If you like it, it's Christian. If not, it's Catholic.

[URA]

An interesting thing happens when people talk about different things in Christian History. Believers create hospitals & provide quality help for sick people without money? Hey, that's Christian! Believers put people on trial for beliefs that don't line up with the beliefs of the Church? Oh, those evil Catholics. The Crusades? Some people see the Crusades as a noble point in history, and see it as strong Christians fighting for what's right. Some people see the Crusades as a low point in history, and complain about the Catholic Church being corrupt.

Why this discrepancy? How are the same situations Catholic and not Catholic at the same time, changing only based on who you ask?

 

[Tree of Life]

The Catholic tradition is often misunderstood and can be treated unfairly, I'll give you that. Reformed Catholics ought to be much more Catholic than they are.

The trouble is that there's a difference between classical Catholicism and Roman Catholicism. Many of the innovations of Rome that the Reformers rejected (and the Roman Counter-Reformers also rejected) were introduced into the church during the Medieval era. Reformed Theology is Reformed Catholic theology and so may whole heartedly embrace the Catholic tradition while holding it up to the rule of Scripture in order to discard the innovations of Rome.

 

[tampasteve]

An interesting thing happens when people talk about different things in Christian History. Believers create hospitals & provide quality help for sick people without money? Hey, that's Christian! Believers put people on trial for beliefs that don't line up with the beliefs of the Church? Oh, those evil Catholics. The Crusades? Some people see the Crusades as a noble point in history, and see it as strong Christians fighting for what's right. Some people see the Crusades as a low point in history, and complain about the Catholic Church being corrupt.

Why this discrepancy? How are the same situations Catholic and not Catholic at the same time, changing only based on who you ask?

You are painting with much to broad, and also a small brush at the same time with the different examples. As for the Crusades - they were both. Sometimes it was devout people fighting for their faith and what they believed in. Other times it was scoundrels fighting other Christians and raping and pillaging and crucially weakening the Eastern Empire that helped its fall at the hands of Islam. Trials for beliefs? That happens on both sides of the divide, sadly.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Sometimes there are both good and bad aspects to a thing. And people often have entrenched ideas in the area of Catholic vs Protestant which I think can make them predisposed to accepting a particular explanation bias.

There's also a great deal of pseudo-history out there created solely to malign Catholicism, and that doesn't help. Not to mention Protestants often don't know what exactly it is that Catholics do believe and so they view them less favorably when trying to filter what they think they know about Catholics through their Protestant lenses. That last part probably goes both ways sometimes, except as far as I've seen, Catholics concern themselves much less with the perceived errors of Protestants - compared to how often Protestants concern themselves with the perceived errors of Catholics. That's probably to be expected too, seeing as how Protestantism came about as a reaction against various things within Catholicism. But like a snowball rolling downhill and becoming progressively larger, I think some of the later Protestant denominations continue to add more and more points of argument the further they become separated from the original Reformers.

 

[com7fy8]

hmmm

What label you use is not what really tells us anything. God knows.

There are wrong things which are called Christian, too.

 

[Albion]

An interesting thing happens when people talk about different things in Christian History. Believers create hospitals & provide quality help for sick people without money? Hey, that's Christian! Believers put people on trial for beliefs that don't line up with the beliefs of the Church? Oh, those evil Catholics.

Well, charity is admired and recommended by all Christian groups, right? But a heresy trial that focuses on a departure from Roman Catholic doctrines and is conducted by the church's own clergy is, by definition, about the Catholic Church, isn't it?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I think we can safely dismiss those who see in the history of the Catholic Church a history of nothing but evil. I find such a viewpoint obnoxious and hideously conceited, so will correct it whenever there's an unfair criticism. They likely won't be convinced but at that point, what more can be done except removing the dust off of your feet and moving on?

 

[concretecamper]

An interesting thing happens when people talk about different things in Christian History. Believers create hospitals & provide quality help for sick people without money? Hey, that's Christian! Believers put people on trial for beliefs that don't line up with the beliefs of the Church? Oh, those evil Catholics. The Crusades? Some people see the Crusades as a noble point in history, and see it as strong Christians fighting for what's right. Some people see the Crusades as a low point in history, and complain about the Catholic Church being corrupt.

Why this discrepancy? How are the same situations Catholic and not Catholic at the same time, changing only based on who you ask?

Many Catholics and most if not all protestants simply get it wrong. The Church is made up of sinners. The clergy and laity sometimes are at their best and sometimes at their worst. However, the Church is Holy. Holy only becasue of the participation with His sacrafice on the cross (something you can't get in protestantism).

 

[URA]

I think we can safely dismiss those who see in the history of the Catholic Church a history of nothing but evil. I find such a viewpoint obnoxious and hideously conceited, so will correct it whenever there's an unfair criticism. They likely won't be convinced but at that point, what more can be done except removing the dust off of your feet and moving on?

Prayer.

 

[URA]

You are painting with much to broad, and also a small brush at the same time with the different examples. As for the Crusades - they were both. Sometimes it was devout people fighting for their faith and what they believed in. Other times it was scoundrels fighting other Christians and raping and pillaging and crucially weakening the Eastern Empire that helped its fall at the hands of Islam. Trials for beliefs? That happens on both sides of the divide, sadly.

These were just a few examples of what people will like & say it's Christian, or dislike & say it's Catholic. The main point still stands.

 

[Circumcised_Heart]

An interesting thing happens when people talk about different things in Christian History. Believers create hospitals & provide quality help for sick people without money? Hey, that's Christian! Believers put people on trial for beliefs that don't line up with the beliefs of the Church? Oh, those evil Catholics. The Crusades? Some people see the Crusades as a noble point in history, and see it as strong Christians fighting for what's right. Some people see the Crusades as a low point in history, and complain about the Catholic Church being corrupt.

Why this discrepancy? How are the same situations Catholic and not Catholic at the same time, changing only based on who you ask?

I've seen this, and been guilty of it myself. The older I have become, the more I like the Catholics' stance on many issues (historical stances, not so much changes in the past 50 years).

I can never believe in salvation by works, but I think Catholicism has been quite wise in identifying paths and behaviors contrary to the gospel and overall well-being of man (which Protestants often accept, only to much later face the consequences).

 

[grasping the after wind]

Many Catholics and most if not all protestants simply get it wrong. The Church is made up of sinners. The clergy and laity sometimes are at their best and sometimes at their worst. However, the Church is Holy. Holy only becasue of the participation with His sacrafice on the cross (something you can get in protestantism).

I disagree that more Protestants get this wrong than Catholics. Having been on both sides of this fence, I can tell you that misconceptions about what the Church is and who makes up the Church are common but equally distributed.

 

[concretecamper]

I disagree that more Protestants get this wrong than Catholics

Considering there are wayyyyy more Catholics than protestants in the world, you may be right. I guess I was thinking more of a percentage of each group.

 

[concretecamper]

I can never believe in salvation by works

neither should any Catholic.

 

[Root of Jesse]

The Catholic tradition is often misunderstood and can be treated unfairly, I'll give you that. Reformed Catholics ought to be much more Catholic than they are.

The trouble is that there's a difference between classical Catholicism and Roman Catholicism. Many of the innovations of Rome that the Reformers rejected (and the Roman Counter-Reformers also rejected) were introduced into the church during the Medieval era. Reformed Theology is Reformed Catholic theology and so may whole heartedly embrace the Catholic tradition while holding it up to the rule of Scripture in order to discard the innovations of Rome.

What innovations of Rome were introduced into the church during the Medieval era? Warning: What individual Catholics do or say is of zero consequence, even if they're priests or bishops or those saying they speak in the name of the Church...
I'm just wondering what it is you're referring to...

 

[Root of Jesse]

You are painting with much to broad, and also a small brush at the same time with the different examples. As for the Crusades - they were both. Sometimes it was devout people fighting for their faith and what they believed in. Other times it was scoundrels fighting other Christians and raping and pillaging and crucially weakening the Eastern Empire that helped its fall at the hands of Islam. Trials for beliefs? That happens on both sides of the divide, sadly.

The institution of the Crusades, and the vast majority of their employment, was good and religious. How some people acted was not. The vast majority of those fighting the Crusades sold off land and other property in order to self-finance their involvement in the Crusades.
That's not to say there weren't politics involved.

 

[Tree of Life]

What innovations of Rome were introduced into the church during the Medieval era? Warning: What individual Catholics do or say is of zero consequence, even if they're priests or bishops or those saying they speak in the name of the Church...
I'm just wondering what it is you're referring to...

Here are a few Roman innovations from the Medieval era:

1. The whole penitential system of indulgences and purgatory
2. The primacy of Rome over the whole church and also over kings and princes
3. The robust monasticism that developed in the medieval era and the theology of the treasury of merit which came along with it (also connected to 1 above)
4. Thomist scholasticism, transubstantiation, and the propitiatory sacrifice of the mass

Rome still accepts all these innovations.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I've seen this, and been guilty of it myself. The older I have become, the more I like the Catholics' stance on many issues (historical stances, not so much changes in the past 50 years).

I can never believe in salvation by works, but I think Catholicism has been quite wise in identifying paths and behaviors contrary to the gospel and overall well-being of man (which Protestants often accept, only to much later face the consequences).

If you're referring to folks like Pelosi and Biden who say they're Catholic, yet promote abortion, that's not the Catholic stance...for that matter, many utterances of Pope Francis are not really Catholic. For your best most accurate understanding, the CCC is your best bet.

We don't believe in salvation by works, but in order to be a believer, we must serve the poor. The letter of St. James tells us “If a brother or sister has..no food for the day, and one of you says to them “Go in peace, keep warm and eat well’, but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it?”
Jesus Himself says that those who feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit prisoners, etc. will be separated from those who don't and then be welcomed into heaven. Our good work proceeds from our faith. Not the other way.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Here are a few Roman innovations from the Medieval era:

1. The whole penitential system of indulgences and purgatory

1. Are you saying it's an innovation that we must be penitent for our sins, and that we must pay for our sins before we enter heaven?

   [*]The primacy of Rome over the whole church and also over kings and princes

   Not an innovation over matters of faith and morals. Agreed that some popes overstepped their heavenly mandate into politics.

   [*]The robust monasticism that developed in the medieval era and the theology of the treasury of merit which came along with it (also connected to 1 above)
   [*]Thomist scholasticism, transubstantiation, and the propitiatory sacrifice of the mass

Rome still accepts all these innovations.

I don't see innovation in the last two either. Monasticism is simply the desire of some to serve the Church by secluding themselves from the world and living life through prayer. Scholasticism, etc, is simply a deeper understanding of what happens in our life of faith.

 

[Tree of Life]

I don't see innovation in the last two either. Monasticism is simply the desire of some to serve the Church by secluding themselves from the world and living life through prayer. Scholasticism, etc, is simply a deeper understanding of what happens in our life of faith.

I'm not surprised that you don't view them as innovations because Rome does not view them as innovations. But they are certainly not Catholic ideas in a temporal sense. They will not be found in the pre-medieval period.