Which in the case of the Roman Catholic Church was a substantial number, the majority of Christendom.
And what's more, the nations that adhered to that particular Church included all the major world powers at one time or another, up until the Reformation.
Thus, when these people spoke of "the Church," and of "Christendom" and "Christianity," they meant the Roman Catholic Church.
Even now, the great majority of non-Roman Catholic Christian sects--not including my own, as it happens--are descended from Roman Catholicism.
In effect, for probably five-sixths of the world's Christians, the Roman Catholic Church is "the mother Church" and synonymous with Christianity itself.
Again, note: I have no personal agenda in this regard; I am a "Mormon" and we claim no relationship or tie to Roman Catholicism whatsoever, and many of our doctrines are very foreign to the Roman Catholic tradition.
I'm speaking in the Historical sense, while you are preoccupied with abstract philosophical concepts (no insult intended, that's just an observation).
And in Human Events, the REALITY of history is more important than the tenets of philosophy.
Back to my original point: This is why people here and elsewhere tend to blame ALL ISLAM for what a relatively minor offshoot of Islam is doing in "fighting jihad."
It would be like targeting "Mormons" for reprisal in some obscure part of the world because, four hundred years previously, a Roman Catholic nation like Spain had subjugated the people there. Those who don't understand the distinctions, and the subtleties of philosophy, would be apt to make such a a connection when there is none.
In effect, for probably five-sixths of the world's Christians, the Roman Catholic Church is "the mother Church" and synonymous with Christianity itself. Have you tried to tell the last sentence to your Protestant friends?
What were all these accusations against Catholics in America, which existed for hundreds of years until recently? I refer to accusations that American Catholics are loyal to the Holy See more than to America (now these people moved to American Jews who are supposed by them to be more loyal to Israel than to America).
I am not a Protestant, but it is my understanding that the issue whether or not someone (like the Pope) stands between a Christian and God is a very significant one. It has not been my impression that for Protestants "Catholic Church is... synonymous with Christianity itself."
Again, note: I have no personal agenda in this regard. I have never suspected one.
I'm speaking in the Historical sense, while you are preoccupied with abstract philosophical concepts (no insult intended, that's just an observation). None taken. But the question "What is pure Islam?" that you raised in a preceding post is a philosophical (theological) one, and I pointed that out. Whenever we look at something in "Historical sense," we deal with human beings, I agree. Which is why I also referred to church --- a social institution created by humans and different from religion, which is a set of notions.
And in Human Events, the REALITY of history is more important than the tenets of philosophy.
This wording suggests that REALITY is disjoint from philosophy. I disagree: the reality created by humans today is based on their philosophy, which they adopted yesterday. Having observed today's events, they will modify their philosophy. This present-day philosophy affects the way in which humans will try to create reality tomorrow. Ad infinitum.
Back to my original point: This is why people here and elsewhere tend to blame ALL ISLAM for what a relatively minor offshoot of Islam is doing in "fighting jihad."
Hear and elsewhere, people are not taught to differentiate between the religion and the church that promulgates that religion. The reason is very simple -- just ask, "Where do people get their religious education?" In a church, of course. Is it in the interest of that church, any church, to say to the students: "We teach you the truth as we know it. But we ourselves are just mere humans, we make mistakes. So, whenever you see an edict coming from the Holy See, please take it with the grain of salt." Of course not. Recall also that most of this knowledge is acquired at an early age, when we still lack the intellectual sophistication needed for this subtle distinction.
As a result, most people, even at an adult age, think of the church and religion as the same. They do it with respect to their own church and the church of others --- it is an "equal-opportunity" shortcoming.
Thus, it is hard for most Catholics to revisit the issue of crusades. Ask them, as I did in previous posts, whether it was Jesus who ordered them. Ask whether those expeditions have roots in the Bible. Most people never really thought about these matters. Why? Because they have learned about crusades in churches; it was the Church (not Jesus, of course) who ordered crusades; and it is the Church that to this day attempts to portray them as "just war" (note here an appeal to purely modern sensibilities). Just a few days ago, this position was reiterated in Pat Buchanan's column, to which I replied here. It is difficult for modern, present-day Catholic Church to inform ten-year-olds in Sunday school about the streams of blood in which the crusaders drowned pagans and Jews, there fellow Europeans, --- way before they even reached Jerusalem. It was the "holy war," and non-Christians had to go.
Whereas the preceding example illustrates the confluence of own church and religion, the many posts on this and other threads show how people apply the same to Islam. Had most of us bothered to dwell on the distinction between Islam and the "Islamic church" --- in complete parallelism to the religion of Christianity and Catholic (Anglican, Lutheran, Mormon) Church --- we would see immediately that we are at war with "Islamic church" and not the religion of Islam.
We do not need to read Quran to justify our anger and resolve to get those bastards (forgive my language) that have been attacking us for decades. Note that "Islamic church" is a practical, well-defined target. We know or can find out where those sheiks who preach anti-Christian and anti-Jewish hatred are. It is they who brainwash and hire the bandits who take the lives of our people.
Wen we go farther and get into the discussion of "evil" in holy books, we develop prejudice that a Muslim is incapable of tolerance. Such opinion is at odds with both the past (Moorish Spain, to which I alluded earlier) and, more significantly, the present. Witness, for instance, how almost all people who post here have become overnight experts on Quran. Yet they fail to take into account that Turkey is our faithful friend and ally; a democracy for much longer that Christian Russia; yet a predominantly Muslim country. The Turkish experience shows, therefore, that is is possible to read and have faith in Quran yet not be belligerent, as the current norm in the Arab World. Most people who attack Quran as intrinsically evil prefer to disregard this point.
In sum, when you look at historic reality (which to me implies we are dealing here with the past), you can make an observation that explains many events: people en masse, as they are, have always confused the religion with the church promulgating that religion. This does not absolve us of our responsibility in terms of who we should be. When analyzing the current events, we should understand the difference between Islam (as portrayed in Quran and other sources) and what I refer to as "the Islamic church" (as represented by this sheik who promulgate hatred and terror --- towards us, Israel, India, and elsewhere; there is a prominent sheik in England, which had sheltered him from murder verdicts in some Arab country, who spoke recently about having some day the "flag of Islam at 10 Downing Street").
It does not appear that our positions are principally at odds with each other, thus.