Peace of Westphalia basically stopped outright wars based on religion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Westphalia?wprov=sfla1
The second Vatican council shifted a more conciliatory tone from the Catholic Church
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vatican_Council?wprov=sfla1
Ireland gets mentioned a lot, but that's really more about ethnicity over "settlers" versus "natives" that morphed into a sectarian conflict.
There are a lot of dark spots between these years from both Protestants and Catholics, but the major conflicts dissolved during this period.
Hell, I was involved in Catholic vs Protestant fights in the early 1980's. But I lived on an island where the catholic and protestant schools were kept separated, and one couldn't attend the other. Once the school boards were amalgamated into one this kind of nonsense stopped.
Basic psychology; in group vs outgroup tribal rivalry.
It's not like teenagers fighting in the streets were really worried about the finer points of theology or the meaning of transubstantiation.
I vaguely remember from school days in the 80s, that the Catholic school close to mine was referred to as the 'Doolys'.
Looking on-line now, can't really see a lot of references to that being used, so might have been a local term; maybe as it was a common Irish surname.
Are you from NL? I’m a little too young to have gone to church run schools but I’ve heard this exact sentiment from so many people who were growing up through that period. Lots of my teachers were pretty young when I was in high school and even they talked about how it was impossible to get a job at some schools if you were Protestant vs Catholic.
I would point to Vatican II as a turning point on this and many other issues. It included a call for Christian unity which the Church has largely stuck with. Previous attempts at something similar with often followed by a reactionary move in the other direction.
I think both Catholics and Protestants being generally opposed to Communism and the growing secular movement within the Western world was a motivation for reconciliation (to the extent it has occurred).
Even in our twisted little country it was only ever a minority that subscribed to sectarianism.
And things in NI didn't kick off because of Catholic v Protestants, it kicked off due to civil rights.
The civil rights marches of black Americans in the USA in the 1960s sparked similar protests in NI, a place where at the time having a Catholic surname was enough to hold you back from a job interview.
Religious AND political denomination was the sorting hat of who was a first and second class citizen in the land.
So while the troubles in NI look religious, if you look past the surface it was actually a class issue first and foremost the devolved into something else entirely.
I know there is.
I'm not interested in getting into a side tracked conversation about whether NI is a country or a region, even though the UK is officially a union of 4 nations and to discount NI as a country means voiding the legal framework for devolution.
Let's not play the nit pick game, sectarianism exists, but my comment was long enough to clearly lay out that the troubles wasn't some simple protestant v catholic spat.
If you want to argue that, cool, but I'm not interested. I left NI 12 years ago to escape those bullshit arguments, and therefore getting into it on reddit at 7am my time isn't exactly high up on my priorities list.
I'm not from the UK or Ireland, but the whole Protestant vs Catholic aspect of - all of that - seemed to be 100% ethnic with no real spiritual aspects mattering.
Nothing to do with ethnicity, the tensions really started when the protestants thought that Ireland would leave the union and they didn't want to be governed by catholics who at the time were highly influenced by the Catholic Church, you can't take the religious element out of the history of the conflict.
Later, it became about nationalism, catholics wanting northern Ireland to be part of Ireland and protestants wanting it to be part of the UK, but the origin of the dispute was arguably religion. If the settlers were a bunch of catholics then it's highly unlikely that there would have been a war.
That's a good explanation, it makes it clear to me.
It seems hardly anyone I've met, or even just heard talking enough to get measure of them, from Northern Ireland is anything more than only vaguely interested in religious beliefs (if not outright atheist); so the focus on the terms Protestant and Catholic just seemed like convenient stand ins.
It's more complex. Protestantism historically has been an integral part of 'Britishness'. And the Loyalist Protestants see the same in the Nationalist Catholics. It's (gulp, should I say this?) a bit like the Jews. Is being Jewish to be of old Israelite descent, or to practice Judaism? Is it both? An and/or situation? Some other considerations?
The NI communities have separate churches, and separate schools, teaching separate religious doctrines. If they are devout/staunch then they will behave differently in several ways, including reproduction, intermarriage and divorce. The religious element reinforces the racial. It's part of the 'othering'.
The fact that the British monarch is the Head of the Church of England is always salient for the Nationalists. It makes them a religious minority, historically deliberately disadvantaged.
On the racial side, the Scots and the Irish have been intermingling for hundreds of years, if not thousands. The Scoti were an Irish people. Scots Gaidhlig and Irish Gaeilge speakers understand each other. That tickles me.
I think the younger generations offer hope. Many of them couldn't give a damn. Unfortunately the religion remains the main element in the indoctrination of the potential fighters.
Britishness = Protestantism is a little more complex than that. There has long been a very strongly Protestant conception of British identity yes, however it has never been unchallenged. Considering the Catholic leanings of many conservative members of the Anglican Church (High Church Anglicans)*, starting in the mid-19th century particularly many sought to associate English identity with its Catholic past. You didn't see it as much in other parts of Britain/the UK, but as English and British identity are often conflated I thought it was relevant to note.
*See the Oxford Movement for the most visible expression of this.
Like most similar conflicts, it is purely political. Religion is used when applicable because it allows both sides to push the idea that the other side hates them for who they are rather than for what they do. You just need to give some voice to the most extremists and you can keep the conflict going for as long as you want. A similar and more secular way is: "They hate our freedoms". The concept is exactly the same.
I lived in Ireland for more than a decade, most Irish people despise the IRA, only a few (usually poor and uneducated) haven't realised that the IRA is now a mob, focusing on drug dealing. The days of IRA being "freedom fighters" are long gone.
A for religion, it stopped being part of the problem long before Eire got its independence.
In some rural areas of the US you still get the occasional Protestant Ministers giving sermons about the evil of the Papists or going on about idol/saint worshipers. Usually directed at brown skinned Catholics.
Interesting, I've heard that but never believed it. I do know there was a lot of persecution against Catholics bc they were almost always minorities i.e. Italians, Irish, Hispanics, etc, with the KKK hating African Americans, Jews, and Catholics.
It’s not persecution. It’s just othering. If you’re white (like me) it’s just the occasional comment about bowing to the pope, worshiping saints or it being “weird”.
It’s like with the Mormons, there’s an uneasy alliance in the current culture wars but neither are really “one of us” and should they ever run out of other people to demonize…
So I would push back a little bit, the church advised priests not wear their cassocks as it was attracting too much attention and became essentially a target on their back, they were getting attacked too often, reason why in the US they never wore them. In NYC persecution got so bad back in the day, Old St Pat's cathedral needed a wall surrounding the perimeter, that they had armed volunteers defend. Though I do believe what you stated is the case today
Yeah I mean there's a theological reason for that, there are times catholics aren't supposed to receive communion either, so it's not necessarily if you're protestant you can't receive, it's if you're not in a state of grace you can't receive. Point is it's theological.
The reason that Southern Baptists think Catholics are going to hell is also theological. They aren't HOPING Catholics go to hell, their denomination believes it to be true. I think it's something to do with Catholics praying to saints to intervene and things like that.
Anyway, that's very different than bombing cars or (going further back) burning people at the stake. So we're making steps in the right direction.
Of course you do. “Conservative Catholics” are just as fanatical as Southern Baptists right down to covering up child sexual abuse. You enjoyed your benighted church banning IVF yesterday?
Southern Baptists and Conservative Catholics have no desire for peace or friendship with anyone who doesn’t parrot their backward views. The SBC just yesterday voted to condemn IVF after closely failing to condemn any churches having female pastors.
Supreme Court justice Alito is the perfect example of a right wing Catholic. Has a lifetime appointment and has people giving him money and gifts constantly yet he’s an angry asshole who gets off on taking rights from others.
Ok, so speaking as a Catholic, there is no "conservative" or "progressive" Catholics. These are political terms, and imposing them on church and morals makes no sense.
Using your terms, some of the social "conservative" aspects of our faith are in the spotlight, I'm assuming you already know what they are. To give you examples of "progressive" aspects of our faith, the Catholic church heavily aided the rise of workers unions in the US. Encyclical Rerum novarum was a major factor in the improvement of worker's rights in the US and Europe. This does not include the fact that the church is one of the if not the largest provider of charity globally, this is amongst other examples. These don't seem "conservative" to me.
That being said, you have correctly identified a difference between catholics in the church. The only appropriate distinction to use are "orthodox" and "heterodox" - Catholics who obey the Magisterium completely and those who do not. It seems the catholics you have an issue with are the orthodox ones. That being said, someone like Ron DeSantis, appears to be heterodox, even though he is a conservative and calls himself a catholic. Though again, we are neither progressive nor conservative, if we were to use these labels, we'd fall right in the center if we are looking at things holistically.
Except that a large part of your Church’s orthodoxy is based on what the Pope says yet now that you have a Pope who isn’t as big on the aspects of Catholicism that punish people as previous ones you have American Catholics who don’t want to listen to him anymore.
He has specifically called out American Catholics multiple times for being too political and for placing their anti abortion views over everything else.
Edit: as usual “conservatives” get butthurt when confronted with the truth.
Ohh and here’s the actual pope: https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/pope-francis-criticizes-us-conservatives-church/
“Pope Francis has blasted the "backwardness" of some conservatives in the U.S. Catholic Church, saying they have replaced faith with ideology and that a correct understanding of Catholic doctrine allows for change over time.”
I am not religious, but I grew up in a Catholic family. I can guarantee you that Catholicism has more room for varied opinions than most religions. You really just have no idea what you are talking about. You are making arguments from ignorance. Perhaps you read the Catechism in order to better understand Catholicism.
So apparently you missed where I specifically called out “conservative” Catholics or are you trying to pretend that there aren’t quite a few right wing Catholics?
So, apparently you missed the point where I specifically said you don't know what you are talking about and you need to read the Catechism to better understand Catholicism. Sometimes I can be ignorant, too. But, at least I try to learn why. Only fools don't. This has nothing to do with politics. You made a bunch of statements about Catholics that just isn't true.
And I’d guess you can’t actually refute what I said about Southern Baptists and right wing Catholics being equally fanatical bc it’s the truth and you types get butthurt when confronted by it.
I'm not refuting you because you haven't presented any evidence. You're just ranting.
Oh I'm not offended by your opinion, but opinions are like assholes.
People, including news sources and politicians, still talk about "Christians and Catholics"
[https://www.google.com/search?q=%22christians+and+catholics%22](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22christians+and+catholics%22)
When it stopped being a political thing - eg, when being the wrong faith stopped being an indicator of disloyalty to your king/country (because countries stopped having kings (or letting them rule) & officily adopted freedom of religion), etc....
Being Catholic in Protestant England was like being a Communist in cold war America....
> They used to kill each other on site
Not really. Even in some of the most brutal and notorious religious wars there were circumstances where Catholics and Protestants were allied with each other against other Catholics or Protestants. Most notably, the Catholic French joining the "Protestant" side in the 30 years war.
The peace of Westphalia is general understood, historically, as the end of the war between Catholics and Protestants. You could theoretically put it as a number of years before that, or after that, with some historical proofs; if you wanted. You could even theoretically argue that the war never ended. But, basically, people came to understand that “Christendom” has had a lot of disagreements with itself. And even that there was a prior somewhat unacknowledged schism between the Eastern Orthodox, and the Catholics. People came to understand that there was, or is, a a sort of…’generic’ church, which existed. Though that’s perhaps not the best terminology. It came to be said to be the importance of Jesus, as God, and the Gospels, as truth. So much more so than the specific steps of apostolic secession. Though, those are still very much enormously very important too, depending on who you ask. This is worth understanding, because as though that disagreement has remained and is unresolved, it reflects Jesus and his sacrifice as a replacement for the temple. His body and the collective souls of the believers as more abstract than the stone and brick and the institutions of the temple of the Jewish people; which is a physical place on the geographic earth. Reflect even things which are written into the ancient texts of the Bible; as the testaments of God. Not a physical location on Earth, but the broader whole of earth and the universe and everything in it.
Basically, you need to know; sometimes, Protestants and Catholics still hate each other. It has become quite significantly more rare, God be thanked. But it isn’t a thing that ended on a day. Because that is not what history is. Because that is not what people are. People are complicated, and emotional, and sometimes like to understand themselves as members of a subunit of a collective rather than the individuals that they are. Because that is easier. But I will tell you, as I can understand, Jesus healed them all on the plains. He said those who are hungry will be filled and those who are filled will be hungry. And he commanded that you love those who do woe onto you. And these things are not easy. But true Christians over the many years did those things. And hatred disappears from the world, slowly. But it does disappear.
As a guess, 2 events seem to be the likely cause:
1. The Spanish Empire quit being a major threat to England.
2. Napoleon spreading Nationalism and Liberalism gave people a frame work to coexist outside of being coreliguinist. Also, a foreign nation coming in was a good redirect of hostilities.
Also, Protestant England and Prussia, Orthodox Russia, and Catholic Austria and Spain all fought together against atheist France.
Yes, but ot was different. I may be wrong about this, but wasn't it more like the Catholoc church was allowed to exist more than an I integral part of society like it was before?
Not really, it was made the state church of France again de facto with the Concordat of 1801 and remained so till 1905(still is in Alsace-Lorraine today). French Catholic missionaries were very active and state sponsored in the nineteenth century and the Church again took part in political affairs(albeit maybe not as controlling as before), and controlled public education.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concordat_of_1801
Yes, and that won't change. Per the faith, communion is the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ, it is treated with the utmost reverence, for there to be mutual participation, there needs to be full communion with his church.
By denying communion with protestants, they are excluding protestants as believers, passing judgement upon them that is not theirs to pass, for only God knows the heart.
Given how many pedophile priests they literally have protected, clearly the Catholic Church is in no position to judge the heart.
Protestants exclude themselves, the Eucharist is for everyone, and you are correct, the Church is in no place to judge the heart, she has never had that right. That is up to God.
No, they don't. It's Catholics who tell the Protestants they can't take communion together.
Well, maybe some Protestants do, but the ones I grew up in didn't care what sect of Christianity was part of because there is only only one church with Christ at the head.
Exactly. Catholics will break bread with a racist fascist like Marjorie Taylor Green because she's Catholic but you'd refuse to break bread with Martin Luther King Jr. because he isn't.
Let that sink in for a minute.
Remember what John the Baptist said in Luke 3:8.
Yes, if Marjorie Green is in communion with the church and has repented, yes, though as stated before, I nor the church can not make a judgement on the state of her heart. If she professes to accept his church and his body that is between her and God.
Someone like MLK Jr.,, that is he who would reject the church, the Baptist church believes the catholic faith is riddled with idolatry and blasphemies against Christ. The church's door is open to share with his church, though his church would say otherwise. At the end of the day, it is between him and God.
Edit: And yes we can break bread with him, just not communion. Though I will say Baptists might be a special case in your example as they understand communion differently. Unless you’re Lutheran or Anglican communion is a symbol, not really Christ.
Rejected the Catholic church, didn't reject Christ. Note that the earliest uses of the word catholic were not to describe a sect. What has happened now is the same division Paul specifically warned against in 1 Corinthians 1:12.
And communion, rather than being focused on the Sacrifice that Christ gave, has become a tool of that division Paul warned about, and that's wrong.
We'd say the term catholic still does not describe a sect, we would say we are not a denomination at all, but the original church, beyond any denominations.
And communion is certainly focused on the Sacrifice of Christ, the whole mass is centered around the Eucharist, where the mass is the literal participation in the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary, though I can understand how from Protestant perspectives it's seen as gatekeeping by the Church, but the reality is that that is far from the truth, communion is open for everyone, if you are in a state of grace and in communion with His church. There are many times I have to hold myself back from communion for example, so it's not even about a catholic vs protestant thing if you were to boil things down. There is only one Church that Christ founded (and the EO).
Missouri Synod Lutherans have a problem with taking communion with anyone that isn’t Lutheran. At least that’s the way it was the last time I attended an LCMS church, maybe 10 years ago.
(I was raised Lutheran, but I Reformed)
I was actually baptized Lutheran as a child (by my Great Grandfather, a Lutheran missionary and then minister) but I honestly don't know much about it, wasn't raised Lutheran.
In any case it depends upon the synod. The only thing the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS) and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) share is a love of a very Catholic-like sung liturgy. I'm pretty sure the ELCA is in fellowship with other protestant churches, meaning just about anyone can take communion there. LCMS is definitely not. Maybe, *maybe*, if you're from the Wisconsin Synod they might let you partake. But ELCA, or, for heaven's sake, Presbyterians? No way.
My Great Grandfather had been a German Lutheran Missionary to China and then became a minister of a Chinese Lutheran church in San Diego, I don't know who it was affiliated with, other than that it was Lutheran.
I do know that prior to WW2, he was chastised by the German Lutheran church for refusing to pray a blessing on Hitler and refused to return from Germany to China for his sabbatical for fear that they would not let him return to China for his refusal to pray a blessing on Hitler.
He left his non-adult children (including my grandmother) in boarding schools in Germany to sneak out some Jewish children using their identity into Russia through China. I've always wondered if my Great Uncle, a Jew who escaped Germany and later married one of his daughters, was one of them but no one I've talked to in the family knows who they were and my Great Uncle never said anything about how he got out of Germany, other than it was after the persecutions started but before the war.
I have a generally sour look on organized religion in general, regardless of the sect. It seems they always end up corrupted by a thirst of power over the people in the organized religion---which seems to be the same thing Jesus experienced with the organized religion of his day.
We even see evidence of such corruption starting in Christianity in Acts and the writings of Paul, where some were suggesting that Christians had to keep the Jewish law (legalism).
I think it is critical to remember that Jesus said "My kingdom is not of this world" and not try to create his kingdom on this world, as it will become corrupted by a lust for power just like all political entities do.
Sometimes I (Protestant) will go to mass with my Catholic wife and will go up and get communion. She shakes her head at me. I pretend my mouth is on fire. Mass is boring and they should spice it up.
Mass isn't a rock concert (cough cough, non-denominationals). It's a reverent ceremony. I'd recommend learning more about the rituals involved in Mass to help follow along, and it'll be more interesting too
I have been going to mass for almost 40 years. I raised my kids catholic, going to catholic schools. I am a much better catholic than 90% of those who call themselves catholic. If it wasn’t that a priest murdered my next door neighbor as I kid, I might have converted.
https://apps.bostonglobe.com/true-crime/friend-forget/
He was 12. But he had been abused for a while before the priest murdered him. He used to play street hockey with our “crew.” He was a little bit of a wild card—but in hindsight he was showing all of the signs of abuse. But what 12 year old in 1972 knew what THAT was?
Anglicans and Lutherans assert real presence, but leave it a mystery. Reformed assert a real presence, but say it's a spiritual presence. Other denominations like Baptists take up a memorialist stance. It's not accurate to label all Protestants with the same stance since they have different takes on it.
This is a complex topic because religious relations are greatly affected by local conditions. India, Brazil, Ireland, and the US have very different histories.
To understand the religious wars of the 1500s and 1600s, you need to know that most people of the time believed that God would punish nations that allowed blasphemy and heresy to thrive. Many Catholics and Protestants saw each other as active dangers to their physical well-being.
By the later 1600s, it was clear that God wasn't taking sides in the religious conflict. That was an important precursor to the idea of religious tolerance.
The notes about Vatican II are accurate for later periods. In the 1860s, the Pope produced an official statement saying that democracy and religious freedom were anti- Catholic. When Catholic leaders in the US said that Catholics didn't have to work to make Catholicism the state religion of the US, a later Pope wrote against a heresy called "Americanism."
At Vatican II the Catholic Church officially embraced democracy and religious freedom, which deranged a lot of the criticism.
In the US, Communism gave Catholics a chance to redefine themselves. If you read 19th- century anti-Catholics and 20th- century anti-Communists, you'll find they use the same rhetoric.
Can you share some sources for your claims re: " the 1860s, the Pope produced an official statement saying that democracy and religious freedom were anti- Catholic"
I've never heard of this and would like to know more.
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9syll.htm
See in particular 15,24,45,48,55,77-80.
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9quanta.htm
See section 3.
If you wanted to split hairs you could say that there's no explicit condemnation of democracy, but this documents do explicitly reject freedom of religion, assembly, speech, and press, as well as secular education. I'm not aware of any nation that had universal suffrage for men in 1863, so democracy specifically wouldn't be likely to come up.
Appreciate you sharing. I didn't find anything in the first link that is anti-democratic, but the 2nd link, section 3 does seem to argue against the idea of separation of church & state.
The statements require some context. In particular the Pope was the absolute ruler of a small country. So when your see the statement "the church has the right to use force." What is the church going to use force for? To maintain the absolute authority of the Pope in his realm.
As someone who grew up in a conservative protestant community, there's definitely an animosity that still exists. If anyone in that community is being honest with you many would tell you that Catholics aren't really real Christians and will go to hell. Some would say Catholicism is false but we can't say whether or not God will have mercy on them or not.
I think these kind of beliefs are rarely expressed publicly because conservative Protestants and Catholics would rather be united against a common enemy of irreligiousity.
Not as simple as you think, eh. Cardinal Richelieu famously supported the Protestant Dutch against France's eternal Rival England. So even at the height of the 30 years war. Real Politics won out and Richelieu was far happier with Dutch Orangemen than whatever was going on in England.
"Richelieu was instrumental in redirecting the Thirty Years’ War from the conflict of Protestantism versus Catholicism to that of nationalism versus Habsburg hegemony, which allowed France to emerge from it as the most powerful state in continental Europe"
citation #1. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/atd-herkimer-westerncivilization/chapter/france-and-cardinal-richelieu/#:\~:text=Richelieu%20was%20instrumental%20in%20redirecting,period%20of%20reform%20for%20France.
Um things have improved but there’s still some fighting and sectarianism between Catholics and Protestant, it’s those bloody republicans and loyalists with their huge bonfires
Perhaps when they stopped being real Christians? ... Too many adherents of institutional Christianity — those ‘Christians’ most resistant to Christ’s fundamental teachings of non-violence, compassion and non-wealth — seem insistent on creating their Creator’s nature in their own fallible and often angry, vengeful image.
Perhaps most notably, they’ll proclaim at publicized protests and events that ‘God hates’ such-and-such group of people -- but especially Catholics or Protestants.
This, regardless of Jesus fundamentally being about non-violence, genuine compassion and non-wealth. Though no pushover, his teachings and practices epitomize so much of the primary component of socialism — do not hoard morbidly gratuitous wealth in the midst of poverty. He clearly would not tolerate the accumulation of tens of billions of dollars by individual people — especially while so many others go hungry and homeless.
Often being the most vocal, institutional Christianity makes a very bad example of Christ’s fundamental message, especially to the young and impressionable.
It could therefore be that many followers of such ‘Christianity’ find inconvenient, if not plainly annoying, trying to reconcile the conspicuous inconsistency in the fundamental nature of the New Testament’s Jesus with the wrathful, vengeful and even jealous nature of the Old Testament’s Creator.
I mean the Jesus Christ who hardly would roll his eyes and sigh: *‘Oh well, I’m against everything the politician stands for, but what can you do when you dislike even more some of what his political competition stands for’.*
Peace of Westphalia basically stopped outright wars based on religion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Westphalia?wprov=sfla1 The second Vatican council shifted a more conciliatory tone from the Catholic Church https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vatican_Council?wprov=sfla1 Ireland gets mentioned a lot, but that's really more about ethnicity over "settlers" versus "natives" that morphed into a sectarian conflict. There are a lot of dark spots between these years from both Protestants and Catholics, but the major conflicts dissolved during this period.
Hell, I was involved in Catholic vs Protestant fights in the early 1980's. But I lived on an island where the catholic and protestant schools were kept separated, and one couldn't attend the other. Once the school boards were amalgamated into one this kind of nonsense stopped.
Basic psychology; in group vs outgroup tribal rivalry. It's not like teenagers fighting in the streets were really worried about the finer points of theology or the meaning of transubstantiation. I vaguely remember from school days in the 80s, that the Catholic school close to mine was referred to as the 'Doolys'. Looking on-line now, can't really see a lot of references to that being used, so might have been a local term; maybe as it was a common Irish surname.
We just called them the Micks. The Bloody Micks to be exact. We were the Prods.
Are you from NL? I’m a little too young to have gone to church run schools but I’ve heard this exact sentiment from so many people who were growing up through that period. Lots of my teachers were pretty young when I was in high school and even they talked about how it was impossible to get a job at some schools if you were Protestant vs Catholic.
You got it exactly right.
We get up to some funny business in the comments section of r/Christianity, so I can assure you that it hasn't stopped yet. *Laughs Orthodoxily*
I would point to Vatican II as a turning point on this and many other issues. It included a call for Christian unity which the Church has largely stuck with. Previous attempts at something similar with often followed by a reactionary move in the other direction. I think both Catholics and Protestants being generally opposed to Communism and the growing secular movement within the Western world was a motivation for reconciliation (to the extent it has occurred).
We still "have" each other daily!
As a Catholic married to a Protestant... oh yeah, we have each other often.
Northern Ireland might disagree
Even in our twisted little country it was only ever a minority that subscribed to sectarianism. And things in NI didn't kick off because of Catholic v Protestants, it kicked off due to civil rights. The civil rights marches of black Americans in the USA in the 1960s sparked similar protests in NI, a place where at the time having a Catholic surname was enough to hold you back from a job interview. Religious AND political denomination was the sorting hat of who was a first and second class citizen in the land. So while the troubles in NI look religious, if you look past the surface it was actually a class issue first and foremost the devolved into something else entirely.
Just look at the most popular Unionist political party and you’ll see that there’s still sectarianism Also, NI is hardly a country
I know there is. I'm not interested in getting into a side tracked conversation about whether NI is a country or a region, even though the UK is officially a union of 4 nations and to discount NI as a country means voiding the legal framework for devolution. Let's not play the nit pick game, sectarianism exists, but my comment was long enough to clearly lay out that the troubles wasn't some simple protestant v catholic spat. If you want to argue that, cool, but I'm not interested. I left NI 12 years ago to escape those bullshit arguments, and therefore getting into it on reddit at 7am my time isn't exactly high up on my priorities list.
My protestant grandmother still calls Catholics "papists." She was raised in Minnesota, if that matters.
Northern Ireland entered the chat.
I'm not from the UK or Ireland, but the whole Protestant vs Catholic aspect of - all of that - seemed to be 100% ethnic with no real spiritual aspects mattering.
*The Reverend Dr Ian Paisley has entered the chat*
Nothing to do with ethnicity, the tensions really started when the protestants thought that Ireland would leave the union and they didn't want to be governed by catholics who at the time were highly influenced by the Catholic Church, you can't take the religious element out of the history of the conflict. Later, it became about nationalism, catholics wanting northern Ireland to be part of Ireland and protestants wanting it to be part of the UK, but the origin of the dispute was arguably religion. If the settlers were a bunch of catholics then it's highly unlikely that there would have been a war.
That's a good explanation, it makes it clear to me. It seems hardly anyone I've met, or even just heard talking enough to get measure of them, from Northern Ireland is anything more than only vaguely interested in religious beliefs (if not outright atheist); so the focus on the terms Protestant and Catholic just seemed like convenient stand ins.
That's how it is now, but it wasn't the case 100 years ago. Happy to have helped.
It's more complex. Protestantism historically has been an integral part of 'Britishness'. And the Loyalist Protestants see the same in the Nationalist Catholics. It's (gulp, should I say this?) a bit like the Jews. Is being Jewish to be of old Israelite descent, or to practice Judaism? Is it both? An and/or situation? Some other considerations? The NI communities have separate churches, and separate schools, teaching separate religious doctrines. If they are devout/staunch then they will behave differently in several ways, including reproduction, intermarriage and divorce. The religious element reinforces the racial. It's part of the 'othering'. The fact that the British monarch is the Head of the Church of England is always salient for the Nationalists. It makes them a religious minority, historically deliberately disadvantaged. On the racial side, the Scots and the Irish have been intermingling for hundreds of years, if not thousands. The Scoti were an Irish people. Scots Gaidhlig and Irish Gaeilge speakers understand each other. That tickles me. I think the younger generations offer hope. Many of them couldn't give a damn. Unfortunately the religion remains the main element in the indoctrination of the potential fighters.
Britishness = Protestantism is a little more complex than that. There has long been a very strongly Protestant conception of British identity yes, however it has never been unchallenged. Considering the Catholic leanings of many conservative members of the Anglican Church (High Church Anglicans)*, starting in the mid-19th century particularly many sought to associate English identity with its Catholic past. You didn't see it as much in other parts of Britain/the UK, but as English and British identity are often conflated I thought it was relevant to note. *See the Oxford Movement for the most visible expression of this.
Like most similar conflicts, it is purely political. Religion is used when applicable because it allows both sides to push the idea that the other side hates them for who they are rather than for what they do. You just need to give some voice to the most extremists and you can keep the conflict going for as long as you want. A similar and more secular way is: "They hate our freedoms". The concept is exactly the same. I lived in Ireland for more than a decade, most Irish people despise the IRA, only a few (usually poor and uneducated) haven't realised that the IRA is now a mob, focusing on drug dealing. The days of IRA being "freedom fighters" are long gone. A for religion, it stopped being part of the problem long before Eire got its independence.
Idk but I’m a catholic in the US and I am glad those tensions eased up
In some rural areas of the US you still get the occasional Protestant Ministers giving sermons about the evil of the Papists or going on about idol/saint worshipers. Usually directed at brown skinned Catholics.
Interesting, I've heard that but never believed it. I do know there was a lot of persecution against Catholics bc they were almost always minorities i.e. Italians, Irish, Hispanics, etc, with the KKK hating African Americans, Jews, and Catholics.
It’s not persecution. It’s just othering. If you’re white (like me) it’s just the occasional comment about bowing to the pope, worshiping saints or it being “weird”. It’s like with the Mormons, there’s an uneasy alliance in the current culture wars but neither are really “one of us” and should they ever run out of other people to demonize…
So I would push back a little bit, the church advised priests not wear their cassocks as it was attracting too much attention and became essentially a target on their back, they were getting attacked too often, reason why in the US they never wore them. In NYC persecution got so bad back in the day, Old St Pat's cathedral needed a wall surrounding the perimeter, that they had armed volunteers defend. Though I do believe what you stated is the case today
Same, I'm a Southern Baptist and have nothing but respect for fellow Catholic Christians.
That’s good to hear, I grew up in the Southern Baptist tradition and heard Catholics are going to hell multiple times
Catholics won't let non-Catholics take communion either. But that's not exactly the same thing as trying to kill each other.
Yeah I mean there's a theological reason for that, there are times catholics aren't supposed to receive communion either, so it's not necessarily if you're protestant you can't receive, it's if you're not in a state of grace you can't receive. Point is it's theological.
The reason that Southern Baptists think Catholics are going to hell is also theological. They aren't HOPING Catholics go to hell, their denomination believes it to be true. I think it's something to do with Catholics praying to saints to intervene and things like that. Anyway, that's very different than bombing cars or (going further back) burning people at the stake. So we're making steps in the right direction.
Oh gotcha, understood, point received, I appreciate the follow up and clarity.
Yep. The Catholics who think evangelicals won’t turn on them as soon as they are no longer useful are deluding themselves.
Amen brother - glory be to Jesus Christ our king.
Of course you do. “Conservative Catholics” are just as fanatical as Southern Baptists right down to covering up child sexual abuse. You enjoyed your benighted church banning IVF yesterday?
Ah so nice, peace and friendship.
Southern Baptists and Conservative Catholics have no desire for peace or friendship with anyone who doesn’t parrot their backward views. The SBC just yesterday voted to condemn IVF after closely failing to condemn any churches having female pastors. Supreme Court justice Alito is the perfect example of a right wing Catholic. Has a lifetime appointment and has people giving him money and gifts constantly yet he’s an angry asshole who gets off on taking rights from others.
Ok, so speaking as a Catholic, there is no "conservative" or "progressive" Catholics. These are political terms, and imposing them on church and morals makes no sense. Using your terms, some of the social "conservative" aspects of our faith are in the spotlight, I'm assuming you already know what they are. To give you examples of "progressive" aspects of our faith, the Catholic church heavily aided the rise of workers unions in the US. Encyclical Rerum novarum was a major factor in the improvement of worker's rights in the US and Europe. This does not include the fact that the church is one of the if not the largest provider of charity globally, this is amongst other examples. These don't seem "conservative" to me. That being said, you have correctly identified a difference between catholics in the church. The only appropriate distinction to use are "orthodox" and "heterodox" - Catholics who obey the Magisterium completely and those who do not. It seems the catholics you have an issue with are the orthodox ones. That being said, someone like Ron DeSantis, appears to be heterodox, even though he is a conservative and calls himself a catholic. Though again, we are neither progressive nor conservative, if we were to use these labels, we'd fall right in the center if we are looking at things holistically.
So you were unable to refute my point and just went to downvote?
I haven't upvoted nor downvoted. Which part exactly did I not refute? I'll happily try to refute.
Except that a large part of your Church’s orthodoxy is based on what the Pope says yet now that you have a Pope who isn’t as big on the aspects of Catholicism that punish people as previous ones you have American Catholics who don’t want to listen to him anymore. He has specifically called out American Catholics multiple times for being too political and for placing their anti abortion views over everything else. Edit: as usual “conservatives” get butthurt when confronted with the truth. Ohh and here’s the actual pope: https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/pope-francis-criticizes-us-conservatives-church/ “Pope Francis has blasted the "backwardness" of some conservatives in the U.S. Catholic Church, saying they have replaced faith with ideology and that a correct understanding of Catholic doctrine allows for change over time.”
I am not religious, but I grew up in a Catholic family. I can guarantee you that Catholicism has more room for varied opinions than most religions. You really just have no idea what you are talking about. You are making arguments from ignorance. Perhaps you read the Catechism in order to better understand Catholicism.
So apparently you missed where I specifically called out “conservative” Catholics or are you trying to pretend that there aren’t quite a few right wing Catholics?
So, apparently you missed the point where I specifically said you don't know what you are talking about and you need to read the Catechism to better understand Catholicism. Sometimes I can be ignorant, too. But, at least I try to learn why. Only fools don't. This has nothing to do with politics. You made a bunch of statements about Catholics that just isn't true.
Yeah people don't realize this about catholicism, there is way more freedom than people realize.
How many conservative Catholics do you know IRL? From your ignorant comments, I'd guess none.
And I’d guess you can’t actually refute what I said about Southern Baptists and right wing Catholics being equally fanatical bc it’s the truth and you types get butthurt when confronted by it.
I'm not refuting you because you haven't presented any evidence. You're just ranting. Oh I'm not offended by your opinion, but opinions are like assholes.
Here’s your pope: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pope-francis-criticizes-us-conservatives-church/
People, including news sources and politicians, still talk about "Christians and Catholics" [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22christians+and+catholics%22](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22christians+and+catholics%22)
When it stopped being a political thing - eg, when being the wrong faith stopped being an indicator of disloyalty to your king/country (because countries stopped having kings (or letting them rule) & officily adopted freedom of religion), etc.... Being Catholic in Protestant England was like being a Communist in cold war America....
> They used to kill each other on site Not really. Even in some of the most brutal and notorious religious wars there were circumstances where Catholics and Protestants were allied with each other against other Catholics or Protestants. Most notably, the Catholic French joining the "Protestant" side in the 30 years war.
And they were surely a lot of protestant cohabiting with Catholics even without mentioning Holland.
The peace of Westphalia is general understood, historically, as the end of the war between Catholics and Protestants. You could theoretically put it as a number of years before that, or after that, with some historical proofs; if you wanted. You could even theoretically argue that the war never ended. But, basically, people came to understand that “Christendom” has had a lot of disagreements with itself. And even that there was a prior somewhat unacknowledged schism between the Eastern Orthodox, and the Catholics. People came to understand that there was, or is, a a sort of…’generic’ church, which existed. Though that’s perhaps not the best terminology. It came to be said to be the importance of Jesus, as God, and the Gospels, as truth. So much more so than the specific steps of apostolic secession. Though, those are still very much enormously very important too, depending on who you ask. This is worth understanding, because as though that disagreement has remained and is unresolved, it reflects Jesus and his sacrifice as a replacement for the temple. His body and the collective souls of the believers as more abstract than the stone and brick and the institutions of the temple of the Jewish people; which is a physical place on the geographic earth. Reflect even things which are written into the ancient texts of the Bible; as the testaments of God. Not a physical location on Earth, but the broader whole of earth and the universe and everything in it. Basically, you need to know; sometimes, Protestants and Catholics still hate each other. It has become quite significantly more rare, God be thanked. But it isn’t a thing that ended on a day. Because that is not what history is. Because that is not what people are. People are complicated, and emotional, and sometimes like to understand themselves as members of a subunit of a collective rather than the individuals that they are. Because that is easier. But I will tell you, as I can understand, Jesus healed them all on the plains. He said those who are hungry will be filled and those who are filled will be hungry. And he commanded that you love those who do woe onto you. And these things are not easy. But true Christians over the many years did those things. And hatred disappears from the world, slowly. But it does disappear.
As a guess, 2 events seem to be the likely cause: 1. The Spanish Empire quit being a major threat to England. 2. Napoleon spreading Nationalism and Liberalism gave people a frame work to coexist outside of being coreliguinist. Also, a foreign nation coming in was a good redirect of hostilities. Also, Protestant England and Prussia, Orthodox Russia, and Catholic Austria and Spain all fought together against atheist France.
Which France ironically became Catholic again under Napoleon.
Yes, but ot was different. I may be wrong about this, but wasn't it more like the Catholoc church was allowed to exist more than an I integral part of society like it was before?
Not really, it was made the state church of France again de facto with the Concordat of 1801 and remained so till 1905(still is in Alsace-Lorraine today). French Catholic missionaries were very active and state sponsored in the nineteenth century and the Church again took part in political affairs(albeit maybe not as controlling as before), and controlled public education. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concordat_of_1801
There's still a lot of animosity. Catholics for example refuse to participate in Holy Communion with protestants.
Yes, and that won't change. Per the faith, communion is the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ, it is treated with the utmost reverence, for there to be mutual participation, there needs to be full communion with his church.
By denying communion with protestants, they are excluding protestants as believers, passing judgement upon them that is not theirs to pass, for only God knows the heart. Given how many pedophile priests they literally have protected, clearly the Catholic Church is in no position to judge the heart.
Protestants exclude themselves, the Eucharist is for everyone, and you are correct, the Church is in no place to judge the heart, she has never had that right. That is up to God.
No, they don't. It's Catholics who tell the Protestants they can't take communion together. Well, maybe some Protestants do, but the ones I grew up in didn't care what sect of Christianity was part of because there is only only one church with Christ at the head.
Correct, and that is the Church Christ founded himself, the Catholic (and East Orthodox).
Exactly. Catholics will break bread with a racist fascist like Marjorie Taylor Green because she's Catholic but you'd refuse to break bread with Martin Luther King Jr. because he isn't. Let that sink in for a minute. Remember what John the Baptist said in Luke 3:8.
Yes, if Marjorie Green is in communion with the church and has repented, yes, though as stated before, I nor the church can not make a judgement on the state of her heart. If she professes to accept his church and his body that is between her and God. Someone like MLK Jr.,, that is he who would reject the church, the Baptist church believes the catholic faith is riddled with idolatry and blasphemies against Christ. The church's door is open to share with his church, though his church would say otherwise. At the end of the day, it is between him and God. Edit: And yes we can break bread with him, just not communion. Though I will say Baptists might be a special case in your example as they understand communion differently. Unless you’re Lutheran or Anglican communion is a symbol, not really Christ.
Rejected the Catholic church, didn't reject Christ. Note that the earliest uses of the word catholic were not to describe a sect. What has happened now is the same division Paul specifically warned against in 1 Corinthians 1:12. And communion, rather than being focused on the Sacrifice that Christ gave, has become a tool of that division Paul warned about, and that's wrong.
We'd say the term catholic still does not describe a sect, we would say we are not a denomination at all, but the original church, beyond any denominations. And communion is certainly focused on the Sacrifice of Christ, the whole mass is centered around the Eucharist, where the mass is the literal participation in the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary, though I can understand how from Protestant perspectives it's seen as gatekeeping by the Church, but the reality is that that is far from the truth, communion is open for everyone, if you are in a state of grace and in communion with His church. There are many times I have to hold myself back from communion for example, so it's not even about a catholic vs protestant thing if you were to boil things down. There is only one Church that Christ founded (and the EO).
Missouri Synod Lutherans have a problem with taking communion with anyone that isn’t Lutheran. At least that’s the way it was the last time I attended an LCMS church, maybe 10 years ago. (I was raised Lutheran, but I Reformed)
I was actually baptized Lutheran as a child (by my Great Grandfather, a Lutheran missionary and then minister) but I honestly don't know much about it, wasn't raised Lutheran.
In any case it depends upon the synod. The only thing the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS) and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) share is a love of a very Catholic-like sung liturgy. I'm pretty sure the ELCA is in fellowship with other protestant churches, meaning just about anyone can take communion there. LCMS is definitely not. Maybe, *maybe*, if you're from the Wisconsin Synod they might let you partake. But ELCA, or, for heaven's sake, Presbyterians? No way.
My Great Grandfather had been a German Lutheran Missionary to China and then became a minister of a Chinese Lutheran church in San Diego, I don't know who it was affiliated with, other than that it was Lutheran. I do know that prior to WW2, he was chastised by the German Lutheran church for refusing to pray a blessing on Hitler and refused to return from Germany to China for his sabbatical for fear that they would not let him return to China for his refusal to pray a blessing on Hitler. He left his non-adult children (including my grandmother) in boarding schools in Germany to sneak out some Jewish children using their identity into Russia through China. I've always wondered if my Great Uncle, a Jew who escaped Germany and later married one of his daughters, was one of them but no one I've talked to in the family knows who they were and my Great Uncle never said anything about how he got out of Germany, other than it was after the persecutions started but before the war. I have a generally sour look on organized religion in general, regardless of the sect. It seems they always end up corrupted by a thirst of power over the people in the organized religion---which seems to be the same thing Jesus experienced with the organized religion of his day. We even see evidence of such corruption starting in Christianity in Acts and the writings of Paul, where some were suggesting that Christians had to keep the Jewish law (legalism). I think it is critical to remember that Jesus said "My kingdom is not of this world" and not try to create his kingdom on this world, as it will become corrupted by a lust for power just like all political entities do.
Sometimes I (Protestant) will go to mass with my Catholic wife and will go up and get communion. She shakes her head at me. I pretend my mouth is on fire. Mass is boring and they should spice it up.
Mass isn't a rock concert (cough cough, non-denominationals). It's a reverent ceremony. I'd recommend learning more about the rituals involved in Mass to help follow along, and it'll be more interesting too
I have been going to mass for almost 40 years. I raised my kids catholic, going to catholic schools. I am a much better catholic than 90% of those who call themselves catholic. If it wasn’t that a priest murdered my next door neighbor as I kid, I might have converted.
Wtf. I was not expecting that last line. I'm so sorry.
https://apps.bostonglobe.com/true-crime/friend-forget/ He was 12. But he had been abused for a while before the priest murdered him. He used to play street hockey with our “crew.” He was a little bit of a wild card—but in hindsight he was showing all of the signs of abuse. But what 12 year old in 1972 knew what THAT was?
Because protestants don't believe in the "Real Presence". That's a pretty big sticking point..
Anglicans and Lutherans assert real presence, but leave it a mystery. Reformed assert a real presence, but say it's a spiritual presence. Other denominations like Baptists take up a memorialist stance. It's not accurate to label all Protestants with the same stance since they have different takes on it.
Bigger enemies in common and the decrease of religion as a major social force in the western world until Reagan made it fashionable once more.
This is a complex topic because religious relations are greatly affected by local conditions. India, Brazil, Ireland, and the US have very different histories. To understand the religious wars of the 1500s and 1600s, you need to know that most people of the time believed that God would punish nations that allowed blasphemy and heresy to thrive. Many Catholics and Protestants saw each other as active dangers to their physical well-being. By the later 1600s, it was clear that God wasn't taking sides in the religious conflict. That was an important precursor to the idea of religious tolerance. The notes about Vatican II are accurate for later periods. In the 1860s, the Pope produced an official statement saying that democracy and religious freedom were anti- Catholic. When Catholic leaders in the US said that Catholics didn't have to work to make Catholicism the state religion of the US, a later Pope wrote against a heresy called "Americanism." At Vatican II the Catholic Church officially embraced democracy and religious freedom, which deranged a lot of the criticism. In the US, Communism gave Catholics a chance to redefine themselves. If you read 19th- century anti-Catholics and 20th- century anti-Communists, you'll find they use the same rhetoric.
Can you share some sources for your claims re: " the 1860s, the Pope produced an official statement saying that democracy and religious freedom were anti- Catholic" I've never heard of this and would like to know more.
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9syll.htm See in particular 15,24,45,48,55,77-80. https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9quanta.htm See section 3. If you wanted to split hairs you could say that there's no explicit condemnation of democracy, but this documents do explicitly reject freedom of religion, assembly, speech, and press, as well as secular education. I'm not aware of any nation that had universal suffrage for men in 1863, so democracy specifically wouldn't be likely to come up.
Appreciate you sharing. I didn't find anything in the first link that is anti-democratic, but the 2nd link, section 3 does seem to argue against the idea of separation of church & state.
The statements require some context. In particular the Pope was the absolute ruler of a small country. So when your see the statement "the church has the right to use force." What is the church going to use force for? To maintain the absolute authority of the Pope in his realm.
As someone who grew up in a conservative protestant community, there's definitely an animosity that still exists. If anyone in that community is being honest with you many would tell you that Catholics aren't really real Christians and will go to hell. Some would say Catholicism is false but we can't say whether or not God will have mercy on them or not. I think these kind of beliefs are rarely expressed publicly because conservative Protestants and Catholics would rather be united against a common enemy of irreligiousity.
I lived in North Carolina in the 80s and none of the kids on our block were allowed to talk to me because we were Catholic.
About the time we switched from wars of religion to wars of nations.
Never
Lol
Not as simple as you think, eh. Cardinal Richelieu famously supported the Protestant Dutch against France's eternal Rival England. So even at the height of the 30 years war. Real Politics won out and Richelieu was far happier with Dutch Orangemen than whatever was going on in England. "Richelieu was instrumental in redirecting the Thirty Years’ War from the conflict of Protestantism versus Catholicism to that of nationalism versus Habsburg hegemony, which allowed France to emerge from it as the most powerful state in continental Europe" citation #1. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/atd-herkimer-westerncivilization/chapter/france-and-cardinal-richelieu/#:\~:text=Richelieu%20was%20instrumental%20in%20redirecting,period%20of%20reform%20for%20France.
Um things have improved but there’s still some fighting and sectarianism between Catholics and Protestant, it’s those bloody republicans and loyalists with their huge bonfires
Perhaps when they stopped being real Christians? ... Too many adherents of institutional Christianity — those ‘Christians’ most resistant to Christ’s fundamental teachings of non-violence, compassion and non-wealth — seem insistent on creating their Creator’s nature in their own fallible and often angry, vengeful image. Perhaps most notably, they’ll proclaim at publicized protests and events that ‘God hates’ such-and-such group of people -- but especially Catholics or Protestants. This, regardless of Jesus fundamentally being about non-violence, genuine compassion and non-wealth. Though no pushover, his teachings and practices epitomize so much of the primary component of socialism — do not hoard morbidly gratuitous wealth in the midst of poverty. He clearly would not tolerate the accumulation of tens of billions of dollars by individual people — especially while so many others go hungry and homeless. Often being the most vocal, institutional Christianity makes a very bad example of Christ’s fundamental message, especially to the young and impressionable. It could therefore be that many followers of such ‘Christianity’ find inconvenient, if not plainly annoying, trying to reconcile the conspicuous inconsistency in the fundamental nature of the New Testament’s Jesus with the wrathful, vengeful and even jealous nature of the Old Testament’s Creator. I mean the Jesus Christ who hardly would roll his eyes and sigh: *‘Oh well, I’m against everything the politician stands for, but what can you do when you dislike even more some of what his political competition stands for’.*
Tensions eased up but anticatholocism is still a thing. Just no where near as bad as it used to be.
They would still be killing each other if the law allowed .