Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Radio Replies Second Volume - The Idealization of Protestantism
Celledoor.com ^ | 1940 | Fathers Rumble & Carty

Posted on 05/08/2010 9:30:27 PM PDT by GonzoII

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360361-375 next last
To: Judith Anne

You accuse many FR Protestants of bigotry and say that they are deserving of attacks from FR Catholics — thus making their beliefs and percieved biases the subject of your posts and attacks. One cannot level such attacks and expect to not be questioned about their own beliefs and biases.

The question is straighforward — do you consider Protestant doctrine inherently bigoted in its objections to Catholic doctrines? The question can be better phrased ... does my intentional disbelief in many Catholic doctrines (almost universally mirrored throughout Protestant Christianity) make me a bigot?

SnakeDoc


341 posted on 05/10/2010 8:11:47 AM PDT by SnakeDoctor ("The world will know that free men stood against a tyrant [...] that even a god-king can bleed.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 338 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor
What I am trying to figure out is whether you see Protestantism inherently bigoted or not ... are non-Catholic Christians necessarily bigoted anti-Catholics and thus necessarily deserving of the scathing attacks and rebukes you regularly dish out?"

Protestantism is, by the stated reasons for its foundation, anti-Catholic. Protestantism to justify its continuing existence must declare Catholicism wrong, heretical, and not Christian.

To rationalize this Protestants constantly make bold proclamations about what the Catholic Church teaches and what Catholics believe without ever having read or studied the Church history and Catechism beyond the self-serving lectures and sermons of Protestant preachers whose livelihood is dependant upon fomenting anti-Catholic bigotry. Recognizing this and citing examples is not the sin.

342 posted on 05/10/2010 8:25:29 AM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 337 | View Replies]

To: Irisshlass

“Catholics don’t worship dead people either”

Sure they do. Idols as well.

“Maybe it would help you if would invoke the Holy Spirit who is God for discernment of the Scriptures.”

I thought I had to have a priest?


343 posted on 05/10/2010 8:25:59 AM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 340 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
"Sure they do. Idols as well."

YOur understanding of the English language is as poor as your understanding of Scripture and the Catechism. You would be well served if you gained an understanding of the difference between the words worship and venerate and between the words icon and idol.

You may be able to explain what you believe and why, but you are completely ignorant of Catholicism. Further, you should try to explain how you can profess any intimate or in depth knowledge or understanding of what the Catholic Church does or does not teach and what Catholics do or do not believe without ever having read the Catechism.

344 posted on 05/10/2010 8:34:01 AM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver; SnakeDoctor; Natural Law

Thank you for a FINE example of telling Catholics what they believe, even though you don’t know the subject well.

That bigoted behavior is much appreciated, for the edification of Snake Doctor.

FYI, Catholics are encouraged to read the Bible on their own. They can even receive one of those infamous indulgences for it, no money involved.


345 posted on 05/10/2010 8:34:25 AM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor
"The question is straighforward — do you consider Protestant doctrine inherently bigoted in its objections to Catholic doctrines?"

I cannot answer for Judith Anne, but I certainly do consider it bigoted for the reasons explained in post #342.

346 posted on 05/10/2010 8:35:50 AM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 341 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law; Religion Moderator

I thought personal attacks were not permitted?


347 posted on 05/10/2010 8:37:18 AM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 344 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law; SnakeDoctor
Protestantism is, by the stated reasons for its foundation, anti-Catholic. Protestantism to justify its continuing existence must declare Catholicism wrong, heretical, and not Christian.

A classic, backseat Catholic apologetic. I encourage you to take a History Lesson: Positively Protestant. Here's a quick summary:

What do the major historians of Protestantism say? Like almost all their colleagues, John Dillenberger and Claude Welch link the origin of the word Protestant to the ‘Protestation’ of the German evangelical estates in the second Diet of Speyer. But they see in that term “the duality of protest and affirmative witness.” That protest, they write, was
from the standpoint of affirmed faith. Few churches ever adopted the name “Protestant.” The most commonly adopted designations were rather “evangelical” and “reformed.” ... [W]hen the word Protestant came into currency in England (in Elizabethan times), its accepted significance was not “objection” but “avowal” or “witness” or “confession” (as the Latin protestari meant also “to profess”).
That meaning lasted for another century, say Dillenberger and Welch, and it referred to the Church of England’s
making its profession of the faith in the Thirty-nine Articles and the Book of Common Prayer. Only later did the word “protest” come to have a primarily negative significance, and the term “Protestant” come to refer to non-Roman churches in general.
....When Edward VI was crowned, the word still had a positive connotation. On the CultureVulture blog for the Guardian, Sean Clarke notes that it was 60 years from the introduction of Protestant in English until its first use in the extended sense of "object, dissent, or disapprove.” That (according to the Collins Etymological Dictionary) was first recorded in English in 1608. The Online Etymological Dictionary places the first use of protest to mean “statement of disapproval” in the year 1751—another century and a half. Through much of that history and well after, protest continued to mean “avow,” “affirm,” “witness,” or “solemnly proclaim.”

Poor, misunderstood protest has had a history something like that of another word—apology. That word has gone from its positive, head-held-high sense of “a formal justification or defense” (as in “the essay was an apology for capitalism”) to something tinged with shame and remorse (“a statement of regret or request for pardon”).


348 posted on 05/10/2010 8:37:22 AM PDT by Alex Murphy (Pretentiousness is so beneath me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 342 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
"A classic, backseat Catholic apologetic."

Much of Protestantism and most of the anti-Catholic bigots who frequent the Catholic topic threads on the Religion Forum draw their identity more from their opposition to all things Catholic than from their relationship with God.

349 posted on 05/10/2010 8:43:49 AM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 348 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
YOur understanding

Reading the mind of another Freeper is a form of "making it personal."

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

350 posted on 05/10/2010 8:43:55 AM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 344 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne; SnakeDoctor

“Thank you for a FINE example of telling Catholics what they believe, even though you don’t know the subject well.”

I know what Catholics have told me they believe. I know what Catholics do.

“That bigoted behavior is much appreciated, for the edification of Snake Doctor.”

So anyone who disagrees is a bigot?


351 posted on 05/10/2010 8:44:28 AM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 345 | View Replies]

Comment #352 Removed by Moderator

To: driftdiver

Are you playing a game? Do you need attention? Are you trying to bait someone into an argument?


353 posted on 05/10/2010 8:46:48 AM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

I have heard Catholics say Protestants are not Christian, just as I have heard Protestants say Catholics are not Christian.

However, Protestant Christianity has never doctrinally claimed exclusivity in its relationship to Christ and the Almighty (though some denominations thereof certainly have). The very nature of Protestantism is that Salvation is achieved through grace and a personal relationship with Christ. Salvation is therefore individual, not through a specific denomination. A Baptist can be just as saved as a Calvinist, Methodist or Catholic — some denominations may be more conduscive than others, but doctrinal errors are one of many sins covered by Grace.

Catholic doctrine does claim exclusivity. So, it would seem to me that Catholicism is more invested in the failure of Protestantism than vice versa. If Protestantism succeeds, Catholicism is wrong in its claim of being the one true church of Christ. To Protestants, the success of Catholicism makes Catholicism but one of many branches of Christ’s chuch, as Protestants have claimed.

As far as I am aware, most mainstream Protestant denominations regard Catholics, though wrong in several respects, as brothers in Christ. Catholics very often seem to regard Protestants as heretics. However, I will acknowledge that Protestantism has fundamental objections to Catholicism which define it, and that Protestant denominations do not hesitate to make those objections known.

I think the characterization of Protestantism as anti-Catholic is a bit too heavy. There are doctrines which are specifically contrary to Catholicism, but mainstream Protestants do not typically regard Catholics as non-Christian. I certainly don’t.

SnakeDoc


354 posted on 05/10/2010 8:47:45 AM PDT by SnakeDoctor ("The world will know that free men stood against a tyrant [...] that even a god-king can bleed.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 342 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

What can I say...when you have 24,000 sects pressing down on you, who would know the truth. God appointed 24,000 sects to put his word out? Where is that in scripture, Christ appointed 24,000 sects?. God always appointed one person to represent Him, like Moses, like Peter. And I’m sure many are dead that started all those 24,000 sects, so continuing to listen to dead men who are not appointed by God is worshipping them and not God.


355 posted on 05/10/2010 8:48:56 AM PDT by Irisshlass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

Comment #356 Removed by Moderator

To: Judith Anne

‘Are you playing a game? “

Yep with peoples souls as the chips. I’d hate to see people lose their salvation because they think they just need to be a good person and do good things to be saved.

“Do you need attention? Are you trying to bait someone into an argument?”

Here I thought this thread was for discussion. Yet anyone that disagrees with Catholicism is told they are going to hell, bigoted, evil incarnate.


357 posted on 05/10/2010 8:51:38 AM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 353 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

If you regard my faith as inherently bigoted, then only a complete surrender of that faith will you find acceptably non-bigoted. I find such a surrender unacceptable. We seem to be at an impasse.

I will state outright that I would rather be labeled a “bigot” than to betray my faith in Christ. However, I find the label disingenuous when I regard you as a fellow Christian, and you appear to regard me as a heretic.

SnakeDoc


358 posted on 05/10/2010 8:55:11 AM PDT by SnakeDoctor ("The world will know that free men stood against a tyrant [...] that even a god-king can bleed.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 346 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor; driftdiver

I just encourage you to read driftdiver’s comments. As regards Catholicism, they are unreliable, of course.


359 posted on 05/10/2010 8:58:11 AM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 354 | View Replies]

To: Irisshlass

Not sure I understand your 24,000 sects comment. I assume you are referring to some some number of non-catholic ‘churches’. I’ve never used them as I use the Bible.

“God always appointed one person to represent Him, like Moses, like Peter. “

Well he did appoint Moses in the OT. Later he had multiple people he used.

“so continuing to listen to dead men who are not appointed by God is worshipping them and not God.”

Are you saying the Bible shouldn’t be used?


360 posted on 05/10/2010 8:59:23 AM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 355 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360361-375 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson