Why the fad for saying "non-Catholics"

[Contarini]

when you mean Protestants–and not even all Protestants at that?

I’ve been fighting for years the tendency of Catholics to generalize and say “Protestants” when they mean “fundamentalists,” and now folks aren’t even being that accurate. It’s really quite nonsensical to hear people say “non-Catholics don’t believe in relics” when I’ve kissed the relics of St. Basil at an Orthodox monastery.

I know that some radical Protestants whose links with the Reformation are tenuous have objected to being called Protestants. But don’t you think courtesy to the Orthodox (not to speak of the small matter of truth) is a lot more important than catering to the historical fantasies of people who want to deny their roots.

Edwin

 

[La_Chiara]

Aw, c’mon! These are the Catholic forums. But we get in trouble if we say “Protestant” as a general term referring to non-Catholic Christians and now we get in trouble for saying non-Catholic??? What is it you want us to say and when?

 

[Contarini]

La Chiara:

Aw, c’mon! These are the Catholic forums. But we get in trouble if we say “Protestant” as a general term referring to non-Catholic Christians and now we get in trouble for saying non-Catholic??? What is it you want us to say and when?

I don’t want you to say “Protestant” as a general term for non-Catholics. The Orthodox are not Protestants. But they are not (by your definition) Catholics, are they? Why not just say “non-Catholics” when you mean all those not in communion with Rome (since that is what you mean by “Catholic”) and “Protestants” when you mean Christians descended from the Reformation?

Who cares if you get in trouble? I’m not saying you shouldn’t use this terminology so you won’t “get in trouble.” I’m saying you shouldn’t use it because it’s inaccurate, and it’s insulting to the Orthodox.

It’s a big deal for me because it makes you guys too triumphalistic–you think that if you refute some of the sillier ideas of fundamentalism you have somehow proved Catholicism, when the guys you really need to worry about are the Orthodox anyway.

Edwin

 

[La_Chiara]

So why is “non-Catholic[Christian’]” not all-inclusive (including both the Orthodox and the Protestants)?

“Get in trouble” with you and folks like you who are the self-appointed police on the forums!:tsktsk: You gotta admit, you are a stickler for the absolute proper terminology–especially on points that are NOT universally accepted (such as Protestant vs. Christian vs. Evangelical vs. Fundamentalist vs. non-Catholic, etc.)

 

[Contarini]

Of course I’m a stickler for proper terminology in these matters, because people on these boards use terminology to argue. When I see people stop using terminology to make an argument, I’ll stop being picky about it.

Haven’t you frequently seen statements like “Catholics are the only Church that has the Real Presence”? Many people on these boards act as if the Orthodox simply don’t exist, and that makes apologetics much easier than it ought to be.

Edwin

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Contarini:

when you mean Protestants–and not even all Protestants at that?

I’ve been fighting for years the tendency of Catholics to generalize and say “Protestants” when they mean “fundamentalists,” and now folks aren’t even being that accurate. It’s really quite nonsensical to hear people say “non-Catholics don’t believe in relics” when I’ve kissed the relics of St. Basil at an Orthodox monastery.

Because this forum isn’t just for Christians who are Protestants. It’s for non-Catholic religions. If you look at the top, you will see non-Christian faiths represented such as Muslims, Mormons & JWs and they wouldn’t fit very well in a sub-forum named ‘Protestants’.

 

[Contarini]

I’m not objecting to the name of the forum, only to threads that clearly refer to very specific Protestant beliefs. There have been several such recently, such as: “How do non-Catholics deal with Scriptural passages talking about relics”?

Edwin

 

[Eden]

It’s really quite nonsensical to hear people say “non-Catholics don’t believe in relics” when I’ve kissed the relics of St. Basil at an Orthodox monastery.

Why did you start this thread when you are clearly referring to my thread on relics and non-Catholic Christians? If you object to my question, why did you not post here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=72017

BTW - If you go into newadvent.org the Catholic encyclopedia and type in non-Catholic, you will get 298 entries.

 

[Contarini]

Because yours isn’t the only thread, and I’m tired of fighting this case-by-case.

Edwin

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Contarini:

Because yours isn’t the only thread, and I’m tired of fighting this case-by-case.

Edwin

This is a ridiculous thread. If you don’t like how someone terms something, then you should put them on ignore.

 

[Eden]

I typed in “relics non-Catholic Christian” and have found no other thread about this in 2005.

 

[La_Chiara]

Contarini:

Of course I’m a stickler for proper terminology in these matters, because people on these boards use terminology to argue. When I see people stop using terminology to make an argument, I’ll stop being picky about it.

Haven’t you frequently seen statements like “Catholics are the only Church that has the Real Presence”? Many people on these boards act as if the Orthodox simply don’t exist, and that makes apologetics much easier than it ought to be.

Edwin

Good heavens, you seem to be taking it personally that many Catholics are ignorant of the differences between the bazillion non-Catholic Christian denominations, sects, cults, and non-denominational churches out there. But even if we all knew as much as you do about all the various religions and denominations, we still might not agree with your preferred terminology. C’est la vie, Edwin!

 

[Contarini]

The Orthodox are hardly just one among a “bazillion” groups out there! Ignorance of the existence of the Orthodox is a pretty serious thing.

And if you don’t know about all the “non-Catholic” groups, use language that reflects this. All I’m asking for is a little care and modesty in terminology. What does it cost to use qualifiers like “some”? That’s what I do when speaking of a religious tradition about which I have limited knowledge.

Edwin

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Contarini:

Of course I’m a stickler for proper terminology in these matters, because people on these boards use terminology to argue. When I see people stop using terminology to make an argument, I’ll stop being picky about it.

Haven’t you frequently seen statements like “Catholics are the only Church that has the Real Presence”? Many people on these boards act as if the Orthodox simply don’t exist, and that makes apologetics much easier than it ought to be.

Edwin

The Assyrians, Armenians & Copts are not Orthodox in the same sense as the Orthodox (who consider themselves Catholic); but neither are they Protestants; and they certainly are not non-denominational, nor cults: so it seems reasonable - seeing that they are not in communion with the Roman Pontiff - to call them “non-Catholics”.​

Except they regard themselves as Catholics: much as many Anglicans, all Papists, and all the Orthodox (not forgetting members of the autocephalous and other Churches) do.

Maybe two of the Orthodox Churches should be called “Phanariote” & “Muscovite”, for clarity’s sake.

Which means that it is all but impossible to use a term for a religious body of even approximately Christian type without upsetting somebody ##

 

[La_Chiara]

Contarini:

The Orthodox are hardly just one among a “bazillion” groups out there! Ignorance of the existence of the Orthodox is a pretty serious thing.

And if you don’t know about all the “non-Catholic” groups, use language that reflects this. All I’m asking for is a little care and modesty in terminology. What does it cost to use qualifiers like “some”? That’s what I do when speaking of a religious tradition about which I have limited knowledge.

Edwin

I respect your point. As a result of your posts (from last year), I try to be more careful in my terminology though I am sure I am not as exact as I should be. Unfortunately, I was totally ignorant of the Orthodox and most other non-Catholic (Christian and non-Christian) until I joined the forums. And most people on these forums and in general are similarly unaware. So thanks for reminding us of more accurate terminology. Please recognize that the mistakes are mostly due to ignorance.

So are you Orthodox? I thought in your posts last year that you said you were Anglican or Episcopalian.

 

[Eden]

I’m pointing out the obvious but the forum *is *called “Non-Catholic Religions”. There is a separate forum for Eastern and Oriental Orthodox religions. If I had believed that they did not have relics, I would have posted there. I used “non-Catholic Christians” to refer to Protestants and other Christians such as the Baptists (as I have recently been told by some Baptists that they do not consider themselves to be “Protestant”.)

What does it cost to use qualifiers like “some”?

I’m not sure if you are specifically referring to my thread but I would like to clarify that I use the qualifier “some” in my thread:

“Nothing is impossible with God so why do some non-Catholic Christians see the belief in relics as “idolatry” when it’s right there in the Bible?”

If anyone else wants to contribute to my thread BTW, please do!

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=72017

It’s really quite nonsensical to hear people say “non-Catholics don’t believe in relics” when I’ve kissed the relics of St. Basil at an Orthodox monastery.

Finally, could you please point me to the thread in which “people say ‘non-Catholics don’t believe in relics’”? I’m interested in joining the discussion but I can’t find the other one. I’d like to see how others have responded the subject of relics and non-Catholic Christians.

 

[Contarini]

Eden,

I apologize for using your thread as an example. I should have referred to the thread about why “non-Catholics don’t study the Early Church” instead. My reference to “non-Catholics not believing in relics” was an imprecise reference to the title of your thread.

I understand that you are trying to accommodate the concerns of Baptists and others who don’t want to admit their Protestant roots. But is compromising the truth and insulting the Orthodox really worth that? By calling themselves generically “non-Catholics” they want to portray themselves as less isolated from historic Christendom than they really are (since “Catholic” has come to mean “in communion with the See of Rome”). But their existence is historically contingent on the effects of the Reformation. Baptists and Anglicans and Lutherans and Methodists and Pentecostals and the local Pure And Holy Nondenominational Apostolic Assembly of the First Born all derive from a schism in the Western Church. They are a subdivision of Western Christendom, and no one should be allowed to forget this.

I’m not trying to be disagreeable or pedantic. I’m just trying to prevent people from running away from history (and that goes for Catholics as well, for whom it may be convenient to think that “non-Catholics” can be reduced to a pack of unreasonable fundamentalists quibbling about relics and ignoring the Fathers; it also goes for my fellow-Anglicans who want to deny being Protestants, which historically we are as well).

Edwin

 

[Eden]

Contarini:

Eden,

I apologize for using your thread as an example. I should have referred to the thread about why “non-Catholics don’t study the Early Church” instead. My reference to “non-Catholics not believing in relics” was an imprecise reference to the title of your thread.

I understand that you are trying to accommodate the concerns of Baptists and others who don’t want to admit their Protestant roots. But is compromising the truth and insulting the Orthodox really worth that? By calling themselves generically “non-Catholics” they want to portray themselves as less isolated from historic Christendom than they really are (since “Catholic” has come to mean “in communion with the See of Rome”). But their existence is historically contingent on the effects of the Reformation. Baptists and Anglicans and Lutherans and Methodists and Pentecostals and the local Pure And Holy Nondenominational Apostolic Assembly of the First Born all derive from a schism in the Western Church. They are a subdivision of Western Christendom, and no one should be allowed to forget this.

I’m not trying to be disagreeable or pedantic. I’m just trying to prevent people from running away from history (and that goes for Catholics as well, for whom it may be convenient to think that “non-Catholics” can be reduced to a pack of unreasonable fundamentalists quibbling about relics and ignoring the Fathers; it also goes for my fellow-Anglicans who want to deny being Protestants, which historically we are as well).

Edwin

Thank you. I understand your concerns about the Orthodox, as the Orthodox and the Catholic Church had a shared history until the 11th century (although I believe there is some question as to the exact date of the schism).

I also agree with you that the Baptists should recognize their history within the Protestant movement but I was vague about the Baptist origins because I wanted the thread to remain about the interpretation of the passage and not the various denominations and what category they fall under. In particular, I was looking for interpretations by Christians who cite Catholic belief in relics as idolatrous.

(I said “Catholic belief in relics” because I’ve never seen a Fundamentalist site, for instance, accuse the Orthodox of idolatry. Unfortunately, I don’t think most Evangelicals, Fundamentalists or Baptists are aware of the Orthodox Church. )

I’m very interested in the Orthodox Church (my Latin Rite grandmother just gave me a copy of The Philokalia) but I am not interested in the Orthodox interpretation of Acts 19:12 because we share a belief in the power of relics. I know that they do not find the belief in relics to be idolatrous. There are certainly times when posts threads could legitimately be accused of slighting the Orthodox faiths but mine is not one of them. I just wanted to make sure that I mentioned that.

 

[Contarini]

Eden,

My inauguration of this thread was probably a mistake. I’ll be happy to let it lapse. I’ve been very punchy on this board recently and I need to back off a bit.

You’re right that most evangelicals are ignorant of Orthodoxy, though that’s changing rapidly. And when fundamentalists do become aware of it, they typically attack it almost as ferociously as Catholicism. But not quite. They see it as superstitious and idolatrous, but they don’t fear it the way they fear “Rome.”

Edwin

 

[Eden]

O.K. I understand. This thread never happened…