Thats really a socially dependent statement. Historically when catholicism and protestantism were being forced on people during historical periods of colonialism, they were very concessionary if it ultimately adopted people into the faith that they were trying to push. They really let plenty of things go in terms of merging Christianity with indigenous belief systems and cosmologies. Just look at sanataria or the merging of voodoo with Christianity in the Caribbean and the southern US as one example. These are mixed belief systems, that are technically primarily Christianity, that are still often practiced today
European hard exclusion of various Christian perspectives from one another I think served as an example to later Europeans that just wanted to broadly legitimize their particular strain as easily as possible. It was easier to bend the religion than try to get people to give up on their already held beliefs. Especially when were talking about an era when Catholicism and Protestantism were large parts of the political justification for ruling monarchs. Jesus being “king of kings” said just as much to legitimize earthly kings as it did about revering Jesus. It’s a vast departure from the modern situation, but back then if too many people under a Catholic monarch suddenly agreed more with this Martin Luther guy or whoever, that could be the end of that monarch
Yes, all true. I think the syncretism that both the Catholic church seems to have done/permitted and those that took it and blended it into other systems (with or without the blessing of the authorities) is partly why the evangelicals react so much to Catholicism. It is quite easy to understand their objections if you see where they are coming from (my/my pastor’s reading of the NT is the only true path to divinity; the Catholic church just added on extra-biblical ritual, dogma, etc.), when you see Mary given almost a similar reverence to their dying-and-rising god. Not to mention that all the saints seem to smack just a little bit of polytheism…
Although the evangelicals reacting to the “paganism” of Catholicism and how it has ruined the purity of the original Word, and so on is just a bit rich, esp. if they are celebrating things like Easter and Christmas. At least to someone not as emotionally attached. :)
Anyway, I think the strain of xtianity that would be affiliated with the likes of Kirk and “JD” “Vance” would not be all that interested in syncretism with anything, really, if I understand them correctly. I’ve certainly known evangelicals that are 100% certain they have it right, most other Protestants have it wrong, the Catholics most definitely have it wrong, and everyone else, including the OG religions that they forked from (the part I find the most hilarious of all), is certainly going to hell. And they have exactly zero interest in blending in anything else; if anything they are obsessed with rooting out and removing any “New Age” influences in what they think is their pure and correct interpretation of religion.
Thats really a socially dependent statement. Historically when catholicism and protestantism were being forced on people during historical periods of colonialism, they were very concessionary if it ultimately adopted people into the faith that they were trying to push. They really let plenty of things go in terms of merging Christianity with indigenous belief systems and cosmologies. Just look at sanataria or the merging of voodoo with Christianity in the Caribbean and the southern US as one example. These are mixed belief systems, that are technically primarily Christianity, that are still often practiced today
European hard exclusion of various Christian perspectives from one another I think served as an example to later Europeans that just wanted to broadly legitimize their particular strain as easily as possible. It was easier to bend the religion than try to get people to give up on their already held beliefs. Especially when were talking about an era when Catholicism and Protestantism were large parts of the political justification for ruling monarchs. Jesus being “king of kings” said just as much to legitimize earthly kings as it did about revering Jesus. It’s a vast departure from the modern situation, but back then if too many people under a Catholic monarch suddenly agreed more with this Martin Luther guy or whoever, that could be the end of that monarch
The RC church is a hungry amoeba.
Yes, all true. I think the syncretism that both the Catholic church seems to have done/permitted and those that took it and blended it into other systems (with or without the blessing of the authorities) is partly why the evangelicals react so much to Catholicism. It is quite easy to understand their objections if you see where they are coming from (my/my pastor’s reading of the NT is the only true path to divinity; the Catholic church just added on extra-biblical ritual, dogma, etc.), when you see Mary given almost a similar reverence to their dying-and-rising god. Not to mention that all the saints seem to smack just a little bit of polytheism…
Although the evangelicals reacting to the “paganism” of Catholicism and how it has ruined the purity of the original Word, and so on is just a bit rich, esp. if they are celebrating things like Easter and Christmas. At least to someone not as emotionally attached. :)
Anyway, I think the strain of xtianity that would be affiliated with the likes of Kirk and “JD” “Vance” would not be all that interested in syncretism with anything, really, if I understand them correctly. I’ve certainly known evangelicals that are 100% certain they have it right, most other Protestants have it wrong, the Catholics most definitely have it wrong, and everyone else, including the OG religions that they forked from (the part I find the most hilarious of all), is certainly going to hell. And they have exactly zero interest in blending in anything else; if anything they are obsessed with rooting out and removing any “New Age” influences in what they think is their pure and correct interpretation of religion.