religion, significant difference.
On its own, that simple statement overturns your whole position
as for flyers fan denying Roman Catholic corruption, bold, even RC faithful admit it
https://www.occrp.org/en/daily/13354-pope-francis-corruption-is-an-ancient-evil-devil-s-dung
blind faith is a poison
Jesus warned against blind thought and to follow his teachings, but he found that they (those following his ministry) and we now could not understand most of his teachings even when he spoke plainly.
RE: The difference between Christianity and Catholicism - FlyersFan - 04-08-2024
(04-08-2024, 07:38 AM)Creaky Wrote: as for flyers fan denying Roman Catholic corruption, bold, even RC faithful admit it
I didn't deny corruption. I said that Martin Luthers motivation isn't what the protestants claim. He had his own motivations. Protestants have built him up to be a hero fighting corruption, but in reality he was just a guy who couldn't handle being a monk and who wanted to make massive changes to make religion easier on himself, and those most of the changes he wanted to make didn't sit well with the other so called 'reformers'.
RE: The difference between Christianity and Catholicism - Creaky - 04-08-2024
(04-08-2024, 07:41 AM)quintessentone Wrote: Jesus warned against blind thought and to follow his teachings, but he found we could not understand most of his teachings even when he spoke plainly.
Thinking in His time His statements were clear and obvious, lost a little to this generation
Christs principle teaching of love is obvious if not forgotten
RE: The difference between Christianity and Catholicism - quintessentone - 04-08-2024
(04-08-2024, 08:38 AM)Creaky Wrote: Thinking in His time His statements were clear and obvious, lost a little to this generation
Christs principle teaching of love is obvious if not forgotten
Oh everyone understood/understands the 'love thy neighbor' teaching, but it would appear that is it. Even the disciples were mentioned in the Bible as being confused in certain aspects of Jesus' ministry.
RE: The difference between Christianity and Catholicism - Creaky - 04-08-2024
(04-08-2024, 08:13 AM)FlyersFan Wrote: I didn't deny corruption. I said that Martin Luthers motivation isn't what the protestants claim. He had his own motivations. Protestants have built him up to be a hero fighting corruption, but in reality he was just a guy who couldn't handle being a monk and who wanted to make massive changes to make religion easier on himself, and those most of the changes he wanted to make didn't sit well with the other so called 'reformers'.
No, you blamed Luther, you blamed everything but RC corruption, indulgences indeed?
read Luthers 95 thesis if you are allowed by your church, thinking RC faithful are no different to JW believers, reading your comments
as for the 10 commandments, they were from Moses to the Jews, does that make RCicism a Jewish sect, that you are under every Jewish law? Really?
explain that please
sounds like you don’t know what you believe
(04-08-2024, 08:40 AM)quintessentone Wrote: Oh everyone understood/understands the 'love thy neighbor' teaching, but it would appear that is it. Even the disciples were mentioned in the Bible as being confused in certain aspects of Jesus' ministry.
Yes indeed, though they were Jews learning a new faith.
It wasn’t what they expected, eye for an eye to love your enemies
Counter cultural to them
