5 ms·

"Christianity in particular has a history of absorbing other religions’ traditions" -- Tangentially related: I'm a Catholic, so I don't know much about other "d

"Christianity in particular has a history of absorbing other religions’ traditions" -- Tangentially related: I'm a Catholic, so I don't know much about other "distros", but the Roman Catholic Church has a long, pragmatic history of absorbing local traditions in Indonesia. It's interesting dynamic. Catholic Church is notoriously top-down and hierarchical, yet local parishes can feel entirely distinct. It's not uncommon to see traditional Javanese processions integrated right into the mass. Like skin/mod in a game.

ajross 18d ago
I really don't think that that use of "in particular" is correct or notable? Cross culture motion of mythology and storytelling is the rule with humanity, not the exception. Really it's only in the last/final generation of religions, where they started writing them down in canon/scripture/testaments/writs/dogmas/whatever, that you started to see unique stories get associated with specific religions. Before that? It's all mush. Aphrodite descends pretty clearly from the same line as Astarte/Ishtar/Innana (maybe Isis too), etc... People steal good stories. People get conquered and then confused by retelling the stories their new overlords tell. Again and again.
- mightyham 18d ago
  "In particular" could also be interpreted here as just signaling the main subject of the article, not necessarily making any sort of claim to comparative amount of syncretism.
  - ajross 18d ago
    Editor snobbery digression: that would be poor writing. The job of signaling the main subject of the article belongs to the headline and lede, and "Christian saints" is right there. No, that phrase is just filler. And IMHO it's basically wrong. Certainly if the author want to show that Christianity is more likely than other religions to import ideas, the article has a lot more work to do than point out one myth. Literally everyone does this.
    - mightyham 18d ago
      This is a really pedantic editorial argument. I'm not going to claim the author's sentence is anything amazing, but you are being overly critical. The paragraph clearly introduces the general concept of religious influence through contact, then transitions that idea to pointing out instances of this in Christianity. It is quite literally particularizing the idea as it relates to the main subject, and so it uses the phrase "in particular" in its transition sentence. It's not "basically wrong", it's basically right and you are interpreting it in the least charitable way.
      - ajross 18d ago
        I can't tell what you're disagreeing with. I'm just going to repeat: there is nothing notable or unique to Christian appropriation of myths and stories from other religions. It does it at least as much as everyone else does, and everyone does it everywhere. So trying to tie this uniquely to Christianity seems needless and confusing. The deeper point is more interesting and more important. Is there anything in that paragraph you'd like to argue about?
phyzix5761 18d ago
Its called syncretism. The Greeks and Romans have been doing it since the time of Alexander the Great.
- broken-kebab 18d ago
  Syncretism is mixing religions (as doctrines, beliefs). Assimilating local traditions into one's religious rituals is not that.
  - phyzix5761 18d ago
    "It can include assimilation of several originally discrete traditions, especially in theology and mythology, thus asserting an underlying unity and allowing for an inclusive approach to multiple faiths." "...in the realm of religion, it specifically denotes a more integrated merging of beliefs into a unified system, distinct from eclecticism, which implies a selective adoption of elements from different traditions without necessarily blending them into a new, cohesive belief system." "It provides an opportunity to bring beliefs, values, and customs from one cultural tradition into contact with, and to engage different cultural traditions." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncretism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncretism
    - broken-kebab 18d ago
      Which is what I wrote above?
- ASalazarMX 18d ago
  It's more cultural colonization than syncretism. For example, America was culturally colonized by forcibly converting its inhabitants to Catholicism. Their temples were destroyed, the stones used to build churches, and while celebrations were still observed, the deities were replaced with Catholic ones. Even the folklore was rewritten with Catholic characters. It wasn't syncretism, it was systematic eradication. Syncretism is more akin to reconciliation of different views.
  - 18d ago
Onavo 18d ago
> the Roman Catholic Church has a long, pragmatic history of absorbing local traditions One of the most studied issues in Catholic evangelism is the Chinese rites controversy which is also one of the historical reasons why religions are suppressed in China (aside from ideological policies ascribed to communism). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Rites_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Rites_controversy (That and the Taiping rebellion which was estimated to have killed as many people as World War 2 on the higher end. It was led by a failed scholar claiming to be alleged brother of Jesus. Most of the deaths were due to starvation. Not quite Netflix material but interesting plot nonetheless) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion
- samus 18d ago
  The issue is moot since nowadays local practices are accepted to a degree. Even if Rome decided to go back on that it would have little practical relevance nowadays since there are lots of branches of Christianity that are not in communion with Rome and who are perfectly fine with that.
  - Onavo 18d ago
    It's significant because it effectively lost them their biggest market.
    - samus 18d ago
      It's significant to the Church, but less so for Chinese authorities, who could always decide to establish their own state Church.
- bitsage 18d ago
  The CCP actually views the Taiping Rebellion positively, as an egalitarian movement which is a precursor to their own, albeit significantly flawed [1]. Upon looking this up, I was surprised to see they rarely even view it from a religious lens, maybe because the movement was so syncretic. Although, that could be due to the similarities between the Taiping Rebellion and Cultural Revolution’s aims. 1. https://bitterwinter.org/the-taiping-mystery-1-why-is-the-ccp-honoring-a-cult-leader/ https://bitterwinter.org/the-taiping-mystery-1-why-is-the-cc...
dyauspitr 18d ago
I don’t think anything assimilates religions better than Hinduism. New belief system? Just throw in a new avatar of Vishnu to legitimize it and carry on.
- pessimizer 18d ago
  That's because there's not really a there there when it comes to Hinduism. It's a nationalism disguised as a religion (by eating every local religion.)
  - kshri24 18d ago
    What do you mean by "there there"? What do you mean by "local religion"?
  - amanaplanacanal 18d ago
    Sound similar to other religions. You have a set of scriptures, traditions, and mythologies, that get interpreted by each individual believer. Christianity is pretty much the same. We also have Christian nationalists in the US, for a more politically active flavor.
- kshri24 18d ago
  > Just throw in a new avatar of Vishnu to legitimize it and carry on. Except for it's never done. No Hindu believes Allah or Jesus is an Avatar of Vishnu. It can't be. Vishnu literally means the "All-Pervading One". Allah is explicitly not Omnipresent. Jesus is Omnipresent but does not have infinite forms. So neither fit the bill. Even Buddha, who we Hindus associate as one of the Avatars of Vishnu is not the same Buddha as Gautama Buddha who founded Buddhism.
  - Barrin92 18d ago
    I'm not knowledgeable enough about Hinduism to argue the first point but that's too reductive of a view of Christianity and Islam. There's a rich history of panentheism in both. Ibn Arabi, probably the most famous Sufi scholar was known for defending it ("[God] sleeps in the rock, dreams in the plant, stirs in the animal, and awakens in man"), Meister Eckhart and the Rhineland mystics held similar views etc. Of course that often got them into hot waters with Orthodoxy but it certainly existed and continues to exist. A lot of these traditions are much more flexible than whatever is the dogma or institutional version of the time suggests. David Bentley Hart's writing on Vedantic traditions and Christianity is worth reading
oreally 18d ago
I'd think you overrate christianity too much. Javanese culture is known to be very welcoming of other traditions.
vinceguidry 18d ago
One of the stranger aspects of Roman history is that for centuries, there was a fight over who gets the public space. You'd have the local mystery cults defacing whatever the Christians put up and vice versa. Assimilating local traditions rather than demanding people just adopt theirs fits in with a faith that aims to be higher than all others. Jesus has no need to fight Vishnu, and never did. We're just looking at this through the lens of the Protestant Reformation so this pragmatism is often lost.
Guestmodinfo 18d ago
Catholic church tries to be practical but inadvertently poisons Christianity. Christianity is way different from the Catholic church. Because catholic church is whatever the newest model is in the distro but other distros try to be very very clean and try to follow the original texts and their meaning but catholic church is like the new iphone trying to be like whatever is the trendy trend nowadays.
- sealthedeal 18d ago
  That couldn't be further from the truth. The Catholic Church has withstood the test of time, and is still the original church. It has had its dark times for sure when people said exactly what you are saying now, BUT it is still here and the closest thing we have to the way early church fathers practiced Christianity than any of the 30,000 protestant churches lol.
  - Guestmodinfo 18d ago
    ....."still the original church" The Orthodox churches may want to have a word with you. Especially the orthodox church in India founded by Thomas (one of the Jesus' 12 disciples)
  - bguebert 18d ago
    Not all protestants were trying to change the church in a new way. The Lutheran reformation was an attempt to correct drift from papal decrees from the original christian doctrine so I wouldn't say the Catholic Church is the closest to the early church. I could see how something like the Latter Day Saint movement to be something way off the original track though.
  - throwaway894345 18d ago
    > The Catholic Church has withstood the test of time What does this even mean? That the Catholic Church has some special authority by dint of having been around a long time? Also, what does it even mean if the Catholic Church has been around for a long time when so much about it (including the line of Popes) has been interrupted? Feels a bit like Theseus's ship. > BUT it is still here and the closest thing we have to the way early church fathers practiced Christianity than any of the 30,000 protestant churches lol. By what metric? Catholicism added _a whole lot_ onto traditional Christian teaching (Saints, the pseudo-divinity of mary, the infallibility of the papacy, relics, purgatory, etc) that many protestant denominations have stripped away. One could easily argue (and many do) that these protestant denominations are closer. I'm not sure we can find an objective answer, or that finding one is even useful beyond ego stroking.
graemep 18d ago
> Catholic Church is notoriously top-down and hierarchical It has a hierarchy, but it has multiple hierarchies. It is not all that top down. Bishop's ave a lot of autonomy, and most decisions are made at the diocesan level. Dioceses have their own property and funds held by their own trustees. On top of that religious orders have their own hierarchy (and property and funds etc.). Then there are the rites such as the Ukrainian or Syro-Malabar churches that have their own hierarchies. Historically this was the result of the fact the church predates modern communications. It was not possible for a Pope to direct things the way a CEO of a modern corporation does, but in recent times it has been recognised as guiding principle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity_%28Catholicism%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity_%28Catholicism%29 that has been adopted by other org anisations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity > It's not uncommon to see traditional Javanese processions integrated right into the mass. That is encouraged, as long as there is not conflict with Catholic belief https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inculturation# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inculturation#
- lo_zamoyski 18d ago
  Right. The Church recognizes the principle of subsidiarity which is not coincidentally part of its social teaching. Modern media has allowed the pope to receive unceasing attention that the papacy never possessed historically, but what is important to emphasize is that this is not a reflection of how the Church is administered or how authority is distributed. The idea that the pope is "running the Church" or "watching every member of the one and a half billion member flock like a busybody hawk" is a fiction drawn from jejune ignorance. Rome is notoriously slow to act, which should in general not be seen as a sign of incompetence, but as an expression of subsidiarity. It is much better to view the pope as the ultimate referee rather than some oppressive overlord. The moral ball is in your court, as it were. W.r.t. absorbing what's around it, the Church has always recognized logos spermatikos or seminal reason, meaning, it recognizes reality as an intelligible creation of God, it recognizes the inherent rational nature of every human being, and thus it recognizes that every human being has an in principle capacity to recognize and know reality, to one degree or another. So, it sees no reason to suppose that there is nothing good or true or beautiful outside the Church and plenty of reason to recognize it and embrace it. What is good is good, what is true is true, what is beautiful is beautiful. When the Church encounters a culture, it seeks what is good within it and seeks to transfigure it in order to rescue its goodness and perfect it. Gratia non tollit naturam, sed perficit.
swat535 18d ago
Side note as another Catholic: Saints Josaphat and Barlaam never had an official decree of canonization. That process didn't exist (in its earliest form) until 1170 AD. Saints before that were generally just acclaimed by the Christians in the area and probably recognized by a local bishop. The Vatican does keep a "Roman Martyrology" by which they try to keep a list of all known saints, but the saints that existed before the canonization process are known as "pre-congregation" saints and our certainty about them is generally less, well, certain. In this case, these two names were removed from the Martyrology. That isn't to say that the Vatican has declared they are not saints, but is no longer actively making that claim. There have been quite a few other pre-congregation names removed from the list when historical study has found little evidence of their existence or life story.
- u1hcw9nx 18d ago
  Catholics surely put great effort into bureaucracy and organization. "The devil and a friend of his were walking down the street, when they saw ahead of them a man stoop down and pick up something from the ground, look at it, and put it away in his pocket. The friend said to the devil, 'What did that man pick up?' 'He picked up a piece of Truth,' said the devil.'That is a very bad business for you, then,' said his friend.'Oh, not at all,' the devil replied, 'I am going to let him organize it.'"
  - saimiam 18d ago
    I don’t understand this story. What lesson/joke am I seeing here?
    - mwillis 18d ago
      Organizing information could be considered its own form of (self-inflicted) torment.
      - saimiam 17d ago
        Ohhh, that’s why Google gave up its “dont be evil” stance!
holdit 18d ago
>the Roman Catholic Church has a long, pragmatic history of absorbing local traditions in Indonesia. This is straight out of the Manichaeism playbook whose followers believed that a wide range of previous belief systems including Platonism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism and Christianity each had a part of divine truth in them. This allowed them to absorb a diverse set of followers and contributed to them being one of the fasted spreading religions in Late Antiquity even giving Christianity a run for its money. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism
- annzabelle 18d ago
  Manichaeism did run into a lot of practicality challenges. In particular, the restrictions on diets and behavior for the priestly class were very extreme. No harvesting food, no stepping in puddles, strict veganism, and celibacy. I read a few books on it for a term paper in college, and the part that most sticks out in my distant memory is that the creation myth involves a lot of what were translated in my copy as aborted fetuses.
redwood 18d ago
Sufis have done something similar within Islam. Similar to how there are different denominations of Christians some of whom view some of these as heretical you see the same thing playing on Islam where Sufi saint pilgrimage sites that were once Hindu temples are sometimes destroyed by fundamentalists
ajmurmann 18d ago
I saw a painting in a church in Peru of the last supper. On the painting they were consuming guinea pigs and chicha morada. There also were countless statues and icons of Pachamama which is a kind of merge between mother Mary and a Andean earth goddess. Arguably wet got Christmas trees the same way
bztzt 18d ago
Buddhism itself also has such a history, for example with the Hindu gods, or with Shinto in Japan.
Bapak_jokowi 17d ago
[dead]
pid0x17 17d ago
My family are Orthodox Christians from Jordan, where the (minority) Christian culture is very orthodox, even though there is a large number of Catholics. It was very fascinating for me to see the huge difference between Catholics in Germany (where I live now) to the very Orthodox-style Catholics back in Jordan.

ajross 18d ago

I really don't think that that use of "in particular" is correct or notable? Cross culture motion of mythology and storytelling is the rule with humanity, not the exception. Really it's only in the last/final generation of religions, where they started writing them down in canon/scripture/testaments/writs/dogmas/whatever, that you started to see unique stories get associated with specific religions. Before that? It's all mush. Aphrodite descends pretty clearly from the same line as Astarte/Ishtar/Innana (maybe Isis too), etc... People steal good stories. People get conquered and then confused by retelling the stories their new overlords tell. Again and again.

mightyham 18d ago
"In particular" could also be interpreted here as just signaling the main subject of the article, not necessarily making any sort of claim to comparative amount of syncretism.
- ajross 18d ago
  Editor snobbery digression: that would be poor writing. The job of signaling the main subject of the article belongs to the headline and lede, and "Christian saints" is right there. No, that phrase is just filler. And IMHO it's basically wrong. Certainly if the author want to show that Christianity is more likely than other religions to import ideas, the article has a lot more work to do than point out one myth. Literally everyone does this.
  - mightyham 18d ago
    This is a really pedantic editorial argument. I'm not going to claim the author's sentence is anything amazing, but you are being overly critical. The paragraph clearly introduces the general concept of religious influence through contact, then transitions that idea to pointing out instances of this in Christianity. It is quite literally particularizing the idea as it relates to the main subject, and so it uses the phrase "in particular" in its transition sentence. It's not "basically wrong", it's basically right and you are interpreting it in the least charitable way.
    - ajross 18d ago
      I can't tell what you're disagreeing with. I'm just going to repeat: there is nothing notable or unique to Christian appropriation of myths and stories from other religions. It does it at least as much as everyone else does, and everyone does it everywhere. So trying to tie this uniquely to Christianity seems needless and confusing. The deeper point is more interesting and more important. Is there anything in that paragraph you'd like to argue about?

phyzix5761 18d ago

Its called syncretism. The Greeks and Romans have been doing it since the time of Alexander the Great.

broken-kebab 18d ago
Syncretism is mixing religions (as doctrines, beliefs). Assimilating local traditions into one's religious rituals is not that.
- phyzix5761 18d ago
  "It can include assimilation of several originally discrete traditions, especially in theology and mythology, thus asserting an underlying unity and allowing for an inclusive approach to multiple faiths." "...in the realm of religion, it specifically denotes a more integrated merging of beliefs into a unified system, distinct from eclecticism, which implies a selective adoption of elements from different traditions without necessarily blending them into a new, cohesive belief system." "It provides an opportunity to bring beliefs, values, and customs from one cultural tradition into contact with, and to engage different cultural traditions." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncretism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncretism
  - broken-kebab 18d ago
    Which is what I wrote above?
ASalazarMX 18d ago
It's more cultural colonization than syncretism. For example, America was culturally colonized by forcibly converting its inhabitants to Catholicism. Their temples were destroyed, the stones used to build churches, and while celebrations were still observed, the deities were replaced with Catholic ones. Even the folklore was rewritten with Catholic characters. It wasn't syncretism, it was systematic eradication. Syncretism is more akin to reconciliation of different views.
- 18d ago

Onavo 18d ago

> the Roman Catholic Church has a long, pragmatic history of absorbing local traditions One of the most studied issues in Catholic evangelism is the Chinese rites controversy which is also one of the historical reasons why religions are suppressed in China (aside from ideological policies ascribed to communism). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Rites_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Rites_controversy (That and the Taiping rebellion which was estimated to have killed as many people as World War 2 on the higher end. It was led by a failed scholar claiming to be alleged brother of Jesus. Most of the deaths were due to starvation. Not quite Netflix material but interesting plot nonetheless) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion

samus 18d ago
The issue is moot since nowadays local practices are accepted to a degree. Even if Rome decided to go back on that it would have little practical relevance nowadays since there are lots of branches of Christianity that are not in communion with Rome and who are perfectly fine with that.
- Onavo 18d ago
  It's significant because it effectively lost them their biggest market.
  - samus 18d ago
    It's significant to the Church, but less so for Chinese authorities, who could always decide to establish their own state Church.
bitsage 18d ago
The CCP actually views the Taiping Rebellion positively, as an egalitarian movement which is a precursor to their own, albeit significantly flawed [1]. Upon looking this up, I was surprised to see they rarely even view it from a religious lens, maybe because the movement was so syncretic. Although, that could be due to the similarities between the Taiping Rebellion and Cultural Revolution’s aims. 1. https://bitterwinter.org/the-taiping-mystery-1-why-is-the-ccp-honoring-a-cult-leader/ https://bitterwinter.org/the-taiping-mystery-1-why-is-the-cc...

dyauspitr 18d ago

I don’t think anything assimilates religions better than Hinduism. New belief system? Just throw in a new avatar of Vishnu to legitimize it and carry on.

pessimizer 18d ago
That's because there's not really a there there when it comes to Hinduism. It's a nationalism disguised as a religion (by eating every local religion.)
- kshri24 18d ago
  What do you mean by "there there"? What do you mean by "local religion"?
- amanaplanacanal 18d ago
  Sound similar to other religions. You have a set of scriptures, traditions, and mythologies, that get interpreted by each individual believer. Christianity is pretty much the same. We also have Christian nationalists in the US, for a more politically active flavor.
kshri24 18d ago
> Just throw in a new avatar of Vishnu to legitimize it and carry on. Except for it's never done. No Hindu believes Allah or Jesus is an Avatar of Vishnu. It can't be. Vishnu literally means the "All-Pervading One". Allah is explicitly not Omnipresent. Jesus is Omnipresent but does not have infinite forms. So neither fit the bill. Even Buddha, who we Hindus associate as one of the Avatars of Vishnu is not the same Buddha as Gautama Buddha who founded Buddhism.
- Barrin92 18d ago
  I'm not knowledgeable enough about Hinduism to argue the first point but that's too reductive of a view of Christianity and Islam. There's a rich history of panentheism in both. Ibn Arabi, probably the most famous Sufi scholar was known for defending it ("[God] sleeps in the rock, dreams in the plant, stirs in the animal, and awakens in man"), Meister Eckhart and the Rhineland mystics held similar views etc. Of course that often got them into hot waters with Orthodoxy but it certainly existed and continues to exist. A lot of these traditions are much more flexible than whatever is the dogma or institutional version of the time suggests. David Bentley Hart's writing on Vedantic traditions and Christianity is worth reading

oreally 18d ago

I'd think you overrate christianity too much. Javanese culture is known to be very welcoming of other traditions.

vinceguidry 18d ago

One of the stranger aspects of Roman history is that for centuries, there was a fight over who gets the public space. You'd have the local mystery cults defacing whatever the Christians put up and vice versa. Assimilating local traditions rather than demanding people just adopt theirs fits in with a faith that aims to be higher than all others. Jesus has no need to fight Vishnu, and never did. We're just looking at this through the lens of the Protestant Reformation so this pragmatism is often lost.

Guestmodinfo 18d ago

Catholic church tries to be practical but inadvertently poisons Christianity. Christianity is way different from the Catholic church. Because catholic church is whatever the newest model is in the distro but other distros try to be very very clean and try to follow the original texts and their meaning but catholic church is like the new iphone trying to be like whatever is the trendy trend nowadays.

sealthedeal 18d ago
That couldn't be further from the truth. The Catholic Church has withstood the test of time, and is still the original church. It has had its dark times for sure when people said exactly what you are saying now, BUT it is still here and the closest thing we have to the way early church fathers practiced Christianity than any of the 30,000 protestant churches lol.
- Guestmodinfo 18d ago
  ....."still the original church" The Orthodox churches may want to have a word with you. Especially the orthodox church in India founded by Thomas (one of the Jesus' 12 disciples)
- bguebert 18d ago
  Not all protestants were trying to change the church in a new way. The Lutheran reformation was an attempt to correct drift from papal decrees from the original christian doctrine so I wouldn't say the Catholic Church is the closest to the early church. I could see how something like the Latter Day Saint movement to be something way off the original track though.
- throwaway894345 18d ago
  > The Catholic Church has withstood the test of time What does this even mean? That the Catholic Church has some special authority by dint of having been around a long time? Also, what does it even mean if the Catholic Church has been around for a long time when so much about it (including the line of Popes) has been interrupted? Feels a bit like Theseus's ship. > BUT it is still here and the closest thing we have to the way early church fathers practiced Christianity than any of the 30,000 protestant churches lol. By what metric? Catholicism added _a whole lot_ onto traditional Christian teaching (Saints, the pseudo-divinity of mary, the infallibility of the papacy, relics, purgatory, etc) that many protestant denominations have stripped away. One could easily argue (and many do) that these protestant denominations are closer. I'm not sure we can find an objective answer, or that finding one is even useful beyond ego stroking.

graemep 18d ago

> Catholic Church is notoriously top-down and hierarchical It has a hierarchy, but it has multiple hierarchies. It is not all that top down. Bishop's ave a lot of autonomy, and most decisions are made at the diocesan level. Dioceses have their own property and funds held by their own trustees. On top of that religious orders have their own hierarchy (and property and funds etc.). Then there are the rites such as the Ukrainian or Syro-Malabar churches that have their own hierarchies. Historically this was the result of the fact the church predates modern communications. It was not possible for a Pope to direct things the way a CEO of a modern corporation does, but in recent times it has been recognised as guiding principle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity_%28Catholicism%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity_%28Catholicism%29 that has been adopted by other org anisations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity > It's not uncommon to see traditional Javanese processions integrated right into the mass. That is encouraged, as long as there is not conflict with Catholic belief https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inculturation# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inculturation#

lo_zamoyski 18d ago
Right. The Church recognizes the principle of subsidiarity which is not coincidentally part of its social teaching. Modern media has allowed the pope to receive unceasing attention that the papacy never possessed historically, but what is important to emphasize is that this is not a reflection of how the Church is administered or how authority is distributed. The idea that the pope is "running the Church" or "watching every member of the one and a half billion member flock like a busybody hawk" is a fiction drawn from jejune ignorance. Rome is notoriously slow to act, which should in general not be seen as a sign of incompetence, but as an expression of subsidiarity. It is much better to view the pope as the ultimate referee rather than some oppressive overlord. The moral ball is in your court, as it were. W.r.t. absorbing what's around it, the Church has always recognized logos spermatikos or seminal reason, meaning, it recognizes reality as an intelligible creation of God, it recognizes the inherent rational nature of every human being, and thus it recognizes that every human being has an in principle capacity to recognize and know reality, to one degree or another. So, it sees no reason to suppose that there is nothing good or true or beautiful outside the Church and plenty of reason to recognize it and embrace it. What is good is good, what is true is true, what is beautiful is beautiful. When the Church encounters a culture, it seeks what is good within it and seeks to transfigure it in order to rescue its goodness and perfect it. Gratia non tollit naturam, sed perficit.

swat535 18d ago

Side note as another Catholic: Saints Josaphat and Barlaam never had an official decree of canonization. That process didn't exist (in its earliest form) until 1170 AD. Saints before that were generally just acclaimed by the Christians in the area and probably recognized by a local bishop. The Vatican does keep a "Roman Martyrology" by which they try to keep a list of all known saints, but the saints that existed before the canonization process are known as "pre-congregation" saints and our certainty about them is generally less, well, certain. In this case, these two names were removed from the Martyrology. That isn't to say that the Vatican has declared they are not saints, but is no longer actively making that claim. There have been quite a few other pre-congregation names removed from the list when historical study has found little evidence of their existence or life story.

u1hcw9nx 18d ago
Catholics surely put great effort into bureaucracy and organization. "The devil and a friend of his were walking down the street, when they saw ahead of them a man stoop down and pick up something from the ground, look at it, and put it away in his pocket. The friend said to the devil, 'What did that man pick up?' 'He picked up a piece of Truth,' said the devil.'That is a very bad business for you, then,' said his friend.'Oh, not at all,' the devil replied, 'I am going to let him organize it.'"
- saimiam 18d ago
  I don’t understand this story. What lesson/joke am I seeing here?
  - mwillis 18d ago
    Organizing information could be considered its own form of (self-inflicted) torment.
    - saimiam 17d ago
      Ohhh, that’s why Google gave up its “dont be evil” stance!

holdit 18d ago

>the Roman Catholic Church has a long, pragmatic history of absorbing local traditions in Indonesia. This is straight out of the Manichaeism playbook whose followers believed that a wide range of previous belief systems including Platonism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism and Christianity each had a part of divine truth in them. This allowed them to absorb a diverse set of followers and contributed to them being one of the fasted spreading religions in Late Antiquity even giving Christianity a run for its money. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism

annzabelle 18d ago
Manichaeism did run into a lot of practicality challenges. In particular, the restrictions on diets and behavior for the priestly class were very extreme. No harvesting food, no stepping in puddles, strict veganism, and celibacy. I read a few books on it for a term paper in college, and the part that most sticks out in my distant memory is that the creation myth involves a lot of what were translated in my copy as aborted fetuses.

redwood 18d ago

Sufis have done something similar within Islam. Similar to how there are different denominations of Christians some of whom view some of these as heretical you see the same thing playing on Islam where Sufi saint pilgrimage sites that were once Hindu temples are sometimes destroyed by fundamentalists

ajmurmann 18d ago

I saw a painting in a church in Peru of the last supper. On the painting they were consuming guinea pigs and chicha morada. There also were countless statues and icons of Pachamama which is a kind of merge between mother Mary and a Andean earth goddess. Arguably wet got Christmas trees the same way

bztzt 18d ago

Buddhism itself also has such a history, for example with the Hindu gods, or with Shinto in Japan.

Bapak_jokowi 17d ago

[dead]

pid0x17 17d ago

My family are Orthodox Christians from Jordan, where the (minority) Christian culture is very orthodox, even though there is a large number of Catholics. It was very fascinating for me to see the huge difference between Catholics in Germany (where I live now) to the very Orthodox-style Catholics back in Jordan.