I was reminding myself, too.

Post #319,529 by static 1/4/10 5:14:35 PM Reply	I was reminding myself, too. I happen to be Protestant, yes, and your descriptions of Catholic ritual sounded like something other than a Christian church... :-/ But then I know in theological literature, catholics won't usually refer to themselves as "Christians" - they call themselves "Catholics". I really don't know about Catholicism in Australia, but I would be surprised if it were radically different to Catholicism in other Western societies. Practitioners of Catholicism are widely known to put a lot of stock in their rituals, which is kind of the opposite of Evangelical (and Charismatic) Protestant teachings. Wade. Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers? A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.
Post #319,537 by crazy 1/4/10 6:42:30 PM Reply	I know many Catholics I'm pretty sure most, if not all, also consider themselves Christians. I know the ones in my household do.
Post #319,541 by drook 1/4/10 8:49:38 PM Reply	In the same way Texans are also Americans As in, "Well yes, of course, but we're the good kind." -- Drew
Post #319,562 by drook 1/5/10 9:41:39 AM 1/5/10 9:41:53 AM Reply	Hmm, that's not quite right Most Catholics, if you asked them, "Are you Christian?" would probably answer, "No, I'm Catholic." If you pointed out that Catholicism is a Christian faith, they'd say, "Well of course, but when you said 'Christian' I thought you meant protestant." In other words, it's not that they don't consider themselves Christian. They just think that since non-Catholics call themselves Christian, that's what people mean when they say it: non-Catholics. This is probably hard to understand if you weren't raised Catholic. Think IROC-Z. "Do you drive a Camero?" "No, I drive an IROC." -- Drew Edited by drook Jan. 5, 2010, 09:41:53 AM EST Expand All History
Post #319,593 by static 1/5/10 6:57:52 PM Reply	It took us a little while, but we got there! :-D Evangelical and Charismatic/Pentecostal groups have been loud and proud about taking the "Christian" label... and the result is that Catholics call themselves "Catholic" first and "Christian" second. It's the other side of many Protestants seeing Catholicism as much more different from them than merely another denomination down the road. Wade. Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers? A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.
Post #319,600 by Another Scott 1/5/10 10:51:51 PM Reply	I may be wrong, but I think you're not quite right. I think the difference you believe is present between Catholics and Protestants that call themselves "Christian" first aren't as great as you believe. I attended many churches in my youth - Southern Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, and probably a couple others. I've attended Catholic mass a couple of times. http://en.wikipedia....ass_%28liturgy%29 Each denomination has their own rituals and traditions, their own emphasis on what they think is most important, but ultimately they're all Christian even if they can have (nearly or actually) violent disagreements. Political preachers who like to demonize others have made up many stories about Catholics that simply aren't true. Over here, one can see many different church services on TV on Sundays. It must be similar down under. Tape a Catholic service sometime and check it out. :-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #319,606 by static 1/6/10 2:26:11 AM Reply	Quite so. For some reason, I was playing up the differences. But there are more similarities than differences. This is known: Ecumenical efforts have always found it fairly straightforward to get mainstream Protestants together, and more work, but not a lot more work to get Catholics involved, too. And Orthodox is a little harder again. Of course, this is a potted summary of a summary of a summary... :-/ As far as basic basic basic theology goes, one of the biggest stumbling point is the question of ultimate authority. Catholics put the Pope above the Bible. Protestants don't. In middle-class suburbia (where I live and have grown up), most Protestant churches are remarkably similar, as are the more relaxed Catholic services. A church I used to attend had periodic combined churches with most of the others in the area. The combined size meant the charismatic churches tended to run things, as they usually know how to run services that size. But attempts to included the Catholics always stumbled over, of all things, song selection: they just don't know the same worship songs and hymns as everyone else. If we could have solved that, I think they would have willingly, if perhaps a bit bemusedly, joined in. Wade. Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers? A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.
Post #319,618 by Another Scott 1/6/10 8:41:03 AM Reply	Again, I think you're relying on what "authorities" say... As far as basic basic basic theology goes, one of the biggest stumbling point is the question of ultimate authority. Catholics put the Pope above the Bible. Protestants don't. You're using very loaded language in your posts, though you may not realize it. One of the defining characteristics of almost all Protestant denominations since Luther is rejection of the authority of the Pope. (I'm tempted to throw in a Dreaded Car Analogy here, but I don't think it's necessary.) In a real sense, all Christian denominations ultimately put their leadership "above" the Bible even if they claim that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. They pick and choose what to stress and what to downplay. Baptists emphasize the importance of baptism more than Lutherans; etc. All religions that rely on sacred texts also rely on authorities to interpret them. The Southern Baptists have a convention which comes up with pronouncements on various religious and social topics. They have had leaders that say things like "women should submit to their husbands". More here: http://www.sbc.net/a...ionstatements.asp Is a SB who is devout putting their leadership "above" the Bible? Again, see for yourself what Catholics believe and practice in Mass. Don't take the word of critics or those who have left that church - too often they have an agenda of making Catholics look bad. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #319,643 by static 1/6/10 3:50:29 PM Reply	I see. And my attempts at simplification to show that there is a difference at a very low level without having to argue exactly what that difference is seems to be wasted. Your list of differences is correct, of course: Luther's rejection of the Papal authority was a rejection that the Pope can make edicts that overrule scripture. You're using very loaded language in your posts, ... Could you please explain how I am doing that. Wade. Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers? A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.
Post #319,646 by Another Scott 1/6/10 5:56:24 PM Reply	As Box says... there are things said about Catholics over here that may not match your experiences. Sorry if I'm rubbing you the wrong way on this topic. I understand that you're trying to be careful. :-) There's a very long history of Protestant antagonism against Catholics here. I probably don't need to review the long history. A brief flavor can be found here: http://en.wikipedia....ed_States#History When you said that Catholics put 'the Pope above the Bible' or 'Catholics consider themselves Catholic first and Christian second', that is very close to some of the anti-Catholic things that I heard growing up: "Catholics aren't Christian. They don't pray to God, they pray to their priest who prays to his bishop who prays to his cardinal who prays to the Pope." Catholic politicians over here are questioned all the time about whether their loyalty is to the US or to the Pope, or whether their votes are compatible with the Church's doctrines. Mainline Protestants don't get such scrutiny. And the things Box mentioned, and so forth. We all understand that you're not meaning to cause offense. And I don't think most of us are taking offense. It's just that some of the comments you're making about what other people have said about the Catholic church in your church seem to be easily taken as anti-Catholic in a US context. HTH a little. Cheers, Scott.
Post #319,650 by drook 1/6/10 6:47:17 PM Reply	Oh yeah? Well my invisible sky fairy can beat up your invisible sky fairy with one arm tied behind him! -- Drew
Post #319,652 by boxley 1/6/10 7:05:12 PM Reply	not hardly as a short story about armageddon where lucifer wins the final battle a shocked cleric goes "that isnt what was written in scripture!" and the devil replies "I didnt write that propaganda" thanx, bill
Post #319,655 by static 1/6/10 7:20:46 PM Reply	Yes, it helps. sigh I've been tripped by cultural differences. :-/ Thanks for the heads-up. I can honestly say I have not seen or experienced anti-Catholic sentiment in Australian Protestant churches. The closest would be pop-vox responses in the mass media to the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney. I have seen what could cause it, but that was when I was eight years old and involved a classmate in school who acted like catholics were superior to everyone... I really wasn't thinking I would be offensive when I posted. They were intended to be dry, theological observations, some derived from serious inter-faith efforts. Wade. Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers? A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.
Post #319,623 by boxley 1/6/10 9:38:10 AM Reply	incorrect the catholic does not put the pope above the bible. It puts the pope as the sole interpreter of the bible. Protestants believe it is self determined what the bible means. This leads to praying with snakes and speaking in tongues and Koresh, and Jones. Just for grins go to a mass sometime. You wont burn in protestant hell for it :-)
Post #319,642 by static 1/6/10 3:42:56 PM Reply	We're talking past each other. That's what I said. It's a shame when the same language can be used by two people to misunderstand each other. >:-( Wade. Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers? A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.
Post #319,644 by boxley 1/6/10 4:50:44 PM Reply	Re: We're talking past each other. sorry about that. Common misconception over here, prods think that the pope issues non biblical marching orders and catholics dont use a real bible. thanx, bill
Post #319,616 by folkert 1/6/10 7:14:43 AM Reply	What about the the whole reason.. There have been so many "splits" in the Baptist Church, the Reformed Church, the Presbyterian Church, the Methodist Church, <insert other churches> These have all gone through huge upheavals when something as controversial as letting women have their hair down. Or letting Gay/lesbian members participate in service proceeding (communion in one case). Or just acknowledging that Gays/Lesbian exist and need help... Simply stated, it only takes one preacher/priest/pastor taking offense/exception and steering his congregation to split and form a new branch of the church
Post #319,557 by static 1/5/10 7:58:12 AM Reply	Kinda what Drew said. But I realized later I meant that Catholic theologians who are exposed to the writings of non-Catholic theologians are the ones who tend to not call themselves "Christians" but "Catholics" as a way to distance themselves from non-Catholic thinking. Which didn't answer the question much, if at all. Sorry. I don't currently know any overt Catholics. Those that I have known through the years that I know to be Catholic have kept their church life and their non-church life quite quite separate. Mind you, many non-Catholics do this, too. It is also possible for people to come to a genuine, life-changing faith from the Catholic teaching and be truly Christian in their outlook whilst remaining Catholic. I guess for some temperaments, the ritualistic nature of Catholicism resonates well. But for many, that's all they know and all they believe they are allowed to know. Wade. Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers? A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.
Post #319,560 by boxley 1/5/10 8:45:27 AM Reply	are you talking roman oe eastern?
Post #319,594 by static 1/5/10 6:59:29 PM Reply	Roman. I think. The lot with the Pope. What's "eastern"? Do you mean Orthodox? I have even less experience with them. Wade. Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers? A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.
Post #319,599 by drook 1/5/10 10:15:39 PM Reply	They're the Catholics whose priests can marry IIRC -- Drew
Post #319,624 by boxley 1/6/10 9:39:26 AM Reply	and their pope is in byzanteum
Post #319,601 by crazy 1/5/10 11:27:18 PM Reply	Sigh It is also possible for people to come to a genuine, life-changing faith from the Catholic teaching and be truly Christian in their outlook whilst remaining Catholic. Sigh. And that is the cornerstone of why you don't know any Catholics. They don't want to know you. Since I'll never be a Christian (all hail the Great Spaghetti Monster), I can't be damned with that kind of faint praise. I hate being put in a position of defending any organized religion. But in this case, I guess I don't have a choice. You are part of a branch of a sub-group of people. Guess what? So are they. They are like elder cousins on a branch on a tree. But you consider them not to be Christians. From your perspective, it is probably (now I'm making shit up) a deep loss, since hey, they're gonna end up in hell and they were so close, just so close, if only they believed a few more things they would have made it. And maybe you even have a couple of people you consider your friends, that you flew across the poind to see, who are Catholic. And they're going to burn. That was the generous interpretation. No matter what, while you may never see how a little bitty comment may make people not talk to you about their beliefs, it happens.
Post #319,608 by static 1/6/10 3:10:41 AM Reply	I led you to mis-interpret me. My apologies. I inadvertantly fell into theological terms, without providing context. Basically, I failed to distinguish between "Christian" meaning regularly attends a recognised christian church, and "Christian" meaning one who adheres to a faith outside or alongside the religious trappings seen. What I meant was that there are adherants of the Catholic tradition who have acquired a faith which the rituals hold genuine meaning. They are not Catholic or Christian because they do the rituals, they do the rituals because they believe. There are also people in the Catholic church who have acquired a faith in spite of the problems of their organised religion. Yet they remain in the Catholic church with rituals that might not have much if any meaning. In other words, I was referring to Catholics who they themselves believe are Christians whilst believing most of their fellow Catholics are not. I do not profess to be able to tell the difference so I do my best not to even try. If someone calls themselves "Christian" but does not have any interest in comparing their "Christianity" to mine, then I try to just take their declaration at face value and leave them be. Wade. Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers? A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.
Post #319,611 by crazy 1/6/10 5:27:36 AM 1/6/10 5:48:48 AM Reply	Oh, I accept you are doing this with best intentions In other words, I was referring to Catholics who they themselves believe are Christians whilst believing most of their fellow Catholics are not. Except you don't know any. Or very very few. And you certainly have an outsider's view, with very little research, so you are delving in an area you could not possibly know. And then you made a broad assumption about select people within the group, what they believe, and even sillier, what they believe about other within their select sub-group. You guys came later and grabbed the term, the broader one, the first one, and then decided it applied only to you. Note: The you here is the historical group of people that came before the "individual" you. And this term, being a christian, is used by every religion that has Christ as a cornerstone. I've met many, of varying branches, and I'm always willing to trigger a religious discussion to see where it goes. To tell one of these people they aren't christian is an incredible insult. Any of them. At least when this group of people broke off from the Jews they didn't simply decide to call themselves Jews and the elders needed to come up with a new name. You seem to feel it applies just to your subgroup (or any-sub group that shares your beliefs, but certainly not the Catholics) in the specifics. Which sets them up nicely as being "others", and not part of your core group. This comes down to identity. Who gets to choose their own? And when an outsider is labeling the group, and the group competes with the outsider, someone is going to lose. Go read up on "The Whore of Babylon" to get a feel why some people may be touchy about it. So there seem to be a couple of problems here. #1 - You don't get to appropriate such an important historical term while denying it to others. Especially if they were using it first. Wars get started over this. It is a direct provocation. #2 - You make assumptions about levels of deeply held beliefs in others that seem to be very contradictory to their stated beliefs to justify these assumptions. I suggest you try to get to know a few. As much as this broadly shared delusion may cause damage, I've found that the Catholics (when they aren't running the inquisition or supporting Hitler) usually aren't the ones trying to kill the Jews. That is usually the later splits. So I have an affinity to that branch as opposed to most of the others. Remember, from an outsider's point of view (an outsider who doesn't believe that Christ was any more special than any of the thousands of prophets babbling in that time frame) whether or not you are Christian is really easy. It means you went to a church that has a cross on it, said a few select things, the priest (and/or congregation) said a few select things back, and poof, you're a Christian. It doesn't mean that on a day by day basis you are a "good" Christian, people can judge you on your actions for that, but only the individual gets to state the claim that they are a Christian. At that point, if they are part of the sub-group that believes in hell (a large portion of them), if you tell they they are not a Christian, you are telling them they are going to hell. It's pretty clear. To me, the varying Christian branches can be shown via a Venn diagram of overlapping beliefs, with the center being the belief in Jesus being something special that is shared by all of them. Oh well, as long as you guys are fighting amongst yourselves, at least the rest of us have a bit less to worry about. Edited by crazy Jan. 6, 2010, 05:48:48 AM EST Expand All History
Post #319,615 by static 1/6/10 7:13:11 AM Reply	I do not speak from a position of no knowledge. One of the things that happens in churches is the concept of visiting speakers. I'm sure you've heard of it; it is not a phenomenon isolated to churches. Some of my knowledge about what Catholics believe and how they behave and think are from such visiting speakers who are or have been Catholic and are there to teach, amongst other things, how other christian groups behave and what they believe. My exact example about Catholics who believe they are Christian whilst they believe that those around them in their own Catholic church are not, was directly from people who really believed this (much like there are Jews who also believe Jesus is the Messiah, but otherwise remain Judaistic Jews). Most other knowledge I have is from theological writers who identify themselves as Catholic, even to the point of having office in the Catholic church, and writers who have cause to discuss the image of the Catholic church in the wider society. Now, as to who are "christians" and who are not... in my experience, for most people I have spent time with who identify as "christian", it is not a daily concern as to whether they consider attendees of a catholic or orthodox church as "christian" or not. I couldn't even say whether most would say 'yes' or 'no' on the question: most of the time, it simply doesn't come up. But most such people I have known would include Catholics as part of the Christian Church, just in a "more distant cousin" kind of way. I have seen this slight differentiation cause problems. Note this requires the distinction made between being "christian" in belief and being an attendee of a Christian Church. Most Protestants I know and have known through the years will make such a distinction, as do I (usually), regardless of what others may do. OTOH, once the topic turns to church history, the Catholic church is always acknowledged as an irremovable part. In fact, "catholic" is nearly as old as "christian" and is applied by some to refer to all who call themselves "Christian". It is why the organisation based around the Pope is called the Roman Catholic Church so as to avoid ambiguity and perceived bias. Surely I don't need to remind you that the history of the Christian Church(s) is a highly complex story with many points-of-view. I also have not mentioned at all desires to kill Jews, as this is a topic in church history I feel I do not know enough about to comment on. I notice you have your discussion. Wade. Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers? A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.
Post #319,620 by crazy 1/6/10 8:56:36 AM Reply	Tada!
Post #319,617 by folkert 1/6/10 7:18:26 AM Reply	Its about faith, not belief. There is a difference. Faith does not require them to believe. It helps but is not required. Belief does require faith, as without it nothing would be believable.
Post #319,619 by crazy 1/6/10 8:52:10 AM Reply	Thanks

Welcome to IWETHEY!