Catholics make a big noise about anti-Catholicism being "the only respectable prejudice," but whenever push comes to shove, it seems they know who the low man on the totem pole really is. It's always those Anglo-Saxon Southern Protestants--the very people who are an embarrassment to chr*stianity because of their Biblical literalism.
I wish there were more "bigots" like Robertson. This country would be better off if all those liberal urban Catholics were "bigoted" Southern Anglo-Saxon Protestants. The "one true church" sure toots its own horn, but it's useless at actually changing anything. After all, they're intellectuals, not "bigots."
While not a Protestant myself, I at least know something you don't: that to a Protestant Catholicism (and Orthodoxy) simply make no sense whatsoever. Why shouldn't Protestants consider eighteenth century Methodists the people who brought chr*stianity to Ireland if they don't even recognize your religion as chr*stianity at all?
It takes some gall for a religion that spent fifteen hundred years attacking Torah observance and claiming that G-d changed His mind about everything He had commanded to turn around and denounce anti-nomianism when it is opposed to a fake Judaism of your own invention.
I am disappointed in you.
All the nasty little accusations of "bigotry" (a liberal word, btw) can't change the fact that the "one true church" is way, way, way on the Left and into modernism on almost every issue. I'm sorry this frustrates you, but I refuse to allow you to take your frustration out on someone else unchallenged.
You wrote:
“I am disappointed in you.”
I certainly won’t lose sleep over that. You’re no longer a disappointment to me. I ceased being disappointed at your almost constant beating of a single drum beat about biblical literalism in thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread.
“All the nasty little accusations of “bigotry” (a liberal word, btw) can’t change the fact that the “one true church” is way, way, way on the Left and into modernism on almost every issue.”
An accusation can’t be nasty if it’s accurate. Mine was. Robertson is a bigot. Period. Whether or not you consider it a liberal word quite frankly doesn’t matter. Whether or not you consider the Church to be on the “Left and into modernism on almost every issue” also doesn’t matter. None of that changes the fact that Robertson is a bigot.
“I’m sorry this frustrates you, but I refuse to allow you to take your frustration out on someone else unchallenged.”
And your challenge will amount to exactly what? Your post to me will do exactly what? Make you feel better? Give you a few warm fuzzies? Roberston will still be a bigot and you will still have only one drum beat. I will still be right. I can live with that. I bet you will too.
“Catholics make a big noise about anti-Catholicism being “the only respectable prejudice,” but whenever push comes to shove, it seems they know who the low man on the totem pole really is.”
Really? So, what Catholic clergyman is on the television saying equivalent things about Protestantism? God had to establish His own TV network to get any Catholic programming at all, and yet you would have it that we are higher on the totem pole than protestants?
There is one point to be made there, though: protestants also suffer the abuse of non-believers for our Lord’s sake. It makes me wish our separated brethren were less violent in their attacks on us.
“It’s always those Anglo-Saxon Southern Protestants—the very people who are an embarrassment to Christianity because of their Biblical literalism.”
So, do you disagree with Saint Thomas Aquinas when he says, “The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”?
“This country would be better off if all those liberal urban Catholics were “bigoted” Southern Anglo-Saxon Protestants.”
No, the truth is always better.
“The “one true church” sure toots its own horn, but it’s useless at actually changing anything.”
Here on FR, Catholics discuss the Church pretty much exclusively in response to attack, and do it for the most part moderately and modestly (excepting myself, I guess).
“While not a Protestant myself, I at least know something you don’t: that to a Protestant Catholicism (and Orthodoxy) simply make no sense whatsoever.”
Why do you think we don’t know that? As Archbishop Sheen said, “There are not a hundred people in America who hate the Catholic Church—but there are millions who hate what they mistakenly think the Catholic Church teaches.”
You see, it looks like there is something of which you are unaware: the reason it makes no sense is because they misunderstand it, and many are conditioned to reject all reasoned discussion and explanation.
(Here’s a “what-do-you-call” joke.)
What do you call a protestant who understands Catholicism?
A catechumen.
“Why shouldn’t Protestants consider eighteenth century Methodists the people who brought Christianity to Ireland if they don’t even recognize your religion as Christianity at all?”
Facts are stubborn things. A story is told of Abraham Lincoln examining a witness in a trial, a man who was known to play word games and who had only a nodding acquaintance with the truth.
“How many legs does a horse have?” Lincoln asked in exasperation.
“Four,” the witness replied.
“And if one were to call the horse’s tail a leg, then how many legs does a horse have?” Lincoln pressed.
“Why, I suppose the horse would have five legs,” the witness said.
“No,” Lincoln said, turning to the jury. “Calling the tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg. A horse has only four legs, no matter what you call the tail.”
Protestants can “consider” and “recognize” as they will; the horse has four legs, and only four legs.
“It takes some gall for a religion that spent fifteen hundred years attacking Torah observance and claiming that G-d changed His mind about everything He had commanded to turn around and denounce anti-nomianism when it is opposed to a fake Judaism of your own invention.”
That’s some pretty confused argumentation there, but you should be aware that antinomianism is no part of Catholic theology.
Another thing: a person is entitled to accuse an institution only of actual transgressions, and only to the degree they actually occurred. The fact that bad things happened is not a license to exaggerate without limit.
“All the nasty little accusations of “bigotry” (a liberal word, btw)”
Taken over by the libs now, but a perfectly cromulent English word. For example, “The KKK members who committed acts of violence against Catholics because they hated their religion without understanding it could with justification be called bigots.”
“can’t change the fact that the “one true church” is way, way, way on the Left and into modernism on almost every issue”
Rather, you can’t change that into a fact through any amount of repetition. There is a contingent of Catholics, those whom Saint Pope Pius X called “enemies of the Church,” that fits your description, and would like to drag the Church to the left. However, the Church is not subject to that sort of dragging at the hands of mortal men.
They will soon be gone, and the men who take their places will right the Church once again.
“I’m sorry this frustrates you”
Is it in some way odd or disreputable that a person should be frustrated by continual false witness in a place that should be the home and refuge of clear thinkers?