ShiningIce
3rd Level Green Feather
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2002
- Messages
- 4,704
- Points
- 36
Can someone give a brief summary of the history of animosity between catholics and protestants in this country?
-
If you would like to get your account Verified, read this thread -
Check out Tickling.com - the most innovative tickling site of the year. -
The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us. -
>>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
Don't forget to include your username
The Wrong Side of The Cross
- Thread starter ShiningIce
- Start date
TklDuo-Ann
2nd Level Black Feather
- Joined
- May 21, 2003
- Messages
- 8,389
- Points
- 0
It's not just in this country. It's world wide. It all comes down to different interpretations of Scriptural details and some misunderstandings about what the others truly believe/teach. Things are actually improving as ecumenism spreads and real diologue occurs.
Ann
Ann
Cokecan
TMF Expert
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2002
- Messages
- 435
- Points
- 0
Oh my. This is one of my favourite topics. I've studied the era of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation (1520ish to about 1560) somewhat more than a normal person should, so here's my explanation of the "roots":
In 1517, Martin Luther, a minor parish priest, affixes a document to the door of a Catholic church protesting the sale of Papal "indulgences" - literally, a "Get out of Purgatory Free" card. People buy a papal indulgence, which supposedly forgives a number of mortal sins, and hence they get in to Heaven quicker. Luther is apalled by this practice, hence the posting of his "95 Theses" to the door. The Catholic Church, run by the Papacy, natrually does not want this lucrative source of income to disappear, and tells him to recant his theses or face "the consequences". Luther tells them to get bent.
Normally this would have been swept under the rug and Luther assigned to preaching in say, northern Finland, but for one small issue - the printing press. This fresh new invention spread the 95 Theses, and other Reformation documents like wildfire.
The newly elected Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, finally gets around to summoning Luther before the Imperal Diet, and brands him a heretic. Luther disappears and his reforms take root in what is currently Germany.
Charles, using the might of the Holy Roman Imperial Army, could have quelled this early, but his attentions became distracted elsewhere - between the ambitions of the French King (who was miffed he wasn't elected Emperor) and the Ottoman Turks (whose Sultan wanted Vienna - badly).
By the time Charles puts down the threats from France and the Turks, Germany is too far gone to reconcile peacefully. The Germans (well, Germany was just a loose confederation of city states right now, but let's call them Germany for the sake of simplicity) realize they need allies. They attempt to make deals with England, the Turks .. anyone who can prevent Charles from openly invading them and forcing a reconversion to Catholicism by swordpoint. From this point on, Protestants and Cathiolics trust each other about as far as they can throw them.
The Pope, fearing Protestantism spreading to every corner of Europe, founds the Jesuit Order. Missionaries who are sent out to reconvert places "lost" to Protestantism. Many missionaries on both sides of the debate are burned at the stake.
Finally, Charles retires as Emperor, defeated by his inability to protect the Empire. He signs a treaty which recognizes Protestantism (in is various forms - Lutheranism, Calvinism, etc etc). The Pope is naturally furious. The Pope does not sign such a treaty.
And so it goes. For centuries both sides hated each other with a passion. Still do in some places. My father's mother hated the fact he married an Anglican.
(Interesting side note about Anglicanism - that's not even real "Protestantism, it was a religion invented so Henry VIII could get a divorce .. it's basically Catholicism with divorce!)
Hope this provides a bit of background.
In 1517, Martin Luther, a minor parish priest, affixes a document to the door of a Catholic church protesting the sale of Papal "indulgences" - literally, a "Get out of Purgatory Free" card. People buy a papal indulgence, which supposedly forgives a number of mortal sins, and hence they get in to Heaven quicker. Luther is apalled by this practice, hence the posting of his "95 Theses" to the door. The Catholic Church, run by the Papacy, natrually does not want this lucrative source of income to disappear, and tells him to recant his theses or face "the consequences". Luther tells them to get bent.
Normally this would have been swept under the rug and Luther assigned to preaching in say, northern Finland, but for one small issue - the printing press. This fresh new invention spread the 95 Theses, and other Reformation documents like wildfire.
The newly elected Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, finally gets around to summoning Luther before the Imperal Diet, and brands him a heretic. Luther disappears and his reforms take root in what is currently Germany.
Charles, using the might of the Holy Roman Imperial Army, could have quelled this early, but his attentions became distracted elsewhere - between the ambitions of the French King (who was miffed he wasn't elected Emperor) and the Ottoman Turks (whose Sultan wanted Vienna - badly).
By the time Charles puts down the threats from France and the Turks, Germany is too far gone to reconcile peacefully. The Germans (well, Germany was just a loose confederation of city states right now, but let's call them Germany for the sake of simplicity) realize they need allies. They attempt to make deals with England, the Turks .. anyone who can prevent Charles from openly invading them and forcing a reconversion to Catholicism by swordpoint. From this point on, Protestants and Cathiolics trust each other about as far as they can throw them.
The Pope, fearing Protestantism spreading to every corner of Europe, founds the Jesuit Order. Missionaries who are sent out to reconvert places "lost" to Protestantism. Many missionaries on both sides of the debate are burned at the stake.
Finally, Charles retires as Emperor, defeated by his inability to protect the Empire. He signs a treaty which recognizes Protestantism (in is various forms - Lutheranism, Calvinism, etc etc). The Pope is naturally furious. The Pope does not sign such a treaty.
And so it goes. For centuries both sides hated each other with a passion. Still do in some places. My father's mother hated the fact he married an Anglican.
(Interesting side note about Anglicanism - that's not even real "Protestantism, it was a religion invented so Henry VIII could get a divorce .. it's basically Catholicism with divorce!)
Hope this provides a bit of background.
Old story, Mark 11:15-thru-18
Later story,,, quite similar,,, many paralells,,,
Martin Luther: considered just a silly noise maker until,,,
He suggested that the tithe need not be specifically directed toward the single authoritarian extant bureaucracy of that day.
No problems before then. After that assertion, he was a dangerous man, heretic, and so on.
Money flow. That's the root of the problem.
Later story,,, quite similar,,, many paralells,,,
Martin Luther: considered just a silly noise maker until,,,
He suggested that the tithe need not be specifically directed toward the single authoritarian extant bureaucracy of that day.
No problems before then. After that assertion, he was a dangerous man, heretic, and so on.
Money flow. That's the root of the problem.
TklDuo-Ann
2nd Level Black Feather
- Joined
- May 21, 2003
- Messages
- 8,389
- Points
- 0
LOL Well, some of the details aren't quite there. But, basicly that's correct. For the record, there was a LOT of corruption in the Church at that time. Bishops were chosen for their political power/influence rather than their spiritual life and ability to lead the people. The Church horded riches while people starved. There was plenty of corruption. So, some of Luther's protests were valid. However, there was never a true theological arguement.
The problems were centered in popular practices, many of which were based on superstition. There were no contradictions to official Church teaching...which, btw did not support the practice of paying for indulgences. Had he done as St. Francis did and battle the wrongs from within, there never would have been a split. On his death bed, Luther actually asked for a priest so he could confess the sin of what he had done. He recognized that he went about things the wrong way. I guess the situations that have arisen since prove the truth of the Scripture that the sins of the father are visitted upon his children for generations to come. Everything has a way of trickling down.
Does the idea of indulgences still exist? Yes. But, no where near the way it used to be. Today, gaining an indulgence is a matter of prayer and repentance. Rather than being seen (as was stated above) as a "get out of purgatory free card", it works the other way around. You don't pay in order to gain the indulgence. The spiritual good that's accomplished in those things required to gain an indulgence is simply recognized as such. VERY few people would be seen as gaining an full plenary indulgence according to the guidelines today simply because the firm resolve to avoid sin doesn't exist in most people. We're too used to doing what we want.
The biggest current differences between Catholics and other Christians today center around the Eucharist and the cross.
Catholics, and some other Christians, believe that the Eucharist is truly Jesus, while others see it as a symbol. The term for what we Catholics believe is called transubstantiation...the bread and wine, while remaining the same in appearance, actually becomes Jesus flesh and blood in reality. Some Christians believe this. Others believe in consubstantiation...the substance of bread and wine remain at the same time while Jesus body and blood become spiritually present in it. Still others believe that this is merely a symbolic reenactment of the last supper and that the reason for doing so is to obey Jesus request to "Do this in memory of me."
The other difference is that Catholics tend to portray Jesus on the cross rather than having a bare cross. Nearly all other Christians prefer a bare cross. Contrary to popular opinion (and sometimes teaching among anti-Catholic clerics), this is not because we picture Jesus as still dead. It is because we want to remember the horror of what He suffered in order to more fully appreciate the greatness of His gift to us. We recognize that He conquered death and is risen. It isn't a reason to mourn. It's one to celebrate and give Him praise for. (This is also why many Catholics prefer a more graphic depiction to a cleaned up image.)
There are many other little things that get thrown into the mix. But, these are the main theological differences that remain. Thankfully, the spread of ecumenism is closing many of the gaps and the various communities are coming to realize that there's MUCH more to bind us together than there is to seperate us.
Ann
The problems were centered in popular practices, many of which were based on superstition. There were no contradictions to official Church teaching...which, btw did not support the practice of paying for indulgences. Had he done as St. Francis did and battle the wrongs from within, there never would have been a split. On his death bed, Luther actually asked for a priest so he could confess the sin of what he had done. He recognized that he went about things the wrong way. I guess the situations that have arisen since prove the truth of the Scripture that the sins of the father are visitted upon his children for generations to come. Everything has a way of trickling down.
Does the idea of indulgences still exist? Yes. But, no where near the way it used to be. Today, gaining an indulgence is a matter of prayer and repentance. Rather than being seen (as was stated above) as a "get out of purgatory free card", it works the other way around. You don't pay in order to gain the indulgence. The spiritual good that's accomplished in those things required to gain an indulgence is simply recognized as such. VERY few people would be seen as gaining an full plenary indulgence according to the guidelines today simply because the firm resolve to avoid sin doesn't exist in most people. We're too used to doing what we want.
The biggest current differences between Catholics and other Christians today center around the Eucharist and the cross.
Catholics, and some other Christians, believe that the Eucharist is truly Jesus, while others see it as a symbol. The term for what we Catholics believe is called transubstantiation...the bread and wine, while remaining the same in appearance, actually becomes Jesus flesh and blood in reality. Some Christians believe this. Others believe in consubstantiation...the substance of bread and wine remain at the same time while Jesus body and blood become spiritually present in it. Still others believe that this is merely a symbolic reenactment of the last supper and that the reason for doing so is to obey Jesus request to "Do this in memory of me."
The other difference is that Catholics tend to portray Jesus on the cross rather than having a bare cross. Nearly all other Christians prefer a bare cross. Contrary to popular opinion (and sometimes teaching among anti-Catholic clerics), this is not because we picture Jesus as still dead. It is because we want to remember the horror of what He suffered in order to more fully appreciate the greatness of His gift to us. We recognize that He conquered death and is risen. It isn't a reason to mourn. It's one to celebrate and give Him praise for. (This is also why many Catholics prefer a more graphic depiction to a cleaned up image.)
There are many other little things that get thrown into the mix. But, these are the main theological differences that remain. Thankfully, the spread of ecumenism is closing many of the gaps and the various communities are coming to realize that there's MUCH more to bind us together than there is to seperate us.
Ann
Knox The Hatter
2nd Level Indigo Feather
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2003
- Messages
- 6,352
- Points
- 0
Tensions and violence exacerbated in the mid nineteenth century by overwhelming immigration of Catholics from Ireland, then in the middle of the potato famine, and in the German states, then undergoing political and social upheavals. It got as far as a third political party gaining great popularity for a short time, based on Anti-Catholic sentiment. In those days, for all intents and purposes, being anti-Catholic meant anti-Irish.
WraithTickler
TMF Expert
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2003
- Messages
- 342
- Points
- 0
With in the United States, anti Catholic animosity didn't really arise as an issue until the later half of the 19th century, mostly characterized by a strong reaction to a wave of Irish immigrants. The country was predominately protestant since the outset, with relgion officiallly established under the Anglican or Episcopal faith since the colonies. Other religions came and settled- Quakers, Puritans, etc. all to some degree protestant.
The anti immigrant anti progressive movements around the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries show the highlights of the conflict between the two in this country. The free masons, which ended up invoking the wrath of anti masonry parties were anti Catholic, and later the KKK, which was actually in vogue around the early part of the last century believed it upheld the protestant ideals on which it held the country to be founded by persecuting Catholics along with other minority groups.
There was a serious contender for president in 1928- Al Smith, who faced an uphill battle because of his openness about being Catholic. He ended up loosing to Herbert Hoover. Probably the biggest sign of acceptance was the election of JFK as president, which shocked many showing a Catholic could become president.
I remember not to long ago I ended up in a debate with a reborn Christian from down south who claimed that Catholics were not Christians and were worshipping Mary, etc.. As a Catholic, I found myself a bit offended and managed to make somehead way into correcting that, though I gathered there were many more people sharing his attitude where he came from, meaning the contention between the two is not entirely resolved.
The anti immigrant anti progressive movements around the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries show the highlights of the conflict between the two in this country. The free masons, which ended up invoking the wrath of anti masonry parties were anti Catholic, and later the KKK, which was actually in vogue around the early part of the last century believed it upheld the protestant ideals on which it held the country to be founded by persecuting Catholics along with other minority groups.
There was a serious contender for president in 1928- Al Smith, who faced an uphill battle because of his openness about being Catholic. He ended up loosing to Herbert Hoover. Probably the biggest sign of acceptance was the election of JFK as president, which shocked many showing a Catholic could become president.
I remember not to long ago I ended up in a debate with a reborn Christian from down south who claimed that Catholics were not Christians and were worshipping Mary, etc.. As a Catholic, I found myself a bit offended and managed to make somehead way into correcting that, though I gathered there were many more people sharing his attitude where he came from, meaning the contention between the two is not entirely resolved.
The bit about the worship of Mary is a good one. When I was writing about Scott's website that was one of the things he rants about the most; that protestants see Mary as the block between the two, instead of the bridge. If you take the stories literally, I've never seen anything that describes Mary as anything other than the human woman whose body was used as a bridge between heaven and earth, for Christ to enter.
Actually though, I do remember a passage somewhere that had an angel address her as "...beloved daughter of heaven" or somesuch. Can't remember which one though. Ann, any details?
Actually though, I do remember a passage somewhere that had an angel address her as "...beloved daughter of heaven" or somesuch. Can't remember which one though. Ann, any details?
Mary's rank in the Church was elevated when early missionaries set out to convert regions with goddess-based religions. "You can't believe in a male God? Well we have a female too - here's his Mom!" She was a tool used to sell Christianity to pagans. Prior to that she was a convenience used to establish Christ as a descendant of David in fulfillment of prophecy. The missionaries' efforts account for the Mary-worship today in countries like Ireland, for one example. And yes, I know, it's not worship, it's reverence etc. but terms like "Queen of Heaven" are understandably confusing to non-Catholics. There are lots of churches dedicated to saints - what Lutheran has not attended a St. Paul's - but all the Catholic churches I've been in have had depictions of Mary and devotions to her. People not raised in the Catholic faith are hard pressed to see how this doesn't amount to worship.
TklDuo-Ann
2nd Level Black Feather
- Joined
- May 21, 2003
- Messages
- 8,389
- Points
- 0
BigJim said:
There are many references like this in Scripture. If my concordance wasn't already packed, I'd look up some of the others for ya. 😉 These need to remain in context in order to be properly understood. They simply recognize and honor her for her obedience and selflessness. Many passages also address her in terms of her role in Jesus life/ministry. Most of the prayers we use are simply echos of that. For instance, the Hail Mary is half Scripture quote...
Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with you.
This is a quote of the angels words to Mary when he announced that she was to be the mother of Jesus.
Blessed are you amoung women. And blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus.
This echos Mary's own words in the Magnificat, where she praises the Lord and recognizes the greatness of what He's done in her.
The rest of the prayer, Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. is a request that she pray for us.
There are plenty of things like this that others see and don't really listen to or understand. A lot of the remaining seperation comes from that lack of understanding. Dialogue is the key here. If we would all give up the right to be right and actually LISTEN to one another, we'd find that there really aren't many differences that truly exist in what we believe...just in the way we express it.
As for inklings comments about devotions to Mary...It's very difficult to explain something that one doesn't believe in. So, I'm not surprised that this is way off base. It's difficult enough for many of those who DO believe. But, let me address a couple of points here.
First of all, Mary's position was never elevated to present her in any way as a goddess. That's entirely false. AFA convenience in descendency...it doesn't appear that you believe Jesus to be the Christ. So, I won't bother debating that, lest I offend. Suffice it to say that I happen to believe that He is. "For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe, no explanation is possible."
Second, there IS a problem with the perception of devotions being more than they are. One of the easiest ways I've found to help folks understand how we see Our Lady and the saints is to ask them who they turn to when they need prayer. Nearly every Christian I've ever met recognizes the importance of calling on one another to pray and interdcede in times of need. We're actually commanded to do so in Scripture...because God knows that we need one another and Him in these times and wants us to come to Him.
Our devotion towards Mary and the saints is simply that. We are asking for their intercession. The reason for asking them to pray for us (rather than only those who are still present in the flesh) is because we recognize that the things of the world are now out of their way so that their prayer can be more pure/focussed. I'm sure most of us who pray can recall at least one time when someone asked from prayer and we forgot or got busy and didn't pray until later. Those already with the Lord in heaven (that great cloud of witnesses refered to in Scripture) don't have memory lapses or things to interfere. So, they join anyone else we may ask.
Ann
Not a matter of faith, but of fact:
It was essential to establish Christ as a descendant of the house of David in order to fulfill prophecies about the coming Redeemer and Savior. "The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne.....I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely."(Psalms 132:11 and Jeremiah 23:5-6) Without fulfillment of this and other prophecies, Jews would not recognize the Messiah. Many messiahs prior to Christ were rejected because they failed the test of Scripture.
The Catholic Encyclopedia goes to great lengths to establish Mary’s Davidic pedigree. They conclude: "As Joachim belonged to the royal family of David, so Anna is supposed to have been a descendant of the priestly family of Aaron; thus Christ the Eternal King and Priest sprang from both a royal and priestly family. "
Also according to the Encyclopedia, "Devotion to Our Blessed Lady…must be regarded as a practical application of the doctrine of the Communion of Saints. Seeing that this doctrine is not contained, at least explicitly, in the earlier forms of the Apostles' Creed, there is perhaps no ground for surprise if we do not meet with any clear traces of the cults of the Blessed Virgin in the first Christian centuries, the worship of Mary being a later development." So they acknowledge that, sanctioned or not, Mary worship has existed within the Church.
As early as 432 A.D., during the Church Council of Ephesus, there are established links between Mary and ancient goddess worship. Until it was Christianized, Ephesus had been a sacred city where the Divine Mother was worshiped by "all Asia and the world" (Acts 19:27). During this council of bishops people rioted in the streets demanding the worshipping of the Goddess be restored. The prime candidate was Mary (who resided in Ephesus at least temporarily). The bishops conceded so far in allowing Mary to be called the Mother of God, but they forbade her to be called Mother Goddess or Goddess.
A later example: Ancient Glastonbury was a great center of Goddess worship and famed for its healing powers. When it became the first center of the Marian cult in Britain, Glastonbury's healing renown was maintained as Mary assumed the Goddess' healing powers. On the site of Mary's church – built exactly where the ancient goddess temple had stood - a healing cult blossomed that flourished for centuries. Other goddess sites throughout Europe became shrines to the Virgin Mother of the Catholic Church.
Whether missionaries intentionally co-opted goddess worship or whether it simply lived on in the hearts of their converts, facts is facts regarding the connection between Mary and ancient goddesses. As for my faith or lack thereof, this may be the difference between someone who comes to it later in life, and someone who is raised – no, steeped – in it from a very early age. Don’t presume, regardless of faith.
It was essential to establish Christ as a descendant of the house of David in order to fulfill prophecies about the coming Redeemer and Savior. "The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne.....I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely."(Psalms 132:11 and Jeremiah 23:5-6) Without fulfillment of this and other prophecies, Jews would not recognize the Messiah. Many messiahs prior to Christ were rejected because they failed the test of Scripture.
The Catholic Encyclopedia goes to great lengths to establish Mary’s Davidic pedigree. They conclude: "As Joachim belonged to the royal family of David, so Anna is supposed to have been a descendant of the priestly family of Aaron; thus Christ the Eternal King and Priest sprang from both a royal and priestly family. "
Also according to the Encyclopedia, "Devotion to Our Blessed Lady…must be regarded as a practical application of the doctrine of the Communion of Saints. Seeing that this doctrine is not contained, at least explicitly, in the earlier forms of the Apostles' Creed, there is perhaps no ground for surprise if we do not meet with any clear traces of the cults of the Blessed Virgin in the first Christian centuries, the worship of Mary being a later development." So they acknowledge that, sanctioned or not, Mary worship has existed within the Church.
As early as 432 A.D., during the Church Council of Ephesus, there are established links between Mary and ancient goddess worship. Until it was Christianized, Ephesus had been a sacred city where the Divine Mother was worshiped by "all Asia and the world" (Acts 19:27). During this council of bishops people rioted in the streets demanding the worshipping of the Goddess be restored. The prime candidate was Mary (who resided in Ephesus at least temporarily). The bishops conceded so far in allowing Mary to be called the Mother of God, but they forbade her to be called Mother Goddess or Goddess.
A later example: Ancient Glastonbury was a great center of Goddess worship and famed for its healing powers. When it became the first center of the Marian cult in Britain, Glastonbury's healing renown was maintained as Mary assumed the Goddess' healing powers. On the site of Mary's church – built exactly where the ancient goddess temple had stood - a healing cult blossomed that flourished for centuries. Other goddess sites throughout Europe became shrines to the Virgin Mother of the Catholic Church.
Whether missionaries intentionally co-opted goddess worship or whether it simply lived on in the hearts of their converts, facts is facts regarding the connection between Mary and ancient goddesses. As for my faith or lack thereof, this may be the difference between someone who comes to it later in life, and someone who is raised – no, steeped – in it from a very early age. Don’t presume, regardless of faith.
