/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Catholicism is not racist nor antiracist; racism and antiracism only make sense within a liberal paradigm. The underlying points are entirely at odds with Christian truths.

The denial of Church authority has bled through all of Protestant culture, and a society that denies authority cannot maintain itself by any means.

>>841386

I am against the sin of pride therefore judge myself accurately. From this I know one of my true superiors whose wisdom I still hold onto to this day (barring the few mistakes he made) was in fact a priest and he was so wise that he was banned entirely from giving homilies, for he was staunchly against homosexuality and encouraged people to marry in their early twenties. The church actively removed him (someone of great spiritual authority) from influence rather than encouraging others to listen to him. Catholicism in its current state opposes providing authority to those God created to be meant to exercise it. Endlessly, I hear of seminaries rejecting and holding back conservative priests. The rejection of authority is an awful crime and most certainly not limited to the Protestants.

>>841387

>I am against the sin of pride therefore judge myself accurately.

Nemo judex in causa sua.

>Catholicism in its current state opposes providing authority to those God created to be meant to exercise it.

Speaking of Catholicism "in its current state" is a solecism.

>>841390

>Nemo judex in causa sua

>solecism

You're using both of these wrong.

>>841390

You know I really tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and explain things to you but then you go and use court terminology to say I'm not allowed to evaluate myself accurately (accurately understanding yourself is true humility) and then you pull the not real Catholicism card. You completely ignored the main point of the post, which is that the church suppressed a priest teaching God's true values. winnie the pooh you. You defend evil through dishonest nitpicking and misdirection and you have a special place in hell.

>>841384

>A lot of stuff I heard from church is evil like the turn the other cheek stuff and the antiracism stuff. Catholics also have pursued the path of the fedoras, using their terminology and insults now and shilling Catholicism using base illogical arguments. I've been seriously considering Protestantism for a few years now, because I'm American and a lot of the influential racists in America's history were Protestants who got their racism directly from the Bible.

Wha..? Turning the other cheek is "evil" to you? How do you even get a Catholic "tag" next to your name and troll as badly as this? How are you expecting to defend yourself with statements like this when you're brought before Christ? Do you really take him so lightly that you think he won't remember this? You don't even have the lousy excuse of saying that this was a mere "textual variation" in the New Testament manuscripts. It's definitely in all variations of manuscripts that Christ told us to turn the other cheek. You should really reconsider calling his words evil. This only plays out one way and it's not and never will be in your favor.

Most of the early American Protestants were either Calvinist, low church Episcopal, Methodist, and many produced abolitionists. In fact, most of the abolitionists were preachers of these churches. Frederick Douglas was a Methodist preacher. John Brown was a Calvinist and intended to be a Congregational (low church) preacher at one point. His dad personally was an early supporter of Oberlin College (one of the first colleges that allowed blacks), which was associated with Prebyterians and Charles Finney. Most of these Christians were Post Millenialists and believed that our job was to usher in the Kingdom of God on earth - hence their drive for a social gospel and the notion of "Progress" and hymns like "Onward Christian Soldiers" (before "Progress" got stolen by the modern Left, that is). That's the larger legacy of American Protestantism. And many famous hymns sung to this day are shared between Black and White Protestant communities. That's the other legacy of Protestantism. It's a shared culture of Bible (KJV) and song. Some hymns are directly are rooted in abolitionism: Such as Amazing Grace (written by an ex-slaver who repented and thanked God for saving a "wretch" like himself) or "Onward Christian Soldiers" like I mentioned earlier (a Post Millennial tune).

It was the South that had more High Church Episcopalians, old guard type European culture still sympathetic to England as well, as well as Catholics. John Wilkes Booth and his conspirators were all Catholic, for example. More importantly, Pope Pius and the Vatican was the only Prince to recognize the Confederacy as a legitimate State and even corresponded with Jefferson Davis - even after the Confederacy was destroyed, he still sent gifts to Davis.

American Catholics were a nasty in these days. They didn't improve until the Irish and Italian immigrants gave it some humanity.

In short, it is the Protestant mindset that emphasizes individuals in the first place. There are definitely racists, but it's not the larger legacy of Protestantism or it's "thing". Arguing for pedigree and groupthink goes against the whole schtick of Protestantism in the first place. Faith and individual merit are what are put on a pedestal.

Also, there wasn't one - not a single - bishop in the South who spoke against the Confederacy. And 20 of Lee's generals under him were also Catholic. When it comes to all of the major names of the time, quite a few were Catholic. Not really the South in general (the average family didn't even own slaves at that), but definitely the big players. And even when they weren't Catholic, like Jefferson Davis, they were Catholic LARPERs. He was one of those silly high church Episcopalians who was known to wear a scapular and a St. Benedict medal.

So if you want a "racist" legacy in your religion, you already have it. No need to jump to Protestantism.

Technically Catholicism is the universal Christian faith. Roman catholicism is one tradition within Christianity that has been corrupted, doctrinally and institutionally. Any false doctrine taught by the RCC is evil, any corruption of her clergy is evil, but it's not helpful to point fingers at a Catholic grandma and call her evil.

Almost all of the issues arise from an unbiblical consolidation of power, study church polity.

>Racism good. White/rights are racists.

>hey guys I'm new to Protestantism from reddit and I want to be a Protestant because I think is the traditional racist thing to do.

Stop accepting the worldview claims of the left.

Racism is bad.

I'm sure you're thinking of race realism which is not the same thing, and yes this is better in the Protestant world than Roman Catholic.

>influential racists in America's history were Protestants

This is the history of American racial history

Jews trafficked slaves, some of which ended up in America

Wealthy whites participated in slaveholding which was disproportionately the holding of African slaves

Protestant whites abolish slavery, most rapidly in the Quaker influenced new England

Abolitionism becomes inevitable everywhere

Southerners perceive an impending conflict, get upset for economic and rights reasons

An atheist gets elected POTUS and turns tyrant, decides secession is illegal

War between states

Protestant southern whites subjugated in reconstruction

For revival reasons, the south becomes the most observant region while black equality forced on them

Commie atheists and Jews force "'civil rights" legislation

Downward spiral to today

>>841384

Yes, but the followers/leaders may be just confused with cultural influences for objective, spiritual realities. I mean, have you noticed that in the 90's catholic apologetics appeal to the pope as reason for exclusive Christian authority, but not as much anymore thanks to Francis?

Read about the pseudo-isidorian decretals-a much of false decrees theologians forge to substantiate the victor's authority.

This doesn't necessarily mean they had ill intent, but why did they felt the need to do these things if Matthew 16 is enough for Peter's leadership. Could it be because in Matthew 18 Jesus Christ's disciples were arguing over which one is going to leader once Christ leaves or works like the 1st Clememt of rome, The Shepherd of Hermas and other early works suggest that churches were ruled by plurality of elders? I don't know, but don't be afraid to look into it.