I recently watched this video that deals with Panspermia. Nothing new, but gives a good overview of it. It's a fun watch, but he ends it with... "Well, who did it," kinda thing. I told my brother that for religious people that question is a no brainer. They'll just say, "God," which ever deity it is. But for more skeptical folks... that's part of the fun, trying to figure out EXACTLY who/what.
As it goes, in 1060ish a Catholic bishop and an Eastern bishop had a huge debate over the Creed. Catholics say, "We believe in the Holy Spirit/Ghost (take your pick), Who proceeds from the Father AND the Son." Orthodox say, "Who proceeds from the Father," and ONLY the father. In short, Orthodox Christians had an issue with putting Jesus on equal footing as the Father. To the casual observer it is a throwaway line which no one really cares about, BUT the theological/philosophical stakes/ramifications are HUGE and it matters greatly. The gap couldn't be bridged and that was that.
(this is IMHO only one of the reasons, but it is the often presented one as the typical)
Context is important - the Eastern bishops were worried about modalism (in short: meaning the God is one and just "pretends" to be different persons), the West was afraid of Arianism (meaning Jesus was created and is less than God) - that's why this escalated.
It all began in Spain in the 7th century or so, where after managing the Arian crisis the local bishops started adding "and from the Son" to the Creed - precisely because of the ex-Arians who were coming back into the Church. Rome then agreed with that and for a while even East didn't have problems with that, however some centuries later, some idiots in the West started complaining about the Eastern bishops leaving out "filioque" (even though they actually followed the older, valid version of the Apostolic Nicene-Constantinople Creed).
Thing is, the East wanted to stress that the Holy Spirit (who is more important to them than He used to be for the West) is not "under" or "the third in the Trinity" or something like that.
The Western argument for this actually makes sense - Biblically (see John 7:38 - "As the scripture has said, ‘Out of the believer’s heart[l] shall flow rivers of living water.’” 39 Now he said this about the Spirit, which believers in him were to receive; for as yet there was no Spirit,[m] because Jesus was not yet glorified.") and theologically - the Tradition, the handing over, it happens all the time - during consecration, during baptism, everywhere the Spirit is shared and "proceeds out of", as long as the person is "in Christ".
But there was not really a chance to explain and to come to a consensus, the Eastern bishops and churches were pissed off at West for things like the coronation of Charlemagne (which they felt was happening behind their back) and there was a lot of theological and practical differences - up to this day the liturgy and spirituality of East and West are rather different. Add politics to that and the catastrophe happens.
There were actually attempts at reconciliation, there was at least one synod where one of the churches (Antioch? Jerusalem? not sure) actually agreed to resolve the differences and rejoin, but when the bishops went back, they were put under pressure and had to back out of it.
Anyway, we have this type of "third way" as well - some of the Eastern churches have actually decided to join the West after all (and some, like Maronites, never left) - therefore "Catholic" is the umbrella term, most people think "Roman Catholic", but actually we have like 23 or so Catholic Churches united with Rome (these are the so called "Greek-Catholic" and so on) which are counted under the overall "Catholic" church.
They have their own theology (apart from the stuff we all have to agree upon, mostly dogmatic), their own liturgy and traditions, their own canon law. But we're united as one. I think it's great and beautiful.
I'll talk about the implications No5 asked about later, I'm already late in my work today, since I couldn't restrain myself.
Ok yes. But how it really translates in the real life? In the distribution of power?
By the way I’m happy you both seem to be knowledgeable about the matter, there are so many proud orthodox that ignore this.
But the question remains. I genuinely have no clue what is the real translation of that thing. I have some guesses but want to hear your opinion first.
As for balance of power it all comes down to not recognizing the Pope in Rome as the Vicar of Christ. I'm aware that the Orthodox churches do have a Patriarch, but Orthodox churches are more like local/state churches, which is why you have Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Latvian Orthodox, etc. But in mainline Christianity, it can be boiled down to do you recognize the Pope or not. Orthodox or protestant, hell, even catholic. When I was doing my undergrad in Religious Studies, I found out that Innocent III was hesistant about Francis of Asisi, because previous poverty movements didn't want to recognize his authority, so he branded them heresies. St. Francis "bent the knee" with no hesitation whatsoever.
In short, from a theological side, you have to accept the Creed, more importantly the "revised" version of the 4th Lateran Council which specified that God was the created of ALL things seen AND unseen (see the Cathars and other dualist cults). And the Trinity. All mainline Christians believe in the Trinity. more importantly in the DIVINITY of Jesus. This goes to what Judas was saying about Arianism. Arian was a bishop who did NOT believe in the divinity of Jesus, that Jesus was "just" a man. This SHOCKED the other bishops which lead to stating that Christ is BOTH fully human AND fully divine. This is why other Christians, do not consider Mormons "Christian."
Politically, you have to accept the Pope's authority. You don't, you either branch off like the Protestants and Orthodox did, but you'll likely be branded a heretic.
Again, I'm just giving very quick overview steps. But I'm sure @JudasMyGuide can provide more detail. Once I stopped wanting to be a priest I honestly stopped being as invested in all of this and many details have been lost to time.
Very interesting insights from both. Whatever the dogma differences might be a schism like this only happens when power is at play.
@Onhell spot on, I always thought that filioque translates to the undisputed power of pope as god’s delegate on earth, as during the antiquity you could be son of woman, son of man, son of gods & son of god, the latter being the top tier of human existence =religion leaders level i.e., Pythagoras.
Though I was totally ignoring the background that @JudasMyGuide offered about Spain and Arians.
Also we cannot overlook the importance of Charlemagne’s coronation which in my opinion adds to the above scheme god—> pope —> Charlemagne.
So it was the Orthodox that left? I thought it was the other way around, not surprises, education systems are biased
Not to be silly but it’s four in the morning, I’m still getting over being sick, and I was really half-expecting you to be like “the Catholics preferred Creed while Orthodox insisted that Altar Bridge was better.”
Would be curious to hear about the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism coming from you guys’ perspectives. I’m an atheist now but grew up in a Baptist church and went to a Christian school so everything I was taught essentially painted Catholicism as stuffy, power-hungry, bent on creating their own rules and keeping faith behind a paywall; on the flip-side, Protestantism puts the Bible in the hands of people, where you can have a personal connection with Jesus and cut the middle men out all together. I’m sure this may have been more a more accurate description back when Martin Luther was around but I’m curious to hear how you guys see it through your own eyes, especially Judas who was a convert to Catholicism.
Would be curious to hear about the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism coming from you guys’ perspectives. I’m an atheist now but grew up in a Baptist church and went to a Christian school so everything I was taught essentially painted Catholicism as stuffy, power-hungry, bent on creating their own rules and keeping faith behind a paywall; on the flip-side, Protestantism puts the Bible in the hands of people, where you can have a personal connection with Jesus and cut the middle men out all together.
Before diving into it I need to preface it by dispelling a couple of myths.
1. Many Catholics were unhappy with the corruption in the church well before Martin Luther. Most notably Dante, who places in Hell both for usury and corruption.
2. This idea that the church didn't allow people to read the bible is mostly false. It's not so much that the church didn't allow it and more that the bible was written in Latin, most people were illiterate and were super expensive as they were works of art that took years to complete by hand.
3. Therefore the printing press was the biggest contributor to "putting the bible in the hands of the people." That and people like Luther and Calvin translating it into "vulgar" languages.
I'll get into the nitty gritty when I have some time, most likely tomorrow.
If I may add, many forms of Protestantism were/are pretty big on authority. Anglican high church for example changed a few religious practices, but otherwise replaced the Pope with a monarch. High church love their bishops, outfits and ceremonies still! Big landowner too. I tend to associate more devolved authority and personal interpretation with movements like Quakers, Puritans, and more recently Methodists.
Rather than trying to stop people forming their own connections to their religion by getting their hands on the Bible, I always thought the Catholic Church was trying to prevent changes of meaning that you get first by translating the texts (again) into other languages, and secondly by encouraging people to form their own interpretations.
Would be curious to hear about the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism coming from you guys’ perspectives. I’m an atheist now but grew up in a Baptist church and went to a Christian school so everything I was taught essentially painted Catholicism as stuffy, power-hungry, bent on creating their own rules and keeping faith behind a paywall; on the flip-side, Protestantism puts the Bible in the hands of people, where you can have a personal connection with Jesus and cut the middle men out all together. I’m sure this may have been more a more accurate description back when Martin Luther was around but I’m curious to hear how you guys see it through your own eyes, especially Judas who was a convert to Catholicism.
Sorry, No5, I'll answer this first, because it requires less rambling about theology. EDIT: Well, I thought so at first. It didn't, after all.
First of all, @Diesel 11 , I'd recommend - just to get the most general of ideas - to watch this ten-minute video that very briefly and in a relatively shallow, yet comprehensible manner summarises the absolutely basic tenets/differences between Catholicism and Protestantism from the Catholic side. On its own, it's hardly enough, the things are literally true and most differences can be subsumed under one of the three things he mention, but I'm not 100% sure how it translates to someone from the outside... nonetheless, I'd like to ask you to watch this anyway:
I won't react to the video (mostly - there's one part below where I will), but it might give off the general vibe.
Anyway, now for my answer and take.
There are two sides to this question of yours - the original history of Catholicism vs Protestantism and my personal attitude.
(and a note to @Brigantium - I am talking about the main Protestant reformation - Anglicans are a separate case, with them developing under different circumstances and with their very complex relationship with Catholicism, with high church trying to simp Rome, but with king and the low church trying to simp Luther and Anglo-Catholicism and everything inbetween, it would be hard to include in any reasonable manner here, sorry, although I still mention John Henry Newman below.
Still, the fact one of my Patrons Saint (besides Tolkien) is St. Thomas More might probably give you a clue what I make of that. But then again, I've had Lewis as my avatar, haven't I? )
As for the history,@Onhell and @Brigantium are mostly correct - while us Catholics also tend to strawman the Prots, in the other direction it's much, much worse.
So, yes, there were issues within the Church, which were also connected with the fact the entire fuckin' Europe was rebuilt from scratch after the fall of Rome as a result of cooperation between "secular" authorities (I'm putting secular in quotation marks, because if you know at least something about medieval concept of kinghood, you know that is not probably the correct term to use in many ways) and Catholic Church (well, at first it was just the Church, before the West and the East split, there was no need for any additional labels).
The issues within the Church were mainly with how some priests and bishops behaved, especially those that got their place as a privilege - for example here in Bohemia, the otherwise beloved king and emperor Charles IV managed to resolve his issues with not having enough officials and bureaucrats by importing them from Germany (not unified "Germany" back then, but from the general area, you know what I mean) and since he didn't know how to pay them, he pushed for them to get some position in the Church.
That meant you have over-bureaucraticised and overpopulated clergy who mostly got in "for the money and prestige", 'cause they owned their own lands and... well... one of the things that was criticised was owning multiple beneficia, for example.
(the thing that Luther criticised and that's often repeated, the "selling of the indulgences" would require a lengthy detour as to explain what it even is,* but no, it's not about forgiveness of sins, not about buying forgiveness for sins nor is it holding Christ behind the paywall)
*
To put it as briefly as possible, after you regret your sins and confess them in the Sacrament of Reconcilliation and they are forgiven, there is still a result of the sin, a mark on your soul that has deformed you a bit ... and that is something you are doing away in the Purgatory, meaning you have managed to accept God's mercy and you technically "won", but you are working on your soul to improve yourself to perfection so that you can be a true Saint (a Saint is anyone who is in Heaven, by the way).
In Catholic theology you can do away these consequences of (again, forgiven!) sin by doing acts of piety that help heal your soul while you're still alive - that's what's called indulgence. You can also - since we believe in metaphysical community and communion - do these acts on behalf of another person, but only those who have died - for reasons I won't go into now.
These acts vary, it could be a pilgrimage, a special prayer, it could be giving alms and yes, you could support the Church - by financing Her needs, helping build churches and orphanages and so on. And yes, in the time period we talk about, there was - at least somewhere - this "business" with indulgences and it was bad and improper, but again, not connected with people's sins and their forgiveness. You could never buy your way to Heaven, to put it most cynically, after getting on the way to Heaven, you could only speed it up a bit. In theory. Anyway, nobody is selling indulgences nowadays, thankfully, but they still exist and they are a very good part of Catholic theology.
The problem is - the issues above were disciplinary, meaning you got bad people in the Church - which you have and will have forever - but the Prots - especially Luther at first - kinda threw out the baby with the bathwater - this is bad practice, this is bad practice, so the theory must be bad too and we'll make up our own theology and we'll make up our own church.
(for example, Jan Hus, the "national heroic Protestant" here in Czechia also criticised the issues of the Church, including the "selling" of indulgences and multiple beneficia remained Catholic until the end and never denied the Truths and concepts, although he was accused thereof - he was killed in a mostly politically-motivated misunderstanding (and he can't be rehabilitated, because we decided not to do it as a good gesture towards the Prots, so as not to "take" him from them - the Czech national church is named after him, after all) but I digress again).
With the aforementioned switch in theology there have been other steps (which I comment upon lower, in the personal section, regarding the Protestant tenets), like the absolute stressing of the Scripture and the accusation that people were not allowed to read it - like has been said, most people were illiterate, the Bible was in Latin (why was it so would take another digression, let's not do so now) which the people probably did not speak, you could only hand-write books (and it was the Church and the Arabs who saved most of the priceless historical documents after the fall of Rome and the "Dark Ages" - mostly by the monks re-writing everything until they went blind in their scriptoria) so these were really precious and cared for AND people were not theologically apt and the Church was - quite rightly so, as it showed - afraid of heresy, which was a problem before and after.
A friend of mine once told me "behind every heresy is reading the Scripture alone". Now, alone doesn't mean you have someone watching over your shoulder, but that you read the book with the eyes it was written through. The Scripture was written by the Church for the Church, two thousand years ago in a completely different cultural background. You have to read it as a whole and you have to read it as a community - because it was written for the community. Nowadays, we have textual criticisms, millions of annotations and exegeses, we have the writings of the Church Fathers at hand, so we can (mostly safely) "read Bible alone".
But you must also realise that if you believe the soul of a person is the most precious thing ever and person's relationship with God is the most important thing ever and these are corrupted via falsehoods, misconceptions or things that sound "pious" but are actually toxic, with terrible consequences for the spirituality of the person (i. e. "heresy"), that's worse than killing someone. That's literally the worst thing you could do to someone. That's why heresy was taken so seriously back then (and still is, by some, myself included) and that's why it was punishable by death by the secular authorities! (I'd like to stress this - the Church has rarely punished someone with anything else than excommunication or proclaiming a sentence, the burnings - if they happened (for example the witch-hunts were much more of a Protestant tradition) and so on were usually by the secular authorities. Because it was deemed important, because the community was built upon that and was afraid of falling into the void, after the fall of Rome.
As for the personal attitude and choices:
Funnily enough, back when I was thinking about converting, which has been since I was about 15 to when I was about 25, with pauses and resurgences, of course, I wanted to be a Protestant. Thing is, I wanted to "do what I want, not what somebody tells me". But I kept going back to Catholic Masses, because ... well, I hated the Protestant ones. It always felt like somebody is trying to sell me something. It was, for lack of a better word, cringe. The Catholic one what what I was looking for. Reverent, separating the holy and the secular. Taking God seriously. It led me to consider and read as much as I could about Catholic theology, which was the ultimate reason - my conversion was very cerebral, too much, almost, I'm actually working on lessening the rational and put now more stress on the emotional, the voluntary and the mystical.
But it was the Catholic theology that convinced me, as the only... "worldview", "way of thinking" that made sense to me, crazy as it might sometimes seem. The problem with Protestant theology is that... it doesn't really exist. Oh, don't get me wrong, there are excellent Protestant theologians and there's a lot to learn from them - but there is no unity of faith, no emblematic worldview, no theology that would actually connect with the life of the people and transform them.
No narrative, no story, no context. Or at least, no historical context that would be universal. The Catholic Church is trying to be precisely that - "Catholic" means "universal". "All-encompassing". That is one of the things that I find important - if there is a Church of God, if there is Christ as the universal Saviour, His Church must also be universal. How could I, a Czech (well, Moravian, actually) of Italian heritage proclaim the English monarch as the head of my church? Where's the sense in that?
(that's also the problem with the Eastern Orthodox Churches - they are desperately national and can't seem to transcend it)
But the universality is deeper than just that - the Catholic worldview is kinda like I said in my fist post in this thread - all-encompassing. It is a copletely different universe we live in, because the faith touches every little thing in our life... and makes it better, makes it beautiful, makes it holy, but I digress.
So it was mostly on theological grounds when I realised that I should convert to the Church as such.
In a way, I feel close kinship to John Henry Newman, a prominent Anglican who decided to write down a history of the Church, a history of dogma (another misunderstood word, but that's for another time) and delved deep into history and theology... and fell into a crisis, realising he has to convert. He did, he became a Catholic, although he didn't help his position at all. But although he didn't want to, although it meant various hardships for him, he felt he had to follow the Truth. What a bloke, indeed.
Like I said, a cerebral, theological conversion. The other things, like the Presence in the Eucharist, which is very important to me, came only later.
Thing is, "Protestantism" is a broad term that encapsulates a lot of things - with some offshoots like Calvinism being so weird and to a degree "inhuman" (sorry, just being honest) that I tend to fail to recognise them as Christian at all - but eventually there are three main tenets:
- no binding authority that could make authoritative decisions regarding the People of God
- (connected with the previous) stress on the Scripture as the only revelation and manifestation of God - which, however, anyone may interpret as they deem fit (Luther explained it theologically as the Scripture being so suffused with God's presence it lends any reader a disposition necessary for understanding, make of that what you will)
- attempt at "purifying" Christianity from influences and traditions and inculturations that have developed over time.
I have serious problems with all of the above.
1. Although it may be hard to understand for people today, who are almost conditioned by the Zeitgeist and the media that "I should do what I want and I know what is best for me" (no offence, I was also like that), if we're talking religion, true spirituality, that can never be that way. If my God is not asking me to change myself, if my God isn't "painful" to me, it is all just mollycoddling and self-satisfied stroking of ego that has the only effect of confirming me as I am, as a fallen, terrible human being, so that I can be evil and satisfied with myself. In short, it's not religion. I cannot hope to understand God on my own. Even the Church as a whole doesn't fully understand Him, She never will, but at least She got enough support and help so that She can understand at least something.
To me, religion truly is about the search for the Truth - not just any truth, but Ultimate Truth TM. What is real. Catholics believe that not only God has made Himself known over time as the Scripture records it, but that after Christ's Resurrection and Ascension, we still have His Spirit (one of the Trinity) that guides us in a way - but although He may guide us personally, the entirety of Revelation and the main tenets and the inerrancy has been given to God's People as a whole, as the entire Church. Yes, often this is represented through priests and bishops and the pope, but even they are bound by the sensus fidei (the "sense of/for Faith") of everyone. Not just the entire Church as it is today, but diachronically (historically) over time, in the Church as it was and in the Church as it will be.
That is something that even the pope is bound with (I had examples, but let's not, this is insanely long as is). The papal infallibility, the most misunderstood thing ever, mainly says that in matters of faith and morals, while not contradicting Scripture and dogma and other universal truths of faith, the Pope can speak on issues that are unclear or divisive with supreme authority and that the Holy Spirity won't let him be wrong. That happened, like, either once or twice, other counts say almost seven times in the past several hundreds of years, so really, the Pope's infallibility is not as a big deal as it is often made to be. However it is a big deal in that regard that if you have a divisive issue in the Church, the Pope is there as the referee, as the one who decides so that we may maintain unity. There are many things the Church doesn't have an opinion on, but you can say what the general opinion of the Church is in many cases - sometimes it's a general idea (I'll get to this in my answer to No5, but we have this "legitimate theological pluralism" - i. e. you can stress various things and accents and whatever, unless you leave the orthodoxy - for example the Trinity - God is one and God is three and inbetween those two extremes, you are safe and in the right), sometimes it's a very definitive statement, but it is also always very reasonably explained, sometimes with hundreds of pages of text and hundreds of pages of arguments and hundreds of years of development. But we can lean on that. And once you start getting it, you realise how important it is.
I do think that's necessary for a true religion, in order for it not to be just the self-patting self-satisfied self-sanctifying self-help program I mentioned above.
And it's not only about the authority - it's about the representation as well, or what you said about "middle men". Thing is, Catholics (and Christians for most of their history) weren't Gnostics - we aren't materialists, but we also aren't immaterialists. That means the spiritual and immaterial is the more important stuff, but the material isn't comletely unimportant. For example, yes, it is good to pray in your head, but better to pray with your mouth. You give form to the matter, you make it literally present in the world. It is better to kneel before your Lord, not just think about it, because by ordering your body around, you give it significance.
While God is invisible (mostly), He made himself visible. Though immaterial (kinda, let's not get into that now), He created matter and ordered it around. So yes, for us is important the Real Presence in the Eucharist - it is literally the possibility, the opportunity to "touch" God. To be with Him in the most intimate manner.
That is what the video called "sacramentality" - meaning that the invisibile and divine is making itself visible and tangible and with the eyes of the faith we can get into a deeper connection with it. That is why the Church is visible. That is why we built the beautiful churches, for Him and for the people who revere Him within. That is, why the middle man is important, it is the tangible, visible thing. The contact with reality. So that it's not just voices in your head, you know.
The sacramentality seems separated from the authority, but it really isn't - it is from the sacramentality, the tangibility that the authority and the Magisterium arises. That's connected with the other points I'm making below as well. But it is the Tradition, the metaphysical "handing over of everything we have" to other generations, that creates the genealogy, the story, the narrative of the Church.
And a last thing - you say (I know not you personally, that you're merely quoting): "cutting out the middle man and going to God directly myself" - first of all, you still do so, in prayer, but as for the rest - you might think it's enough to "go to God directly, with no middle men", that it's enough for you, but is it enough for God? I often come across this "I don't need anyone to talk to God", but the automatic response is "again, that's about you, but what if God put the middle men there for a reason? YOU want or need this, but isn't religion about God first and about you second?"
2. Since the Protestants needed to get rid of Catholic theology and developments, they started stressing the tenet of Sola Scriptura, meaning "only Scripture" (well, only Scripture after scratching some books from the Bible that didn't fit Luther's views) - arguing what I already said, something along the lines that the Scripture is so suffused with God's presence it lends any reader a disposition necessary for understanding, also that the Scripture is more or less the only revelation of God...which I guess led to the fact they also started to understand the Eucharist as mere symbolism - the main difference between a Catholic and a Protestant church is that we always have the Sanctuary (look for the red light as you enter) and God's physical presence with us, Prots do not -
and also saying that the traditions of the Church (or, more exactly, not just ecclesial traditions but the apostolic Tradition (singular) - never mind, this would require more theological digressions - is not inspired by God but is merely a human invention, so pretty much most of the things the Church has done since the first/second century AD was wrong, somehow.
I have many, many problems with this, always had. In fact, it was precisely Sola Scriptura which made me absolutely, utterly reject Protestantism as a whole. It is ahistorical, illogical, theologically unsound, toxic, terrible, untrue. I could spend another post as long as this one just hating on this particular tenet.
Just this - and I'm being intentionally brief here, because I've been rambling for too long and this is just a summary, not a succint argument
1. Christ was a living human being, He himself didn't write anything we know of (except what he wrote in the sand once - see John 8:11). We worship Him, not a book, although it is a Word of God, holy and inspired. Yet, the Bible is not Koran. We are people of the Living God, we are people of the Word, even, but not people of the Book.
2. how could illiterate people - which was a majority back then, before print - have contact with Christ? Also, how could the Church function before the New Testaent was written - the oldest New Testament parts are from cca 40 AD or so, the Gospels were probably written around 70-90 AD (John definitely the latest)
3. the Scripture itself discounts this attitude - it tells us literally about the Church making decision and developing the life of faith even after Jesus' ascension. There's literally the first "ecumenical council" of sorts in Acts (regarding the circumcision).
All of these have their counterarguments from the Prot side, but there are others and that's still beside the point - I just wanted to stress that it was this tenet in particular that made me give up on Protestant theology as a whole, because a true Protestant theology will always be fundamentalist, whereas any modern, developed Protestant theology will probably a milquetoast modernist secular humanism with some Christian window dressing. If that looks tautological, it's because it is. Never mind, let's keep this on track, I didn't want to make this into a rant on Protestantism.
3. the third point is in fact just as connected with the previous ones, but it's really hard to express in a comprehensive manner in writing. I'll try anyway.
I have once read (from a Catholic, btw) that "Catholicism = Christianity + Paganism" whereas "Protestantism = Christianity - Paganism". That's kinda true. Catholicism indeed has a history of inculturation, of transformation within the lives and culture of people who professed it, taking everything that is "curable" or "useable" in Paganism, Hellenistic philosophy and elsewhere and going with it.
Justin the Martyr, one of the earliest Christians, came with the term "Logos spermatikos" - that means something along the lines "the seeds of the Word". That means that even in other religions, cultures and so on there are glimpses of the ultimate Truth, since all men were created by God and to His image and to be with Him, they tend to search for the Truth and sometimes they found the proto-types, the individual glimpses, which are true and good.
That is the background of what I wrote above, the taking everything and trying to be as inclusive as possible (unless it openly contradicts the basic tenets of Christianity) - that is why we successfully Christianised Europe and a huge part of the world as well (and I find it funny that Arabs and other Muslim countries still try to maintain in their history books the lie that the North Africa was originally pagan, before their conquest - it was not, it was wholly Christian, with quite developed culture, before their invasion). That is why we have black Jesuses and Korean Marys. That's why we have the cult of Saints, in a way, and so on.
And that is why Catholicism and culture are inherently intertwined. We make art with meaning, interpret it, understand it in a different way. Even the less-radical Protestant denomination are, in a way, iconoclastic.
The Catholics (and Orthodox) believe that beauty is sacred and to a degree, salvational. Dostoevsky says via Mishkin - "Beauty shall save the entire world." That is because we believe that beauty is one of the universals - one of aspects of God that we can perceive and which can lead us to Him. That there is almost a sacred power to beauty. That is historical experience (which the Prots deny) and Catholic theology, in this part influenced by Aristotle and Aquinas (which the Prots also deny). So it's only logical and internally consistent they have it this way, I just find it to be wrong.
There is such a thing as Catholic literature and culture. It is very hard to define a Protestant culture as such. Even Bach, the greatest of composers and very pious Protestant, doesn't have anything about him that would make him uniquely Protestant - and, in fact, his music is just as used by Catholics and in Catholic churches as not, because, well... it fits. There is such thing as "uniquely Catholic" - see Greene's The Power and the Glory, Waugh's Brideshead Revisited or even the movie Calvary (2014), which - although directed by a secularised director - is one of the most tangibly Catholic things that's been in cinemas ever.
You might talk about the Lutheran churches, which are opulent and beautiful, but that was more of keeping momentum than anything. It is not consistently perceivable in the Protestantism today, as if it indeed was an uninvited visitor that's been shown the door.
I don't want to be too dismissive and part of this is anecdotal, but the general idea is there. You asked about my take on that.
To me, that's really hard to accept - the Protestant spirituality in this regard as such. Not only intellectually - like I said above, the Scripture shows the development, the life of the Church and certain inculturation as well - but also personally. I am a philosophical person, true, but also a poetic one. I need sacral holiness... and I need art and beauty and I need the mystery, I need the differentiation between "the sacred and the propane" (sorry, a Sopranos inner joke), I need the inner Medium Ævum, I need the interconnected nature of theology, art, science. My God is bigger than the Protestant God. My Church is bigger than the Protestant Church.
Christianity is a religion of paradox - as Chesterton has succintly put it, with you know, our God is one and three at the same time, Christ is fully God and fully human at the same time and so on... and it is only in the Catholic "et... et..." (and... and..., the theologically inclusive approach) where the paradox might shine through. Protestantism can't marry the mystery and the magic with the rational - either you get stringent, rational Entmythologisierung (demythologisation) and secularisation of the soul and the world and cold, hard, inhuman rationality, or they turn off the brain completely and you get the megachurches, the Evangelicals, the dancing and the healing by hundreds. Sorry to sound dismissive, I'm intentionally stessing the tenets into the ultimate end, like Dante would, so it seems more grotesque than it really is. Mea culpa.
To a degree, it shows. American mainline Protestantism that we have today is absolutely despicable in many ways (and unfortunately, the American Catholics are learning a bit or two from that - there's no surprise we've actually recognised the heresy of "Americanism", really, such thing existed. At least when talking about the mainstream - there's a lot of beauty in Norman Maclean's A River Runs Through It or Marilynne Robinson's Gilead - but those are the outliers. I realise that I am now contradicting myself as for the Protestants and the culture above, however, from the theological point of view, I can't help but feel Maclean's and Robinson's Presbyterianism borrows a lot - knowingly or unknowingly - from the original Church's theology and spirituality.
And a last thing, connected with hat - I can't help it, the unity and history is an argument in itself; in tearing apart themselves from the Church the Prots separated themselves from the live, green branch and now they wither and fade - look at how Protestant churches keep crumbling and dividing into lesser and lesser schismatic sects. Everyone who has a different opinion on the Scripture or this or that can start his own "one true church: the Western Branch of American Reform Presbylutheranism" (as the Simpsons jokingly said once).
Anyway, sorry for this long post, I'm not sure if I answered the original question correctly, but I tried. I'm not saying I'd love to elaborate on anything, 'cause I feel you'd had too much of that as is.
IMO there are three main branches of protstantism, Anglican, Lutheran and Calvinist. The rest can trace their roots to one of those three. I do agree with Judas when he says Anglicanism is kinda it's own thing, but it does fall under the general protestant movement of telling off the Catholic Church and for the most part it's authority.
One can say there are three major schism or separations in the Church. The first we've already discussed between Catholics and Orthodox in 1054 also known as "The Great Schism." Then Luther with the nailing of his "95 Theses" in 1517 and finally the Anglicans in 1534.
I'll start with the Anglicans as I honestly don't know much about them so it'll be quick. The oversimplification is Henry VIII wanted to divorce Catherine of Aragon for not giving him male heirs and being his brother's widow, Pope said no, Henry said, "F* you then!" and made his own church. Some sources say that it all started when he started talking to his future second wife, Anne Boleyn, who was into Luther's writings and the protestant movement. She would talk to Henry about it, who up to that point was a very devout Catholic. So one could argue the ideas were planted well before wanting to remarry.
It is too simplistic to say that they merely swapped the Pope for the King, but everything else was pretty much the same. There were other changes I'm not fully knowledgeable of, but suffice to say there's a reason the puritans left for The Netherlands and later the colonies as they thought the Anglican church was still "too Catholic" for their taste.
Lutheranism
Luther was a lawyer (law student?), who gave his life to God after surviving a thunder storm. With his very sharp mind he started finding a lot of inconsistencies and problems in the church, but he was always told to shut up. His biggest hang up was the sell of indulgences and the corruption in the hierarchy. He came to the conclusion of sola fide or that salvation comes from faith alone and not dependent on confession to a priest, indulgences or the need of the Church. This of course rekindled literally the eternal debate of faith versus works. Luther argued that doing "good" works was only a way to buy your way into heaven. He said that, of course, because the Church encouraged things like going on crusade to defend the faith, giving lots of money to the Church, going to confession, etc. So he went the other way saying all you had to do was to believe, to have faith. I say it is an eternal debate, because it is literally the subject of one of James's letters which made it into the New Testament. He says:
What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead. - James 2:14-26
Anyway, ignoring the fact that one needs BOTH faith AND works, Luther criticized the church for emphasizing empty works.
In 1529, Philip I of Hessen (Germany), wishing to unite all Protestant movements of the time, invited all the heavy hitters to the Marburg Colloquy. The two main folks, however were Luther and the Swiss Ulrich Zwingli. They discussed about 20 or so points on which they agreed on all but 2. The one that matters is the Eucharist. For Catholics, the Eucharist is the literal body and blood of Christ. Protestants immediately did away with that, but some said it was the metaphorical body and blood of Christ, other the symbolic body and blood, and other that it was just bread and wine. The debate got as emotional and heated as the one Catholics and Orthodox had over the Holy Spirit and the reason there isn't a unified Protestant movement.
Calvinism
This is a nice segue into Calvinists as John Calvin is considered part of the second wave of reformers and differs from Lutherans on the points above, the Eurcharist, Baptism, worship, etc, etc. Judas mentioned that there isn't a "Protestant Culture" per se, but here is where Calvin becomes REALLY important, as it was his particular brand of Protestantism that gave us the Protestant Work Ethic. The main reason the U.S, to this day, is obsessed with work.
This came about because of his other major contribution, cementing predestination as a protestant tenant. again... like faith v. works, free will v. predestination goes back even before Christianity itself, but it became a huge Catholic v. Protestant battle ground with Catholics favoring free will and Protestants backing predestination. Calvin (and other protestants) argued that if God is omnipresent and omniscient he already knows what your going to do before you do it and in fact he already knows if you're going to heaven or hell, soooo.... no need to go to confession, in fact, don't worry about it, just keep your head down, keep doing what you're doing (working) and whatever happens happens, because it's been pre-ordained.
Like I said, most other offshoots of Protestantism can trace their roots to one of these three either because they embrace the similarities, or go off and do something as a reaction to it. For example the Episcopalians. They're basically American Anglicans, but with the American revolution and the U.S breaking away from England, the church did the same thing.
The "new" movement of Evangelical or "nondenominational" Christians is NOT part of the Protestant movement, even though they too follow sola fide, in their case it is sole faith in CHRIST as their lord and savior. in contrast to Protestant services which are somber, some down right quiet and bare. Evangelicals have what are essentially Christian Rock concerts, then a college lecture on a particular reading followed by faith healings (getting smacked in the head by the preacher and told "You are healed!" They're also known for "speaking in tongues," when overtaken by the Holy Spirit. Mega churches and charismatic preachers are known to crop up, but I wouldn't say it's the norm and surprise, surprised, they get criticized for the same thing Protestants criticized Catholics, excess, corruption and shady leaders.
IMO there are three main branches of protstantism, Anglican, Lutheran and Calvinist. The rest can trace their roots to one of those three. I do agree with Judas when he says Anglicanism is kinda it's own thing, but it does fall under the general protestant movement of telling off the Catholic Church and for the most part it's authority.
One can say there are three major schism or separations in the Church. The first we've already discussed between Catholics and Orthodox in 1054 also known as "The Great Schism." Then Luther with the nailing of his "95 Theses" in 1517 and finally the Anglicans in 1534.
I'll start with the Anglicans as I honestly don't know much about them so it'll be quick. The oversimplification is Henry VIII wanted to divorce Catherine of Aragon for not giving him male heirs and being his brother's widow, Pope said no, Henry said, "F* you then!" and made his own church. Some sources say that it all started when he started talking to his future second wife, Anne Boleyn, who was into Luther's writings and the protestant movement. She would talk to Henry about it, who up to that point was a very devout Catholic. So one could argue the ideas were planted well before wanting to remarry.
It is too simplistic to say that they merely swapped the Pope for the King, but everything else was pretty much the same. There were other changes I'm not fully knowledgeable of, but suffice to say there's a reason the puritans left for The Netherlands and later the colonies as they thought the Anglican church was still "too Catholic" for their taste.
Lutheranism
Luther was a lawyer (law student?), who gave his life to God after surviving a thunder storm. With his very sharp mind he started finding a lot of inconsistencies and problems in the church, but he was always told to shut up. His biggest hang up was the sell of indulgences and the corruption in the hierarchy. He came to the conclusion of sola fide or that salvation comes from faith alone and not dependent on confession to a priest, indulgences or the need of the Church. This of course rekindled literally the eternal debate of faith versus works. Luther argued that doing "good" works was only a way to buy your way into heaven. He said that, of course, because the Church encouraged things like going on crusade to defend the faith, giving lots of money to the Church, going to confession, etc. So he went the other way saying all you had to do was to believe, to have faith. I say it is an eternal debate, because it is literally the subject of one of James's letters which made it into the New Testament. He says:
What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead. - James 2:14-26
Anyway, ignoring the fact that one needs BOTH faith AND works, Luther criticized the church for emphasizing empty works.
In 1529, Philip I of Hessen (Germany), wishing to unite all Protestant movements of the time, invited all the heavy hitters to the Marburg Colloquy. The two main folks, however were Luther and the Swiss Ulrich Zwingli. They discussed about 20 or so points on which they agreed on all but 2. The one that matters is the Eucharist. For Catholics, the Eucharist is the literal body and blood of Christ. Protestants immediately did away with that, but some said it was the metaphorical body and blood of Christ, other the symbolic body and blood, and other that it was just bread and wine. The debate got as emotional and heated as the one Catholics and Orthodox had over the Holy Spirit and the reason there isn't a unified Protestant movement.
Calvinism
This is a nice segue into Calvinists as John Calvin is considered part of the second wave of reformers and differs from Lutherans on the points above, the Eurcharist, Baptism, worship, etc, etc. Judas mentioned that there isn't a "Protestant Culture" per se, but here is where Calvin becomes REALLY important, as it was his particular brand of Protestantism that gave us the Protestant Work Ethic. The main reason the U.S, to this day, is obsessed with work.
This came about because of his other major contribution, cementing predestination as a protestant tenant. again... like faith v. works, free will v. predestination goes back even before Christianity itself, but it became a huge Catholic v. Protestant battle ground with Catholics favoring free will and Protestants backing predestination. Calvin (and other protestants) argued that if God is omnipresent and omniscient he already knows what your going to do before you do it and in fact he already knows if you're going to heaven or hell, soooo.... no need to go to confession, in fact, don't worry about it, just keep your head down, keep doing what you're doing (working) and whatever happens happens, because it's been pre-ordained.
Like I said, most other offshoots of Protestantism can trace their roots to one of these three either because they embrace the similarities, or go off and do something as a reaction to it. For example the Episcopalians. They're basically American Anglicans, but with the American revolution and the U.S breaking away from England, the church did the same thing.
The "new" movement of Evangelical or "nondenominational" Christians is NOT part of the Protestant movement, even though they too follow sola fide, in their case it is sole faith in CHRIST as their lord and savior. in contrast to Protestant services which are somber, some down right quiet and bare. Evangelicals have what are essentially Christian Rock concerts, then a college lecture on a particular reading followed by faith healings (getting smacked in the head by the preacher and told "You are healed!" They're also known for "speaking in tongues," when overtaken by the Holy Spirit. Mega churches and charismatic preachers are known to crop up, but I wouldn't say it's the norm and surprise, surprised, they get criticized for the same thing Protestants criticized Catholics, excess, corruption and shady leaders.
I've skimmed it - will give it a careful reading later today - and although we obviously disagree on the last paragraph, I mostly agree with this summary; I was going for the abstract, you go more for the descriptive, but thanks for completing the view. The faith vs works and predestination and so on are quite important things, theologically, however they felt secondary to what I was writing about and I thought the post is ridiculously long as is.
Let's say that if it was only about that, I would consider Protestantism as well, with sola fide having a rather orthodox reading as well, especially with a careful consideration of Paul's Epistle to Romans and with how sola fide became a bit redefined in the Protestantism later on... and predestination also kinda follows Augustine, it misunderstands him, but there is a legitimate reading of that somewhere to be found.
Calvinism as a whole, like I said, is its own thing, I find it personally really repulsive, but didn't want to dwell too much on that, as on one particular branch.
Anyway, thanks, I'll re-read your post again in a moment.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
