What does Jesus want?

It is a moot point for someone like me that was raised in the Jewish faith - kidding.

Re: Catholics straying from the protestant church.........????
I believe the root of Protestant is protest. Makes sense since the whole movement protested against the catholic faith and sadly still do. Most protestants I've met don't think catholics are christians, an idea which is equally as preposterous.
I live in fear of the 'knowledge' religious leaders pass on to their flocks. If only the congregations had the motivation to educate themselves.

Damn Girl . . . real long time, no see . . . glad to see you again, darlin' . . .

Most Protestants here (or Evangelicals, as most Protestant churches are named) AND most Catholics think that any other church is a sect. (The Evangelical church{es] and the Catholic are called "the two big 'Volks-churches')

Hi Ceili!

If I am following your logic, the Protestants are protesting the Catholic Church. Therefore, going back one evolving faith, the Catholic Church protested the early Jewish Christians?

Hi all! Nice to be seen by you...lol
Good to be back, although, sadly still sporadically.

Foofie - read a book. There are plenty. Here's a start....
Prot⋅es⋅tant   [prot-uh-stuhnt or, for 4, 6, pruh-tes-tuhnt]
"noun
1. any Western Christian who is not an adherent of a Catholic, Anglican, or Eastern Church.
2. an adherent of any of those Christian bodies that separated from the Church of Rome during the Reformation, or of any group descended from them.
3. (originally) any of the German princes who protested against the decision of the Diet of Speyer in 1529, which had denounced the Reformation.
4. (lowercase) a person who protests.
"adjective
5. belonging or pertaining to Protestants or their religion.

I heard Jesus wants a Lexus, while the American market is so shitty...

(might just be a rumor)

The term "protestant" (from the Latin participium protestans) was first used in the religious context on April 19, 1529 at the 'Reichsttag' ("Imperial Diet" of the Holy Empire of German Nation in Speyer, a "protestation" of members (aka "Stände") following Luther.

Walter,

When do you believe the Catholic Church (as you are using the term) started?

Do you think there were no competing groups at the time?

Your idea of a linear progression of Christianity-- from "Jewish Christians" to "Catholic Church" to "Protestants" is incorrect. The history of Christianity, from its beginning, has been full of schisms and fights, over which group was the legitimate "Church". The first of these fights is described in the Bible where very different groups were arguing over which of them were the real church.

There is an interesting argument, which continues today, over which Church can rightly claim St. Peter as a member. The Catholic Church claims St. Peter as the first pope... where as modern Protestant churches claim that they the ones who are following in the footsteps of Peter.

This is important because Jesus set Peter up as the leader of the church, giving him the "keys to the kingdom"-- so any church that can claim St. Peter has real authority.

I haven't used the phrase linear progression of Christianity-- from "Jewish Christians" to "Catholic Church" to "Protestants" at all.
(And I've some difficulties with "Jewish Christians" - you don't refer to those persons who are generally called such, namely Jews who converted to Christianity, I suppose.)



I've no idea what the churches you call "modern Protestant churches" say. My knowledge is just about the history of Evangelism/Protestantism plus a bit more. (I know quite a few modern Protestant priests, but obviously you wouldn't call them "modern".)

What a naive view. Paul created the Christian church, and no reference to the dubious texts of the "gospels" will change that. Paul created the church which became the Orthodox Church. If you are going to plump for Peter as the founder of "the Church," you are arguing for the first "Bishop of Rome," and therefore, inferentially choosing Roman Catholicism as "the true church."

It seems that an original anti-Irish immigrants prejudices still lives on as a "theological thesis" within some "Protestant" cults.

Setanta-- your statement "Paul created the Christian church" as if it were a fact is off base and completely unsupportable.

First, read the letters of Paul-- it is clear from Paul's own letters that his view of the church was bitterly contested. He fought the Gnostics on one side and the Judiazers on the other side. History is written by the victors which is why Paul became the dominant version of Christianity (and why Paul's writings make up a large part of the Bible). But-- are you saying that the Gnostics (who were contemporaries of Paul and were followers of Jesus) were not part of the Christian church? Or where they a different church or not Christian or something else?

The position of Peter as the head of the Church was established by Jesus himself (this Biblical point is accepted by every Christian group I have ever heard of today)...



The Catholic church claims Peter, Protestant Churches claim Peter. I would like to see if you can come up with a Christian Church that doesn't claim Peter as its original member.

Your problem is that you, Setanta, are working with a definition of "the Christian Church" (which you claim Paul created), that is not objective. Then you seem to be saying the "Orthodox Church" (also undefined) is the same as the Christian Church.

In doing this, you are excluding the perspective of any other group that claims the Christian story. Many groups claim to follow Paul, and Peter and Jesus-- yet reject the narrative of the Catholic and Orthodox church.

Religion is about narrative-- and each church has its own narrative. You are accepting the narrative of a single church as fact to the exclusion of all others.

If you are going to throw defamatory terms like "cult" around... at least have the decency to define them.

What do you mean by "cult"?

Sorry. I meant 'cult' to be in the sense of "religious cult" = any religion.

(The word 'cult' in German doesn't have a negative meaning as it seems to have for you, it means religious practice, religious worship .... . Like in the original Latin and other language e.g. French [in France, you find the hours of masses, services etc. under "Cultes". Sorry again.)

I'd certainly never argue with that. There was a newspaper cartoonist in New York who has become a "hero" in American history, Thomas Nast. Nast becomes an American "hero" because he takes on the Democratic political machine headed by "Boss" Tweed, the Tammany Hall political machine. Tammany Hall was around from the beginning of the country, but in the 1850s it became the headquarters for Democratic "machine" politics. Nast became famous for lampooning Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall, and allegedly exposing their corruption.

However, what American school children aren't told is that Nast did this because he was a virulent anti-Catholic and anti-Irish bigot. One of his cartoons, which can still be found online but which doesn't appear in American elementary and secondary school text books, shows American children ("good, decent Protestants" every one) being menaced on the shore by crocodiles, which are actually Catholic bishops, whose mitres are the snapping jaws of the crocodiles. Interestingly, Nast did not attack the Republican Party machine, and was silent about any corruption on the part of Protestant, "nativist" politicians. The school children are being threatened by the bishops as a symbol of the demand by parochial schools to receive public funds. The public school is flying the American flag upside down as a distress signal, and in the background is the "Political Roman Catholic Church" and the "Political Roman Catholic School." The Catholic church shown flies a flag with the papal emblem, and a flag with the Irish harp. Note the stout young Protestant boy in the front with a bible in his coat, protecting his terrified playmates from the evil bishops. Nast's vituperation (and he was certainly not alone in attacks on Catholicism and the Irish) ignores that public school systems used a Protestant version of the bible, conducted Protestant prayer sessions in the schools, and openly touted Protestant morality, and taught in the classroom, making a point that it was Protestant in its provenance. Although several different sects joined the Catholics in demanding public money for their schools, including many less popular Protestant sects, by far, the biggest supporters of the call for public support of parochial schools were Catholic.



This was probably the most direct and virulent anti-Catholic cartoon Nast produced. It is possible to be an anti-Catholic fanatic and an anti-Irish racist in this country, and still be counted a hero.

The image below shows Nast's typical depiction of the Irish as simian and threatening, in this case showing an Irish politician sharing the spoil with a Catholic priest:



In the image below, Nast again depicts the Irish immigrant with ape-like features, and pairs him with the southern black (Nast was apparently an equal-opportunity bigo), and the caption for the cartoon was "The Ignorant Vote."



In the image below, entitled "The Promised Land," Nast expresses the belief popular in his day, with Irish immigration and increased immigration by Catholic populations such as the Italians and the Poles, that "Rome" had its sights set on the "conquest" of the new world.



One might argue that Nast was one man, but he certainly expressed popular points of view in his day. His anti-Catholic and anti-Irish virulence certainly did nothing to impair a career which prospered over a period of more than 40 years.

It appears to me the discussion right now is about the differing religious history that goes with Roman Catholicism and Protestantism (for the most part). What might be germane is the sociological interpretation of these two Christian flocks, since then one can see why WASP's in the U.S. have a social ladder that they are aware of, and I would guess that Catholic Americans have a similar social ladder. For mass consumption, people have usually only heard of the WASP social ladder, I believe. For social pecking order, I believe, Protestants, regardless of ancestry are on one side, but have "in groups" and "out groups." Meaning Episcopaleans, with Presbyterians, are on the top, then come Methodists, Lutherans, Baptists, independent Evangelicals, I thought. Catholics, if they are "successful" (business/professional) might be invited to certain events, but whether they are part of some social (blue book) ladder, I cannot guess. Let us not involve Jews, since, for example, the only Jewish Masons I ever met were professionals, and I would think you get my drift.

I wonder if Europe has a social order that is separated by one's faith? I know that the Head of the Anglican Church is the King/Queen, and therefore they cannot marry a Catholic, I thought. That sort of sets the tone for British society, I thought? Plus, the British Royalty married many a German Prince (Lutheran) specifically because the Prince was Protestant, I thought.

Anyway, to think that Protestants are still protesting seems like incorrect thinking in my mind, since they are almost a 500 year old faith, and they have adopted the term "Protestant" likely for the same reason that the British in New York adopted the term Yankee. It was a pejorative term that the Dutch (who lost New Amsterdam to the British) used to call the British - those who liked to eat "John Cheese," or as pronounced with a Dutch dialect - Yohn Keese. Sort of like humoring the opposition, I would guess.

For the benefit of exercising the adrenal glands of anyone that likes to think of the Catholic Church as more authentically Christian than Protestants, I do not think that is really relevant in a world where Christianity may have been eliminated by either Facism or Communism in the 20th century. I believe only the fearless nature of British and American Protestantism was able to keep Europe free.

Bullshit, Brown. As you point out yourself, Paul's version of the church triumphed over the other varieties which were then known--so you defeat your own argument. Given that there was no distinction between a "Roman" church and an Orthodox church at the time of Paul's death, your argument is bootless. If you need to have the Orthodox defined for you, then i can't see that you have any business in such a discussion. The distinction between the "Roman" church and the Orthodox church only arises long after the promulgation of the Nicene Creed in the 4th century. My point about Peter is that the Bishops of Rome claimed supreme authority on the basis of claiming direct ecclesiastic descent from Peter. What any church today claims is hardly to the point.

Religion certainly is about narrative, and yours is faulty. You ignore that Peter's arrival in Rome did nothing to form Christianity, but that the epistles of Paul are to this day used by all christian sects, including the Protestants to are so fond of quoting them, as a basis for asserting ecclesiastic and theological authority. There is no comparable body of literature, of narrative, if you prefer, from any source which even begins to assume the importance of what is attributed to Paul. As far as i can see, from an historical perspective, Peter was a nobody, he simply became a symbol, and long after his death. Paul made Christianity what it is today, no matter what sect one refers to, with possible exceptions such as the LDS and the JWs.

I'm not accepting any church's narrative as fact--i'm pointing the undeniable historical fact that Christianity was molded in the image of the church propounded by Paul.

By the way, it was Napoleon who came up with that bullshit about history being written by the victors. If that had been true, we'd hardly know about him, and what we would know would be that he was some kind of monster. Napoleon lost, but history still sees him as a great man, and a military genius (the latter is definitely not true--he was an organizational genius, but he did not invent the military forms which he exploited). In his contemporary world, he was seen as a monster, and by the English he was viewed with as much horror and opprobrium (if not more) as that applied to Hitler in the 20th century.

History is far more complex than who wrote what.

I have been told (by educated Irish-Americans) that there were Help Wanted signs in the late 19th century that stated, "Irish and Dogs Need Not Apply."

Also, I read, before the Southern plantation owners decided that Africans would be the slave class, there was an attempt to enslave Irish; however due to their fair complexion they died from heat/humidity enduced prickly heat, or heat prostation.

I do not know how correct both assertions are, but I have heard in a college lecture that the group most persecuted in the U.S. have been the Irish. Partly for their faith, but mostly just for their being Irish. The Irish had the British tormenting their land for 900 years. Most people, I believe, do not know the length of that domination.

And, as I have been told, all during the Irish Potato Famine, food was being exported out of Ireland. It was just genocidal; the failed potato crop did not kill millions.

I went to public school, and did listen to the 23rd Psalm every morning over the loudspeaker. I never thought of it as Protestant? My fellow Jewish students normally paid little attention, I believe. We were not Orthodox Jews, so public school was just an education; no paranoia about being subverted/converted to Protestantism, or Christianity. Any Christian kids in class were just kids from the neighborhood (meaning more kids to be friendly with). So, in my secular opinion, the need for Parochial schools, for maintaining the flock in the New World, to me, was just "circling the wagons," so to speak, based on what? Just liking to be with one's own?

As I've noticed above, the term "Protestant" was first coined at the 'Reichstag' in Speyer.
Since this Reichstag the adherents of Luther's reform movement became known as "Protestants", and thus the protestation of the six Princedoms and 14 Imperial Free Cities has been seen as the birth of Protestantism.


Besides that - I'd thought the term 'Yankee' was first used by Mark Twain, was used for the "Northerners" of the Union during the Civil War and is still a term used for US-Americans in general.


But since you are the specialist here (it certainly is American history and even includes your second history focus, English history) ...