History Main / ArtisticLicenseTraditionalChristianity

** The main point of a mission is humanitarian aid, missionaries become missionaries for the same reason people volunteer for other charities -- they want to help. It's also some of the hardest and most dangerous work on the planet, the fact that missionaries protect the communities they join and are often praised by them, and the fact that the mission brings things like sustainable water, food, [[http://theologicalscribbles.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/catholic-church-and-healthcare-in.html health care (including medicines for people with AIDS)]], education, in addition to moral teachings they genuinely consider good for those communities (which in early times came at risk for their own lives), and hope to billions is entirely lost on most people.

** The main point of a mission is humanitarian aid, missionaries become missionaries for the same reason people volunteer for other charities -- they want to help. It's also some of the hardest and most dangerous work on the planet, the fact that missionaries protect the communities they join and are often praised by them, and the fact that the mission brings things like sustainable water, food, [[http://theologicalscribbles.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/catholic-church-and-healthcare-in.html health care (including medicines for people with AIDS)]], education, good moral teachings, and hope to billions is entirely lost on most people.

* When it comes to homosexuality, the Catholic Church does not consider homosexual ''desires'' a sin as these are beyond the person's control. ''Acting'' on these desires, like having homosexual sex, is a sin, as per the Book of Romans. In fact, the Catechism encourages those with homosexual desires to [[CelibateHero live a life of celibacy]] and teaches that "every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided". For traditional Protestants, homosexual intercourse is frowned upon and is considered a sin because ''Literature/BookOfRomans'' mentioned that same-sex intercourse is against the nature of marriage and reproduction as proposed by God, and thus agrees with the Catholic Church on this point. However, attitudes towards non-straight relationships vary by denomination, and many progressive churches officiate same-sex marriages, largely due to a looser approach to interpreting scripture.

* Although there have been Christians who believed that the Jews killed Jesus, this notion is not a part of mainstream Christian doctrine. The Catholic Vatican II document ''Nostra Aetate'', which denounced this idea, was not an innovation, but a restatement of longstanding Christian teaching. Recall that the New Testament writers were Jewish, and that their original aim, in addition to converting Gentiles, was to reform Judaism from within. Indeed, the Gospel writers portray the architects of Jesus' crucifixion as a cabal within the Jewish leadership that not only violated Jesus' rights under Jewish law, but sold out the Jewish cause. First, Jesus is arrested by night and tried before a KangarooCourt composed mostly of Sanhedrin members who have already made up their minds to condemn him. (One of the dissenters indicates that there is not a proper quorum present, and that the time of Jesus' trial is irregular.) Once condemned, when Jesus is brought before Pilate, there is a mob present, but it is a handpicked gathering that has been given prior orders to call for Jesus' crucifixion. Tellingly, during the exchange with Pilate, Caiaphas and his followers state, "We have no king, but Caesar". In so doing, they have betrayed the Jewish people. To first-century Jews, Caesar was not the legitimate government, but a conqueror, an oppressive occupier, and many dreamed of a time when they would again live under a King of their own. [[note]] In portraying Caiaphas this way, the Gospel writers were actually following on a time-honored Jewish tradition, dating back to Nathan and King David, in which prophets called out the king and people of Israel on their wrongdoings.[[/note]] (The Gospel of John portrays Caiaphas somewhat more sympathetically, as believing that Jesus will bring the wrath of Rome down on the Jewish people, and concludes that his death is necessary to prevent a wholesale slaughter of the Jewish people.) What about the statement of the mob that Jesus' blood was on their hands and those of their children? According to Biblical scholars, this was a ritual statement traditionally made at executions. It was basically a formal way of saying "If our accusations are false, then may our bloodlines be cursed for all time!" or in modern words, "If I'm lying, then may God strike me dead!" While the mob may have said this, it has no real meaning or effect, as Deut. 24:16 and Ezek 19:20 clearly hold that the sins of the father shall not be visited unto the son, but that each shall bear his own sin. In fact, established Christian doctrine states that Jesus died for the sins of all humanity and that humanity as a whole bears the guilt for his death. (Rom 8:3 and Heb. 2:14). Note also that, in the Passion narratives of the Gospels, Jesus stated that, if he wanted to, he could have called down legions of angels to deliver him from his fate.

* Dionysus' religion is often framed as being reminiscent of early Christianity, due to superficial similarities between some Dionysus myths and Christian practice, particularly an affinity for bread and wine and that Dionysus was worshiped as a death and rebirth deity (in some versions), dying annually and resurrecting annually in accordance with the seasons. While some of the various Dionysus cults do have some very vague reassembles to Christianity, in that they are both religions, this doesn't mean one is based off of the other. The cults of Dionysus may have valued wine and bread very highly... but they valued it because they were hedonists. The bread and wine in Christianity are a re-enactment of the last supper and symbolic of Christ's body (bread) and blood (wine). The significance and timing of Christ's death and rebirth is the exclusive province of the Jewish Passover, which takes place in spring and was celebrated by Jesus and the apostles at the Last Supper, just before he died. To understand symbolism in Christ’s death one would have to look at the story of the first Passover (many historians believe the fact that Christ’s death and resurrection centers around Passover isn’t a coincidence). During the first Passover, the Israelites had to sacrifice a lamb (a sacrificial lamb) and use its blood to cover the tops of their doors to protect their firstborns from the angel of death that God sent down on Egypt. Accordingly, Christ is called “the lamb of God” in several of the canonical Gospels, implying his death was sacrificial. So many assume that Christ's death was in some ways meant to symbolize the lambs that were sacrificed during Passover, whose blood was then used to protect the Israelites from God's final plague, and whose bodies were used in the Passover feast. More to the point, Dionysus myths, like all Geek Mythology, vary wildly depending on region, time period and author. The supposed correspondences are the result of cherry-picking certain myths that have superficial similarities with Christianity and supposing some significance comes from that.

* The notion that TheMiddleAges, particularly the '[[DarkAgeEurope Dark Ages]]' (now referred to as the 'Early Middle-Ages') were a time of darkness where religious leaders suppressed scientific advancement has in fact been widely discredited and is now considered untrue by most historians. Many inventions were actually promoted by the Church, which also worked to preserve Pagan writings and built scientific experiments ''into the very fabric of the Vatican''. And don't forget that many priests were also scientists, or rather, ''most scientists were also priests'' (or clericals at least). [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science Here is a list that just shows the notable ones]], including Henri Lemaître, a Belgian priest, astrophysicist, and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven ''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître and the guy who originally proposed Big Bang theory]]'', one of the most important theories in modern physics. There's also the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Academy_of_Sciences Pontifical Academy of Sciences]], the [[http://vaticanobservatory.org/ Vatican Observatory]], ''one of the oldest scientific institutions in the world'', the former priest and famous evolutionary biologist [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_J._Ayala Francisco Ayala]], and [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel Gregor Mendel]]. You know, that guy with peas who pretty much figured out genetics and was also a monk. The irony here is that the people who regularly claim that Christianity stifles research and the acquisition of knowledge are failing to do any research themselves.

Hilter was born and raised a Catholic but left the Catholic Church for the German Christians (A protestant group) and had been excommunicated along with the Nazi Leadership in 1931 He worked to eliminate Catholicism as a political force in Germany but was also fine with German Catholics existing as long as they did not challange the Reich and the Nazi party had both Catholics and Anti-Catholic wings. However, the popular idea that the bigwigs in the Church, especially the Pope of the time, were active supporters of fascism has little historical basis.

* When it comes to homosexuality, the Catholic Church does not consider homosexual ''desires'' a sin as these are beyond the person's control. ''Acting'' on these desires, like having homosexual sex, is a sin. In fact, the Catechism teaches that "Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided" and encourages those with homosexual desires to [[CelibateHero live a life of celibacy]]. For traditional Protestants, homosexual intercourse is frowned upon and is considered a sin because ''Literature/BookOfRomans'' mentioned that same-sex intercourse is against the nature of marriage and reproduction as proposed by God. However, attitudes towards non-straight relationships vary by denomination, and many progressive churches officiate same-sex marriages, largely due to a looser approach to interpreting scripture.

* When it comes to homosexuality, the Catholic Church does not consider homosexual ''desires'' a sin as it is something beyond the person's control. Acting on these desires, like homosexual ''sex'', is a sin. Treating homosexual desires as a sin is condemned by the Catholic Catechism (which hasn't stopped some Catholics). For traditional Protestants, homosexual intercourse is frowned upon and is considered as a sin because ''Literature/BookOfRomans'' mentioned that same-sex intercourse is against the nature of marriage and reproduction as proposed by God. However, attitudes towards non-straight relationships vary by denomination, and many progressive churches officiate same-sex marriages, largely due to a looser approach to interpreting scripture.

* When it comes to homosexuality, the Catholic Church does not consider it a sin. Homosexual ''sex'' is a sin. Treating homosexuality itself as a sin is condemned by the Catholic Catechism (which hasn't stopped some Catholics). For traditional Protestants, homosexual intercourse is frowned upon and is considered as a sin because ''Literature/BookOfRomans'' mentioned that same-sex intercourse is against the nature of marriage and reproduction as proposed by God. However, attitudes towards non-straight relationships vary by denomination, and many progressive churches officiate same-sex marriages, largely due to a looser approach to interpreting scripture.

* Whatever other hang-ups young-earth creationists have with evolution, most generally ''don't'' believe that Satan or God put fossils straight into the ground without living dinosaurs to produce them in the first place, (though there are some prominent ones mostly in Creationist educational circles, even back in the late 19th century many Christians took issue with this belief: https://books.google.com/books?id=VYErAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA33&dq=%22test+our+faith%22#v=onepage&q=%22test%20our%20faith%22&f=false ). They don't think Satan put them there because they don't think Satan has that much control over the physical world, and they don't think God put them there because they don't think an omnibenevolent God would deliberately deceive humans in such a way. YE creationists do actually believe that dinosaurs lived, died and were fossilized; they just think this all happened on a ''much'' quicker timescale than most scientists do. One exception to this is the Omphalos theory published by Philip Gosse in a book of the same name c. 1857, which theorized that God created things such as trees with preexisting rings, plus navels on Adam and Eve (Omphalos means "navel" in Greek). This was not accepted for exactly the reasons stated above. It also exists now in the form of a parody religion called "Last Thursdayism" stating that God created everything last Thursday, with memories of supposed prior times included.

* Whatever other hang-ups young-earth creationists have with evolution, they generally ''don't'' believe that Satan or God put fossils straight into the ground without living dinosaurs to produce them in the first place. They don't think Satan put them there because they don't think Satan has that much control over the physical world, and they don't think God put them there because they don't think an omnibenevolent God would deliberately deceive humans in such a way. YE creationists do actually believe that dinosaurs lived, died and were fossilized; they just think this all happened on a ''much'' quicker timescale than most scientists do. One exception to this is the Omphalos theory published by Philip Gosse in a book of the same name c. 1857, which theorized that God created things such as trees with preexisting rings, plus navels on Adam and Eve (Omphalos means "navel" in Greek). This was not accepted for exactly the reasons stated above. It also exists now in the form of a parody religion called "Last Thursdayism" stating that God created everything last Thursday, with memories of supposed prior times included.

This article is a list of common misconceptions held by people about Traditional Christianity. For examples of this in action and for misconceptions about other religions, see ArtisticLicenseReligion. For more information, see the Useful Notes page on UsefulNotes/{{Christianity}} and UsefulNotes/OrthodoxChristianity.

* "UsefulNotes/{{Jesus}} Christ of the Nazareth Christs": The word "Christ" means "[[TheChosenOne the anointed one]]" (a translation of the Hebrew term "messiah"), a title that Jesus' followers applied to him based on what they believed him to be. All too often it is clear that people think that this is his last name. Outside of his circle of believers, Jesus would have been known as Jesus of Nazareth, or as Yeshua[[note]]"Joshua", of which "Jesus" is a Greek/Latin version[[/note]] bar[[note]]Aramaic for "son of"[[/note]] Yosef.[[note]] "Joseph", the Virgin Mary's husband, and if you don't believe in the Virgin Birth, Jesus' father. Even if you do believe in the Virgin Birth, Jesus' father-figure of sorts.[[/note]] His enemies, despite how they are depicted in ''Theatre/JesusChristSuperstar'', would largely have thought it heresy to refer to him as Jesus Christ.
* Catholicism is often claimed to be quasi-polytheistic by non-Catholics (veneration of saints and the Mother Mary). Catholics don't actually worship the saints, including Mary, any more than they worship icons such as the crucifix, or "pray to statues". They usually get annoyed when people accuse them of this. In actual fact, when Catholics pray to the saints they ask them to 'intercede' with God on their behalf, basically asking the saint or Mary to speak up for them to God.

* A large number of people misunderstand the Catholic teaching of the Immaculate Conception. The Immaculate Conception was NOT Mary's virgin conception of Jesus—that's called the Incarnation. The Immaculate Conception is the belief that Mary was herself conceived without original sin—which has nothing to do with a virgin conception. Specifically, the miracle of the Immaculate Conception was God preventing the transmission of Original Sin (which was Adam's curse after the expulsion from Paradise, to pass the sin of his transgression on to all his descendants, which she would have normally received from her father and mother at the moment of her conception) so she would be spiritually fit to give birth to Jesus. It's also NewerThanTheyThink. Orthodox, believing Christians have believed in the Virgin Birth since the beginning, but the Catholic Church only adopted Immaculate Conception as an official doctrine in the 19th Century. Belief in the doctrine has existed for several centuries -- you find arguments for and against it by name stretching back to the early Middle Ages and in concept as far back as the 4th century -- but not as Church dogma.
* Similarly, many non-Catholics are vaguely familiar with the concept of "papal infallibility", the dogma that UsefulNotes/ThePope is 100% correct when he talks about faith and morals. What most ''don't'' realize is that the Pope's words are only considered infallible when he is speaking ''ex cathedra'' (literally, "from the throne")[[note]]The Pope, being a bishop, has a throne called a ''cathedra'' which is used as a symbol of his authority.[[/note]] meaning it only applies when he is explicitly invoking the infallibility or is otherwise considered to have the intention of doing so; in addition, he must not contradict Scripture, existing Church dogma, nor another Pope who spoke ''Ex Cathedra'', and it ''only'' applies to matters of theology, all of which adds up to some pretty strict and explicit criteria. To date, this has happened at least twice[[note]]Both concerning Mary, interestingly - once on the Immaculate Conception, once on her Assumption into Heaven[[/note]], while some put the definite count at seven times. Probably. While the doctrine is understood today as giving the Pope a lot of power, at the time it was perceived as a way of LIMITING the Pope's power; if a past Pope makes an infallible statement, a later Pope cannot "change" this teaching if he doesn't like it. He's also not the only infallible authority in the Church. Ecumenical Councils -- general councils of all of the bishops in the Church -- are also considered infallible in their solemn pronouncements. Both of these are for the same reason: God would not allow the supreme teaching authority of His church to lead His followers astray.

* The debate about Jesus' physical appearance vs. how he appears in icons and artwork is full of misconceptions. The most common depictions of Jesus (long, brown hair and olivish complexion) are based on the earliest Christian icons, some of which date back to the 1st Century AD. His depictions in Medieval and Renaissance artworks are reflective both of the influence of Classical Mythology and ideals of masculine beauty at the time and were never meant to be realistic or accurate portrayals. Michelangelo's famous painting is also not based on Cesare Borgia as some have alleged, whatever similarities in their appearance probably has more to do with the fact that Borgia was considered drop-dead gorgeous by Renaissance Italian standards. The same is true of, for example, Chinese icons which depict Jesus as Chinese. The concept of race is also far newer than most people think; as such, the notion of "White Jesus" is a very recent invention and is entirely baseless. Any attempt to root the concept any farther back than about the late 1700s is equally baseless. No one without ulterior motives argues that Jesus -- in his human nature at least -- looked like anything other than a typical Palestinian Jew of his time period; alternative depictions at best represent artistic license. It's also generally accepted that you can depict Jesus in his divine nature however you want (hence the variations), with the understanding that his true form is beyond human imagination.

* Although there have been Christians who believed that the Jews killed Jesus, this notion is not a part of mainstream Christian doctrine. The Catholic Vatican II document ''Nostra Aetate'', which denounced this idea, was not an innovation, but a restatement of longstanding Christian teaching. Recall that the New Testament writers were Jewish, and that their original aim, in addition to converting Gentiles, was to reform Judaism from within. Indeed, the Gospel writers portray the architects of Jesus' crucifixion as a cabal within the Jewish leadership that not only violated Jesus' rights under Jewish law, but sold out the Jewish cause. First, Jesus is arrested by night and tried before a KangarooCourt composed mostly of Sanhedrin members who have already made up their minds to condemn him. (One of the dissenters indicates that there is not a proper quorum present, and that the time of Jesus' trial is irregular.) Once condemned, when Jesus is brought before Pilate, there is a mob present, but it is not representative the Jewish people, but a handpicked gathering that has been given prior orders to call for Jesus' crucifixion. Tellingly, during the exchange with Pilate, Caiaphas and his followers state, "We have no king, but Caesar". In so doing, they have betrayed the Jewish cause. To first-century Jews, Caesar was not the legitimate government, but a conqueror, an oppressive occupier, and many dreamed of a time when they would again live under a King. [[note]] In portraying Caiaphas this way, the Gospel writers were actually following on a time-honored Jewish tradition, dating back to Nathan and King David, in which prophets called out the king and people of Israel on their wrongdoings.[[/note]] (The Gospel of John portrays Caiaphas somewhat more sympathetically, as a KnightTemplar who believes that Jesus will bring the wrath of Rome down on the Jewish people, and concludes that his death is necessary to prevent a wholesale slaughter of the Jewish people.) What about the statement of the mob that Jesus' blood was on their hands and those of their children? According to Biblical scholars, this was a ritual statement traditionally made at executions. It was basically a formal way of saying "If our accusations are false, then may our bloodlines be cursed for all time!" or in modern words, "If the things I say are not true, then may god strike me dead!" While the mob may have said this, it has no real meaning or effect, as Deut. 24:16 and Ezek 19:20 clearly hold that the sins of the father shall not be visited unto the son, but that each shall bear his own sin. In fact, established Christian doctrine states that Jesus died for the sins of all humanity and that humanity as a whole bears the guilt for his death. (Rom 8:3 and Heb. 2:14). Note also that, in the Passion narratives of the Gospels, Jesus stated that, if he wanted to, he could have called down legions of angels to deliver him from his fate.

** The misunderstanding here regarding who ripped off whom has several roots. First, was that there was virtually no conflict during the institution of the festival; Christians examined Aurelian's ideas, took a shine to them, and functionally ''[[JustForPun baptized]]'' them, giving them new Christian significance without having to impose a whole new methodology on everyone around them. The Birth of the Unconquered Sun was re-appropriated to refer to the "Sun of Salvation" or the "Sun of Justice", as in, Jesus himself. This "baptism" is actually quite common in nascent and/or rural Christian communities, which is why there is a disconnect when festivals and celebrations that look decidedly un-Christian (or, at least, are missing the cultural images of a certain set of [[ChristianityIsCatholic "Smells and Bells"]]) and Pagan are witnessed by casual observers. [[note]]The Christmas tree, for example, came from Germanic pagans. It was unknown in the English-speaking world until Queen Victoria married a German in 1839.[[/note]] Also important in the idea of Christmas originally being Pagan are the theories proposed by Paul Ernst Jablonski, a German Protestant, who wanted to demonstrate that the festival of Christmas was one of the early "Paganizations" of Apostolic Christianity into Catholicism, and by Dom Jean Hardouin, a Benedictine monk, who wanted to demonstrate the Catholic Church adopted Pagan festivals for Christian purposes without paganizing the Gospel. Both theories agreed on the '''assumption''' that, since the Julian calendar, which dated from 45 B.C. listed December 25 as the Winter Solstice, the date had a pagan significance prior to its Christian one. Jablonski merely noted the correlation of the technical designation of Dec. 25 and thus concluded that the Roman Winter Solstice had a significance prior to Christmas. Hardouin failed to challenge the assumption.

** With that said, it is impossible to deny that sympathies for fascism did exist within the Catholic Church. All three of the major fascists of the time (UsefulNotes/BenitoMussolini, UsefulNotes/FranciscoFranco and UsefulNotes/AdolfHitler) did pay lip service to Catholicism (although it was certainly nothing more than lip service in the case of Mussolini, who had spent much of his life a firm atheist and started off as a communist, and it is widely debated how religious Hitler was) and canonically the Catholic Church considers Franco to be in Heaven (although in the case of Spain, Catholics more went with Franco out of circumstance due to the [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror_(Spain) Red Terror]] during the UsefulNotes/SpanishCivilWar than anything else). However, the popular idea that the bigwigs in the Church, especially the Pope of the time, were active supporters of fascism has little historical basis.

* Much debate is possible about the attitudes of various Christians toward sex, and there have been very many problematic statements made and repressive attitudes held by Christians. ''However'', a work ''does'' fail Religious Studies forever if it claims or implies that Literature/TheBible or any mainstream Christian denomination (including Catholics and mainstream fundamentalists such as evangelicals) ''actually teach'' that you shouldn't have sex because [[SexIsEvil Sex is Bad.]] As opposed to "you shouldn't have sex unless you [[MarriageTropes promise to stay with the person forever]]." You are also wrong if you believe that the Catholic Church teaches that sex is solely for procreation, and that all forms of birth control are wrong. As of ''Humanae Vitae'' and ''Evangelium Vitae'' (official doctrinal letters issued by Pope Paul IV and Pope John Paul II respectively), the Church teaches that sex has two purposes: procreative and unitive (bringing the couple closer together and helping preserve the marriage). The Church is opposed to ''artificial'' contraception, maintaining that artificial methods disrupt both the unitive and procreative aspects of sex; however, natural methods, such as Natural Family Planning do not disrupt these aspects and are permissible if the couple has important reasons (physical, psychological, material or others) to limit the number of children or to postpone conception of a child. Specifically, Catholicism requires 4 facets for the sex to be considered a "good" act. It has to be Relational, Unifying, Humanistic, and Fecund. It can satisfy that through the law of double effect though, meaning intent, course, and principle can lead to it even if the result is not the production of life. Doing less is considered a privation, or lessening of the act (sort of like cutting down a redwood forest for the sake of obtaining a single toothpick). That said, natural family planning is a sufficient method.

* While there is naturally quite a bit of debate about the divinity of Jesus and certain specific details of his ministry (e.g. whether he had disciples, whether he ''personally'' claimed to be the Son of God), the consensus among the vast majority of scholars of antiquity, even the non-Christian ones, is that a Galilean Jew named Jesus (well, "Ye(ho)shua(h)") ''did'' actually exist, that he was baptized by John the Baptist when he was around 30, and that Pontius Pilate ordered him to be crucified. The idea that Jesus was a purely fictional character is generally considered to be refuted by professional historians, and in fact they look at people who make this claim the same way they do people who claim the Holocaust never happened. (Not with the same level of horror, mind you, but with a similar level of "are you kidding me?")

* [[UsefulNotes/ThePope Pope]] [[UsefulNotes/PopePiusXII Pisu XII]] neither supported the UsefulNotes/{{Nazi|Germany}}s nor deliberately turned a blind eye towards their atrocities. Though it could be debated whether the Vatican's relative silence during the war was justified in attempting to prevent the Nazis' persecutions against Jews (and Catholic clergy) from worsening, [[http://www.ewtn.com/library/CHISTORY/PIUS12.HTM it is clear from the actions he did take]] that the silence was not out of support nor apathy.

* [[UsefulNotes/ThePope Pope]] UsefulNotes/PiusXII neither supported the Nazis nor deliberately turned a blind eye towards their atrocities. Though it could be debated whether the Vatican's relative silence during the war was justified in attempting to prevent the Nazis' persecutions against Jews (and Catholic clergy) from worsening, [[http://www.ewtn.com/library/CHISTORY/PIUS12.HTM it is clear from the actions he did take]] that the silence was not out of support nor apathy.
** With that said, it is impossible to deny that sympathies for fascism did exist within the Catholic Church. All three of the major fascists of the time (Mussolini, Franco, and Hitler) did pay lip service to Catholicism (although it was certainly nothing more than lip service in the case of Mussolini, who had spent much of his life a firm atheist, and it is widely debated how religious Hitler was) and canonically the Catholic Church considers Franco to be in Heaven. (Although in the case of Spain, Catholics more went with Franco out of circumstance than anything else.) However, the popular idea that the bigwigs in the Church, especially the Pope of the time, were active supporters of fascism has little historical basis.
* There were attempts to smear Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI by claiming he was a UsefulNotes/{{Nazi|Germany}} because he was drafted by them at age sixteen. Not only was the Pope never a Nazi, his family had to keep moving house because of their strong anti-Nazi beliefs. The "Hitler Youth" part of the equation never even happened -- they told him to join, and he got a note saying he was excused for he wanted to become a priest. He also deserted from the army towards the end of the war, by this point many overseers of ChildSoldiers weren't zealous and just let them go to save their lives. To make matters worse, Benedict's fourteen-year-old cousin was taken away and killed by the Nazis because he had Down syndrome.

* UsefulNotes/TheCrusades as you might expect from multiple conflicts that span across several centuries, are more complex than commonly thought of, featuring a variety of antagonistic factions, a variety of different rationales -- both religious and secular -- and a variety of different goals. Accordingly, they are not reducable to a monolithic conflict between Muslims and Christians over the Holy Land. The First Crusade, in fact, was every bit a war between two conflicting Muslim groups and two conflicting Christian groups as it was a war between "Crusaders and Saracens."
* [[UsefulNotes/TheTroubles The conflict in Northern Ireland]] between "Protestants" and "Catholics" has much less to do with religion than the labels imply. The religious labels are used (mostly by the media) as easy identifiers for two ethnic and cultural communities whose grudges against each other spring not from religious differences but from historical wrongs (England invaded and subjugated Ireland). Many of the people most deeply involved in the conflict today do not believe in God at all, yet will still use the religious label as a way to identify with their community. The main sides in the conflict are actually known and self identified as the Republicans (who want Ireland to be a unified Republic) and the Unionists (who want Ireland to remain in the United Kingdom). The initial conflict does have its roots in religion, attempts to impose the Protestant Church of England by force and oppress the Catholic Irish being a major sticking point, but the religious significance of the conflict itself has waned over time.

* The notion that the Middle Ages, particularly the 'Dark Ages' (now referred to as the 'Early Middle-Ages') were a time of darkness where religious leaders suppressed scientific advancement has in fact been widely discredited and is now considered untrue by most historians. Many inventions were actually promoted by the Church, which also worked to preserve Pagan writings and built scientific experiments ''into the very fabric of the Vatican''. And don't forget that many priests were also scientists, or rather, ''most scientists were also priests''. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science Here is a list that just shows the notable ones]], including Henri Lemaître, a Belgian priest, astrophysicist, and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven ''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître and the guy who originally proposed Big Bang theory]]'', one of the most important theories in modern physics. There's also the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Academy_of_Sciences Pontifical Academy of Sciences]], the [[http://vaticanobservatory.org/ Vatican Observatory]], ''one of the oldest scientific institutions in the world'', the former priest and famous evolutionary biologist [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_J._Ayala Francisco Ayala]], and [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel Gregor Mendel]]. You know, that guy with peas who pretty much figured out genetics and was also a monk. The irony here is that the people who regularly claim that Christianity stifles research and the acquisition of knowledge are failing to do any research themselves.

* There were attempts to smear Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI by claiming he was a Nazi because he was drafted by them at age sixteen (membership was mandatory at that point). Not only was the Pope never a Nazi, his family had to keep moving house because of their strong anti-Nazi beliefs. The "Hitler Youth" part of the equation never even happened -- they told him to join, and he got a note saying he was excused. He also deserted from the army during the war. To make matters worse, Benedict's fourteen-year-old cousin was taken away and killed by the Nazis because he had Down syndrome.
* Similarly, Pius XII neither supported the Nazis nor deliberately turned a blind eye towards their atrocities. Though it could be debated whether the Vatican's relative silence during the war was justified in attempting to prevent the Nazis' persecutions against Jews (and Catholic clergy) from worsening, [[http://www.ewtn.com/library/CHISTORY/PIUS12.HTM it is clear from the actions he did take]] that the silence was not out of support nor apathy.
** With that said, it is impossible to deny that Catholic sympathies for fascism did exist. All three of the major fascists of the time (Mussolini, Franco, and Hitler) did pay lip service to Catholicism (although it was certainly nothing more than lip service in the case of Mussolini, who had spent much of his life a firm atheist, and it is widely debated how religious Hitler was) and canonically the Catholic Church considers Franco to be in Heaven. (Although in the case of Spain, Catholics more went with Franco out of circumstance than anything else.) However, the popular idea that the bigwigs in the Church, especially the Pope of the time, were active supporters of fascism has little historical basis.

[[/folder]]

This article is a list of common misconceptions held by people about Traditional Christianity. For examples of this in action and for misconceptions about other religions, see ArtisticLicenseReligion. For more information, see the Useful Notes page on UsefulNotes/{{Christianity}}.

* The practice of medicine was never opposed by the Catholic Church. Clerics were indeed discouraged from studying medicine and practicing it outside of monasteries, but only because doing so exposed them to the risk of actually being "corrupted": in the Middle Ages, medical knowledge and skills were obviously very rare, so to possess them meant having a high standard of living, with greater access to money, women, and the ability to aspire to high social status; all of which a cleric would be expected to do without. Therefore, the only thing that was forbidden was for clerics to practice their medical knowledge outside of monasteries and other places of worship, to ensure that they did so without asking for anything in return. The study of anatomy was never forbidden by the Catholic Church. While in ancient Greece and Rome it was forbidden for religious reasons to study the human body on human cadavers, and so it was studied on animal cadavers and unborn fetuses, in the Middle Ages and later the study of anatomy was permitted and even encouraged by the Catholic Church. In fact, autopsies, especially those of important people such as nobles, clergy, the wealthy and academics, were often performed in churches and, when necessary, for forensic purposes.

* The study of anatomy has never been forbidden by Catholic Church. While during the Ancient Greek and Rome, for religious reasons, it was forbidden to study the human body on human corpses and so it was studied on animal corpes and unborn fetuses, during the Middle Age and forward the study of anatomy was permitted and even encouraged by Catholic Church. Indeed, autopsies, especially those of important people like nobles, ecclesiastic, wealthy and academic people, were done often in churches and, when it was needed, they were done also for forensic purposes.

* Also, the Catholic Church does not teach that infertile couples are simply not meant to have children. While the Church is opposed to prevalent artificial reproductive technologies, such as in vitro fertilization, the Church does support ongoing research designed to treat the underlying causes and conditions of infertility, allowing couples to have babies naturally. This means that infertile couples can still have sex, and they are permitted to use fertility drugs or other treatments to assist conception or assist in consummating the act, so long as these methods do not attempt to substitute for sex and do not harm any conceived children. So, Viagra and fertility drugs are allowed, but in vitro fertilization and artificial insemination are prohibited since they involve a substitute for the sexual act. Also, the process of in vitro fertilization can create fertilized eggs (embryos) that are not transferred back into the womb -- some fail to develop and die before they can be returned to the woman's body, others are frozen, sometimes indefinitely, and others may be destroyed. As life begins at conception in the Catholic view, this is equal to abortion, and another reason for the prohibition of in vitro fertilization.

In response to the continued controversy and the quip at the BBC's Big Read, the Catholic Herald completely re-printed the original article and added a response by its author, Leonie Caldecott, who said that "the tactics of the author and his supporters have not been exactly honourable" (which is a bit of an understatement) and goes on to add that "Since no clergymen have [publicly [[NoSuchThingAsBadPublicity denounced]] Pullman and his book] the millionaire author has had to make do with an Oxfordshire housewife".

* The "''Vatican Secret Archives''" are real, but they in no way resemble how those like [[DanBrowned Dan Brown]] would depict them. In this context, the word "Secret" is closer to what we would call "private",[[note]]they were renamed the Vatican Apostolic Archive in 2019 precisely to convey this[[/note]] and they're better known as the [[http://asv.vatican.va/?lang=en Papal Archives]]. Unfortunately, the fact they ARE open to scholars of all faiths (and none), and that this is thoroughly decent of them, is entirely lost on a lot of rather militant and ignorant people who continually demand access to what ''they'' think is 'a sealed vault full of all their dirtiest secrets'. The actual vault contains every letter ever sent to the Vatican, including the famous divorce correspondences of a certain [[UsefulNotes/HenryVIII Henry Tudor]] (a strange fellow who ruled most of a [[UsefulNotes/{{Britain}} pious if somewhat backwards little island off the coast of France]]), and a letter written on a roll of tree bark from a Native American tribe thanking the Church for the Word of God. To quote the official site:

* The pagan roots of certain folk customs around certain Christian festivals (think Christmas trees, the Easter bunny, Halloween costumes, etc.) have sometimes been used to suggest that the festivals themselves are pagan in nature. This would be the equivalent of saying that, since we now celebrate July 4th by setting off fireworks, [[InsaneTrollLogic the Founding Fathers signed the Declaration on that day in order to appease local firework manufacturers.]][[note]]Although to be frank, the Americans got to celebrating the Fourth with fireworks with such positively ''hilarious'' speed that makes that theory almost plausible. Case in point: The Continental Congress actually did celebrate the first anniversary of the Declaration on July 4, 1777, in Philadelphia with fireworks.[[/note]] The explanation is cultural inertia. Names and customs continue long after their religious significance has faded. This is also heavily based geography and linguistics. To suggest that, for example, the basis of the word "Easter" in the name of a Germanic goddess means that it's a pagan festival ignores the fact that this is a quirk of the English etymology of the word, and it is called something completely different in other languages (usually based on the Latin name for the festival: Pascha). The Easter controversy also runs afoul of the fact that almost every Christian denomination celebrates Easter at roughly the same time -- between late March and late April, depending on the year and which calendar is used -- due to the Gospels placing Christ's resurrection less than a week after that year's Passover, and that this date has been used for two millennia even by denominations that would have been very unlikely to even be aware of (or care about) the existence of a fairly minor Germanic deity half a world away.

[[folder: Symbology and Iconography]]

* Regarding the hierarchy of angels (from Catholic theology, though common in general Christianity and often in works that need an angelic army or government system) there are nine orders of a celestial hierarchy -- from least to greatest: Angels, Archangels,[[note]]Technically, "Archangel" simply means 'chief of angels', so by definition, there should only be one, but traditionally, multiple "archangels" are recognized. By extension, many people believe that Archangel Michael is Jesus before his coming to Earth.[[/note]] Virtues, Powers, Principalities, Dominions, Thrones, Cherubim, and Seraphim. [[ArchangelMichael Michael]], the angel who cast Satan from Heaven, has proven difficult regarding which order, exactly, he belongs, to -- the most common interpretation of his position, as you may have guessed from the trope, is as an archangel, which is the position accorded to him by St. Basil and a good many Greek Fathers, in so far as he is the prince of all angels. St. Bonaventura, on the other hand, refers to him as the prince of the Seraphim, the highest order of the angels, whereas St. Thomas Aquinas places him as prince of the Angels (lowest choir). This latter interpretation makes sense when considering the role of the angelic hierarchy as regards the degrees of their servitude -- in a reverse from the human way of doing things, the higher orders of angels actually ''serve'' the lower orders. Following the Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas and the writings of Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite, the division is more on nature rather than status. Archangel is not a choir so much as it is a title. Under the hierarchy listed by those two theologians, the only angels whose nature was sufficiently close to temporal to fall were the Cherubim (meaning Satan must have been one as well, though he was "unique" and his references tend to depict him more like a suped-up Seraph). Of course, this goes into the nature of the soul as well and the intellective and sensitive powers. Animals possess only sensitive powers[[note]]This is debated though, as the Bible is actually completely silent on the topic of animal spirits. It is worth noting, however, that many animals are capable of learning to understand a given language as fluently as any human (the sole reason most cannot ''actually speak'' is because that actually requires specific anatomical equipment), and elephants and everything above them are actually ''conscious of their own mortality''.[[/note]], angels only possess intellective powers (and thus the only sins an angelic being can commit are envy and pride, as the others require a body, and thus the sensitive powers), whereas humanity is horizon (possessing both). It also demonstrates why a demon (fallen angel) cannot be redeemed, since they are eternal (there is no concept of "when" so "when" would they be able to change? -- but then "when" did they fall, and wasn't that fall a change?). Note that all of the above is WordOfDante. In the Bible, the only thing said about Angelic hierarchy is that Michael is higher than the others.

* Also worthy of note, though it may seem obvious to many : the Galileo Affair has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether the Earth was flat or round. A surprisingly high number of people (including many Catholics) somehow believe that Galileo's revolutionary claim was that "the Earth was round, in contrast to the dominant opinion at the time that the Earth was flat", a statement which is amazingly wrong. The fact that the Earth is round and not flat was known since Antiquity (being easily proven through basic geometry) and had never been forgotten (see for instance Dante's ''Literature/TheDivineComedy'': Hell is a cone going through the spherical Earth, down to the center of the spherical Earth (which, once crossed, means that gravity is reversed), Dante and Virgil emerging on the Southern Hemisphere).

** A slave's contract can be no longer than six years unless they where a foreigner, then they could be kept forever (Leviticus 25:44-46). However, this only applied if he was a male Israelite slave that was sold into slavery. Female slaves, anyone born into slavery and foreigners were slaves for life.

* UsefulNotes/AdolfHitler called himself a Catholic during his speeches, as well as in ''Literature/MeinKampf'', but actions both public and private suggest that he was strongly anti-Christian, or even anti-religion entirely. He ''was'' RaisedCatholic by his devout mother, but in his adult life his attitude towards the Church became more "the rituals are cool, but all this religious stuff is stupid." He later tried to unify and Nazi-fy all of the Protestant churches in Germany into worshiping him as a messiah, which the majority of German Protestants did not take kindly to.