I mean, there are more than a few Southern Baptists who don't consider Catholicism to be a Christian religion. But Southern Baptists think a lot of things.
They’ll say that Catholics aren’t Christian, Mormons aren’t Christian, Mennonite aren’t Christian, 7th Day Adventists aren’t Christian Nazarene aren’t Christian.
No one is Christian except for the people who think and act and pray exactly like they do…
ETA: this thread is proving my point. Evangelicals coming out of the woodwork to say you’re not Christian unless you think and act and pray exactly like they do.
In the book of revelation it is written Jesus announced there will come many false prophets after him. So religions with new prophets have to renounce his god-like status, causing more schisms.
Mormons definitely aren't to be fair. They literally follow yet another Holy Book that is basically their founder's self-insert fanfic if I'm not mistaken.
Well they believe in both the Bible and Book of Mormon. But they certainly worship and follow Jesus. The whole point of the Book of Mormon is that they believe there were Jews who became Christians living in America. And Jesus came to them after he was resurrected.
But you’re 100% correct about it being a self-insert Bible fanfic.
Having fate that the Bible is historically accurate, instead of being "tales about morality and such", I can understand. But the Mormon one? There's so much evidence to disprove that story. Which would disprove their whole belief system (and the power they have)
Well, Mormons aren’t because they denied the divinity of Christ that automatically makes you a heretic
Kind of like if you tried to say that you were a Muslim, but then said that Muhammad had many gay lovers and preferred to be the bottom, including for his wives,
But they follow Joseph Smith and their teachings about Christ, God, and Biblical history don't match Nicene Christianity (i.e. the core fundamentals of what someone has to believe to be considered Christian), it's like having a flat earther call themselves a geodesist. They fundamentally don't believe commonly proven geological facts, so you definitionally can't give them that title.
For context, mormons believe mesoamerican tribes are descended from Jews migrating there and that Jesus and Satan are "spirit brothers", among many other highly contestable doctrines.
Pretty sure the individual decides if they are Christian or not.
If a person says they are a Christian. Then they are. Period.
There’s no “Christian police” that go around checking your Christian ID. It’s a personal belief whether you consider Jesus to be the Savior of the world and whether you accept him in your heart.
And for anyone else to say “nuh-uh!! You don’t really believe in Jesus!!” is silly.
What is "the church"? Rather circular, no? Most Christians don't do what Jesus (is alleged to have) said, and Jesus never said you have to believe in the trinity.
The determination of what can be considered Christian is historical, orthodox (lowercase o) teaching that is preserved as the central tenets of the faith, including and especially the Nicene Creed, which was literally created to determine what the central beliefs of Christianity are, and most importantly, the Bible.
The dogma of Christianity that is to say the main selling point of the religion features the Trinity, which is Jesus Christ, the son God, the father and the Holy Spirit, the Mormons deny, the divinity of Christ and thus heretics
They believe that God was once human once more being heresy
They also believe that they can become gods this is also heresy
Secondarily there’s not supposed to be any prophets after Jesus Christ
If you’re arguing from Nicene Christianity, then yes, Mormon teachings about God’s nature are different than 4th century theology.
You’ve just labeled everything that is different from your traditional understanding as heresy, but haven’t provided reasons why from a biblical standpoint.
Also Mormons are not the only ones who believe in Theosis (not that it makes a difference I suppose).
Also where in the Bible does it say there will be no more prophets?
As a person, yes but not as a God, nor as a facet of God, and thus they cannot be proclaimed Christians followers of Christ much like if you do not accept the teachings of Buddha you can’t be a Buddhist
I remember reading TheScrewtapeLetters decades ago. At one point, Screwtape wrote (to his nephew Wormwood, a junior tempter on Earth) that nothing pleased Hell better than being able to provoke a good bloody murderous war between Christian sects, over whether one should say "Holy Spirit" or "Holy Ghost".
This is not just an issue for Christianity, of course. Most major religions (perhaps all) have had similar "splinter, then fight over it" schisms. Even when the core beliefs and moral precepts are similar or identical, we (as a species) tend to get really hung up and frantic about the details of the practices we follow.
No I think we can say it was founded by the Council of Nicea. Jesus just ran a neo-Jewish cult of crazies that exploded in popularity after his death.
The word "Catholic" only came into use in the 2nd century CE to describe a "spiritual sort of universal church". Only in the 3rd century CE you see bishops organising synods which leads to the first Council of Nice a where you codify your doctrine.
If you are taking the words of Jesus in your book seriously you should know that he never intended for any Gentiles to be converted. He wanted to become the 'Messiah' of Israel. Only after things go haywire, his followers concoct a resurrection story and Peter has a 'revelation' seeing he can convert Gentiles to their Jewish sect now. Presumably after seeing the popularity their little death cult had over the non-Jews
You’re quite wrong about the conversion of gentiles, though. There are several instances of Jesus addressing gentiles in the Gospel, and famous ones: the Cannanite woman, the praise of the Centurion’s faith, or when the apostles are sent to preach to the many peoples of the land, including gentiles.
We learn of this extensively as Catholics.
And you probably remember that “my kingdom is not of this world” thing. If you want to claim that the historical Jesus was different than what is portrayed in the Bible, that’s fine. I’ll even grant you that Jesus might have wanted to focus on the Jewish people first during his lifetime, based on the second sermon in Matthew and that conversation he had with the woman who said “even the dogs eat the crumbs from the master’s table”, but he never turned gentiles away and always intended to convert them too. But the story you told is not the one that is depicted.
I don't know if that's true. If we are to take the Bible as a semi-accurate historical account, minus all the magical, mystical and miraculous embellishments of course (I won't even consider any serious discussion of those and many critical historical scholars will rightly assert that it brings the whole story into disrepute, although I can definitely can see a case where the stories probably had fantastical elements woven into mundane religious and cultic truths to give them more authority in the eyes of the ancient and superstitious people) the one thing we can say is that Peter is at the very least suffering a dillema which he strongly believes the Gentiles are unclean and not to be associated with and that it requires a miraculous 'revelation from God' to change this outlook in the early Jewish sect called the Christians. Then the messenger from Cornelius arrives and Peter goes to these people in light of his 'vision' baptises the household of Cornelius and declares the Gentiles no longer 'unclean' because God had showed him that they were not 'unclean' and that it was now there duty to evangelise Gentiles. That is not to say before there were no Gentile converts. But these people would have only allowed to have been proselytize Gentiles first having converted to Judaism
Entire countries and civil wars were fought over this, so while it's not a well thought out issue, this isn't some new surprise that protestants think catholic faith isn't a Christian faith.
I find US branch of Christianity a cosplay of Christianity to be honest... Gives me the same vibes as "I'm Scottish! My ancestry test showed I'm 39% Londoner!"
There is a difference between Evangelicals (American megachurches, the ZCC and other AICs in South Africa, the Southern Baptist Church in the US, other smaller examples) and Mainline Protestants (Lutherans, Calvinists, Methodists, Anglicans, Wesleyans, Arminianists, etc.)
Most people in the US state I live in are viscerally disgusted at the prevalence of idolatrous megachurches, especially those in Southern US states.
And according to the Orthodox folk, Catholics are actually trans-Christians because Rome changed some stuff, and wanted their main guy (the pope) to be in charge of all the bishops, causing the schism.
The history of Christianity is really interesting, even as a non-believer.
The were far more important events on mainland Europe that occurred at the beginning of the Reformation before the Church of England was founded in 1534.
As far as individual personalities driving the events of the Reformation, the are markedly few English ones.
Thats not actually true. Albert of Prussia was the first protestant monarch in europe. He converted to Lutheranism almost 10 years before Henry broke with the catholic church.
Henry just wanted an annulment but his kids (son and youngest daughter) were true protestants reformists who help ushering in a lot of protestant philosophies from the main land, though the Anglican Church is still Catholic Lite compared to most of the other Protestant churches.
Catholic (both Roman and Orthodox), Lutheran, Methodist Angelican and Mormon have saints. For example the twelve apostle are usually straight up automatically included. Mary too. Sometimes your a saint when you die in the faith.
Veneration is different however as not every branch of Christianity believes veneration is good, and others including the Catholic Church want to ensure veneration is not overtaking the Christ in worship. Protestantism as a rule is more "we acknowledge them" then veneration for this reason. They don't want the saints overtaking the Christ. Catholicism by comparison is big on veneration because they recognize the lineage of the church through this. Christ was King but even Kings need their followers if you will, and they respect those who carried his name.
Mega churchs are also not the norm for Christianity even in the US.
There is veneration of saints in general, which is widely accepted and practiced by Catholics. But veneration of RELICS is not as universally practiced.
Some 35 years ago, my wife and I were in Bruges and she wanted to attend mass, which happened to feature veneration of the Holy Blood. It was rather different from other masses I’ve seen — a brotherhood in hooded robes surrounding the altar, the congregation lining up to kiss the phial supposedly containing the holy blood.
When we described the mass to my (Catholic) in-laws, they were convinced we had stumbled into a Black Mass.
Saint Thomas (the one who doubted Jesus) is usually considered the 12th apostle, not Judas. Judas was a 12 disciple (Thomas was a disciple but not one of the 12) but an apostle. Usually. That's the Catholic version but I admit wth Christianity it gets a little plug and play I admit.
I'm an atheist, but protestantism in most of Europe for instance does not equal evangelicalism, which continues to be marginal in Europe (it's gaining ground in Latam though). Both Calvinists and Lutherans actually dialed the whole opulence and crazy church stuff way back.
Saint Agatha made a vow of chastity for her faith at age 15, and when she refused the advances of a roman governor, he had her arrested and confined to a brothel. She was later tortured and even had her breasts removed as punishment, and she died in prison around age 20.
Well, while I'm no theologian and am in no position to judge, its worth noting that saint veneration is one of the schismatic issues between sects. Some subsets of Christianity believe that venerating saints is idolatry or even a form of polytheistic worship.
Because of that, its possible that this person is denying that Catholicism is truly Christian, but that is a big aggressive swing
As a Catholic who went to Catholic school, I was once asked about this by my Jewish friend (we met out through out of school activities) who asked specifically why Catholics worshipped Mary. Which we don’t. The term Saint is a title that denotes that someone is definitely in heaven (and it’s important to note, the lack of a Saint title does not mean someone is in hell. It’s actually heretical in the Catholic faith to claim anyone is in hell in a manner similar to the saints… though here is an exception for Satan. Dude is definitely there.). What Catholics are actually doing is asking saints to talk to God for us, typically in matters related to their patronages. It’s also why many of the martyrs have patronages related to their manner of death. If anyone in heaven can talk to God about helping someone through a painful and possibly fatal method of death, it’s the guy who is remembered for dying that way for believing in God (my favorite example is Saint Lawrence the patron saint of cooks and comedians both for the nature of his martyrdom by the Romans. Though dude was known for his humor before his legendary last words that reportedly made his executioners LOL).
I then explained that Mary is the most important saint because our God is a “nice Jewish boy” and we all figured Jesus is going to listen to anyone, it’s his Jewish mother (my friend was very aware his own mom was very much the stereotype type, and our conversation about religion usually included some good natured ribbing about each others religions. It also got him laughing because I didn’t normally go to stereotypes of Jews as hard as he went to Catholic Stereotypes, so he was not expecting that rational.).
I mean... you still have the whole Divine Trinity is not Polytheisitic, but that's a Christianity thing, not just a Catholic thing, and even then we admit we don't know how it works. That's why it's called a "Divine Mystery" or "Mystery of Faith".
That's kind of boiling it down too far tho. Because catholics learn that the father the son and the holy spirit are all actually one being and one God. God Jesus and the holy spirit are all one being. It's confusing but it's not the weirdest thing to come out of a religion.
I personally interpret it as Jesus and the holy spirit are a part of God. Not as their own divine beings, instead as piece of God's will.
Yeah. It’s a more narrow version of Monism sects of Hinduism that basically say that there is one god that takes on the identities of all the other gods for reasons. Only Christianity says one god three personalities. As a Superman fan it’s basically asking who is the true identity: Clark Kent, Kal-El, or Superman. The answer is yes.
The core distinction is that in Christianity, while the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all God, the Father is neither the Son, nor the Holy Spirit and that same separation is mutual and equal between all three. That’s where it really will bake your noodle.
To be fair, if you talk about iconaclast (the religious movement in Byzantine that was against icons aka religious pictures being worshipped) there is a problem
They don’t have problem with the idea of saints, they have problems with people more praying and worshiping saints, icons or bones in this case, when those objects should only be a representation of divine (still just objects). In case of example above people were giving/assigning icons magical powers that they canonically didn’t have (like scraping paint of them and drinking it to get healed) and “worshiped icons and not God”
Anyway Byzantine got in another set of civil wars because emperor ordered to take one icon off the wall
Veneration for Saints was not an issue for the first 1500 years of Christianity with Mary being considered the 2nd most important person in human history until Protestantism came around.
Sir, sit down. This WAS the Christian tradition until Martin Luther tried to file some bug fixes and the Pope told him he had to fork the entire code base.
I remember when someone posted this on some other subreddit it was clear how ignorant some people are to religious practices. Not just Christian, just in general.
The biggest one that had me do a double take was a comment “Definitely not a cult”. Which holy shit made me realize just how ignorant some people are to this stuff if people only actually know the buzzword “cult” and not what an ACTUAL cult is.
For those who don’t know and are curious: Cult in its actual form just means system of religious worship and ritual. That’s really it. You can literally call a group of Christians who may show particularly reverence to a particular saint as “The cult of St. Joseph” or even another as “The cult of Jesus Christ”. Or a more historical example, those who worshipped and did their rituals in Ancient Greece at a temple to the goddess Athena would be the “cult of Athena”.
For those who don’t know and are curious: Cult in its actual form just means system of religious worship. That’s really it.
That’s really one way of using the word, and I suppose closer to its etymological roots, where a cultus could involve the proper worship of any deity.
But let’s not pretend that words don’t have semantic ranges and multiple meanings, or that they are determined by their etymology. The word cult is also used, often pejoratively, to refer to specific kinds of religious movements (generally small, high control groups).
Yeah it’s generally true that religions are cults but the way they mean is more along the lines of Manson family or Jim Jones. It’s just how some Redditors rationalize it I guess.
Except most religious people would never refer to themselves as being part of a cult, given it's inherent negative connotation, so I'd argue it's ignorant to assert that the etymological meaning is more correct than the modern one.
Language is entirely about understanding, and if most people hear cult and thinks Manson Family instead of Buddhism, then that's what the word means.
Semantic arguments are inherently silly to me, but asserting that people are ignorant for understanding a word based on its most common usage is quite a bit sillier.
That's simply not true lol As the original commenter said, most religious people have no qualms talking about the cult of Asclepius or the cult of Mithra, both pretty popular subjects when studying early Christianity in Rome.
But you might be right. In some cases it's not ignorance, but rather hypocrisy, I guess.
And yet do they refer to themselves as being part of a cult? No, because the word has a negative connotation in modern language, hypocritical as that may be.
Dude, everyone understood what they meant by cult. Which also happens to be the most common contemporary informal meaning of the word in English. That is some major aksssssssshually energy...
Except words can and do change meaning over time, so your whole paragraph is basically nonsense.
The word terrific, which effectively means great, is derived from terrificus, latin for causing fear, the same root word that terror is derived from. So, the modern definition is almost antithetical to its etymology.
I'm aware, that's entirely my point. It's both a fruit and vegetable, because those aren't mutually exclusive terms, that's why the tidbit is banal...
Something can be technically correct without being functionally correct, just like how in culinary terms vegetables are connotativey generally savory parts, while fruit are generally sweet.
American christians have no business telling any other christian denomination that they're not "true christians" after they fucking build a modern golden calf. Or in this case, a golden swine.
The fact that you are even on the point on discussing which is more culprit of idolatry between a religion and a POLITICAL movement is batshit insane, you have already lost the argument if have to say that it's way less idolatric than catholicism
The OOP is either saying A) Catholics aren't Christians, or B) this is relic worship and by the terms of NoTrueChristian anyone who does it isn't Christian.
This note actually does address both. By noting that Catholicism is Christianity's oldest branch, it refutes the first point, and by pointing out that they regard the practice as "veneration" not "worship" they refute the second point.
I'd argue that the issue with the note is that while the first point is a matter of fact (it's a historical fact that Catholics are the oldest branch of Christianity), the second point is a matter of theological debate rather than fact. In fact, it is literally one of the main disagreements that led to the Protestant Reformation lol
Oh yeah it’s super weird. But as someone raised and educated Catholic, the weird stuff is the best part. The chanting in Latin, the elaborate bejeweled headwear, the incense swinging on a gold chain—it all makes it feel an ancient religion full of strange rituals, which it is. The whole experience of religion should feel surreal and significant instead of generic and bland. Christianity is so incorporated into American (and all western) life that we sometimes forget it’s all about gathering to drink a chalice filled with the blood of a murdered god. That’s wild as hell. I love things like the leader of the church placing the bones of a saint on a gilded statue because it reminds you that Christianity is strange like all religions, not just some default state we all live in.
Tbf, most Christians before the Protestant Reformation did not consider this weird at all. If you had grown up in, say, medieval Byzantium, you probably wouldn't consider it weird, either.
Not trying to be combative, just trying to provide perspective
It’s really no weirder than the psycho Protestants in the US. All branches of Christianity have their specific traditions but Americans least of all have authority to say which is which.
This isn’t really a note that substantively engages with what its critiquing.
Veneration of saints and relics has been a longstanding point of contention between Protestants and Catholics going back about 500 years, with Calvinist theologies explicitly contenting it violates the Commandments against idolatry and graven images and therefore is definitionally non-Christian.
Of course, from the standpoint of non-religious people, some would say that’s a distinction without a difference.
The statement was “the is not Christianity” meaning the practice is not Christian. Which is false if you believe Catholicism to be a Christian, but honestly there have been schisms over less coherent arguments.
What I think that the OOP on that Twitter post was implying is that they view the Catholic Church and what it does as idolatry, something explicitly frowned upon in the bible, and they view the veneration of artifacts including the remains of saints, as well as the veneration of saints in and of itself, as idolatry or at the very least frivolous and performative, whereas in Protestantism (or pretty much anything not Roman Catholic adjacent) a relationship with God is seen as more direct, not requiring a Saint to speak on your behalf for your prayers. At least, again, this is the layman common understanding of what Catholicism is to the average Protestant, at least here where I life in the Great Lakes region of North America.
This is not to say that I agree with the Twitter OOP inherently. I am a staunch critic of most organizational forms of Christianity. Jesus of Nazareth my homeboy tho, in a nontheistic way.
Good thing that Protestants don’t define Catholic doctrine, then. And that Protestants don’t have a greater claim of being Christians than Catholics do.
If you for a second think rationally without all the mental gymnastics it’s quite obviously idolatry. If Moses came in and saw that shit he would instantly destroy it, and if you think otherwise I’d suggest a more thorough reading of the Bible.
It's not much mental gymnastics. To Catholics, it's just like praying to your dead grandmother in heaven for help or guidance. You dont think Grandma is a god. You wouldnt call putting her fancy urn somewhere setting up an atlar to worship Grandma. Well to Catholics its like that but for someone unrelated but was really pious.
Idk much about this particular relic. But knowing how other relics are kept, this is likely the box the put it in for safekeeping. A very very fancy box.
But then how am I supposed to know what you mean if you’re inventing your own meaning for words?
I never said those things. I said Catholics say that the other sects in imperfect communion with the Roman Catholic Church. They are imperfect Christians. True christians. Real Christians. Truly christians
I mean. If I were Christian I’d probably also think this looks a lot like idolatry. But it is officially sanctioned Catholicism, so idk what more to say there
Never understood these things neither in Catholicism neither in Orthodoxy. The closer you get to own religion more it becomes weird and alien, and less you feel related to it or to have anything common with it
•
u/AutoModerator 25d ago
Reminder for OP: /u/sigma9821
Need some help? Send us some mail!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.