Skip to comments.[ECUMENICAL] For My Non-Catholic Readers
Posted on 12/29/2010 11:41:03 AM PST by markomalley
This is a re-post of a previous blog but it warrants repeating. From time to time I get non-Catholics who read the blog and invite me to read their blogs in the hopes I will decide to convert. They believe they are being obedient to "preach the gospel in season and out." The presupposition with some of these individuals is that Catholicism is a false religion or a "false gospel" . The fact that a person would believe Catholicism is false clearly indicates that they have never studied what Catholicism is all about from a Catholic perspective. It is easy to draw a caricature of what Catholicism is based on myths, lies, distortions. After all, this has been going on for the past 500 years and the purveyors of falsehood have had an abundant amount of time to perfect their attacks.
What I can tell you is that when a person begins to read what the Church actually says about itself and its doctrines, the scales often fall from their eyes and the Holy Spirit brings them Home. I was one of those.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this): "Constantine must have been the real source of the Catholic Church's teachings because after his reign the Church grew tremendously, and before his reign it wasn't as well-known" (Ignores the simple fact that Constantine merely stopped the persecution of Christians with the Edict of Milan and allowed Christianity to spread. It also ignores the writings of the Church Fathers who lived before Constantine -- and who were Catholic.)
Straw man: "You guys worship statues, and that's evil. Therefore, your religion is Satanic." (Ignores that fact that we don't worship statues)
(comes From FISHEATERS WEBSITE)
“Say what you will, the Roman Catholic Church has been historically repressive and corrupt.”
What is that even supposed to mean? Can you name a serious world religion that is not “historically repressive”? Did not the Jews under Moses go through the camp and slaughter those who had betrayed the Law? The simple fact is that just about everyone on the planet - ever - has been corrupt to one degree or another. That doesn’t make the Church corrupt.
“On the matter of doctrine thats up to the individual to decide (a choice your church historically denied to others) but on the matter of simple behavior the church has been repressive and corrupt.”
Again, what does that even mean? Did Jesus think everyone should just think up there own doctrines? Is the Trinity essential? Who decides that? Why? How?
“The RCC murdered people who translated the Bible to make it more accessible to more people,”
That is utter rubbish. Name the person who was ever once tried or murdered by the Catholic Church for translating the Bible. Can you do it? No, you will fail. I already know you will fail because I studied this FOR YEARS and went through every case known to man on this matter and the end result was ZERO. No one was ever tried for translating the Bible. No such “crime” existed in the Church’s canon law. Also, since the Church had real authority - as recognized by everyone - no one was ever murdered by the church no matter what the outcome of any heresy trial.
Again, give me the name of one person ever tried by the Catholic Church for translating the Bible. Also, explain to me how and why Catholics translated the Bible and - INCREDIBLY - never got into trouble for it when you’re saying they had to have been murdered for it. The kind of ignorance you are wallowing in is stunning.
“the RCC burned Bibles it didnt approve of,”
And? Would you hand out New World Translations to people? That’s the Jehovah’s Witness Bible. Protestants have burned copies of it in the past. Is that wrong - to burn a copy of a Bible that denies the Trinity and divinity of Christ? Look at this Protestant’s page. He says he would happily burn at least five versions of the Bible: http://www.born-again-christian.info/questions.answers.htm
I think you’re being a triffle naive.
“the RCC and the matter of indulgences is well documented,”
Oh, here we go. Let me just embarrass you out of the gate. Can you post for me any evidence - anything concrete at all - that shows the Catholic Church taught that SELLING indulgences was okay, permissible, good, etc.? I ask, because I know the Church never condoned such a thing - I’ve done the research - and so, when I hear someone say, “and the matter of indulgences is well documented” I know I am about to see someone show that he or she knows absolutely nothing about the subject. When you fail - and you will - to produce the evidence that you allude to being “well documented” everyone else will know it too.
“the RCC and its abuse of unmarried mothers in Ireland is near legendary,”
Because it is a legend. The Church never once abused unmarried mothers in Ireland. First of all, you’re talking about the Magdalene asylums - which were invented by PROTESTANTS!!! Anyone who has ever researched this topic - and I am willing to bet you never have - knows the first was founded by the PROTESTANT noble woman named Lady Arabella Denny in Dublin in the late 18th century when the Protestants ran England and were oppressing the Irish.
Some of the asylums were Protestant and some Catholic. None were run by the Catholic Church, however. Some were run by religious orders, but none were funded or regulated by Catholic bishops. Most of the women referred to the Magdalene Asylums in Ireland were sent there by THE IRISH GOVERNMENT.
“and the RCC and its systematic denial and coverup of homosexual pederasty has been so bad that even Pope Benedict has denounced it!”
That’s false. Pope Benedict never once said there was a Church coverup. He has said that bishops didn’t do their jobs and he might have said there were coverups by bishops. He never once said there was an “RCC ...systematic denial and coverup of homosexual pederasty”. You’re simply making that up out of thin air.
“Again, I will not discuss matters of doctrine as thats between you and your maker. But the facts of RCC corruption and abuses speak for themselves.”
Apparently you don’t know the facts - as demonstrated by the fact that you didn’t present any.
That’s one of the most baseless arguments I’ve seen in awhile. You sure you’re not a liberal? Typically, I find libs are the one who name call & point fingers to avoid a truly intellectually honest discussion.
I choose not to have a battle with someone so unarmed. Perhaps you should reread the article above.
“I see. Clearly.”
“Hope you never have any authority.”
I’ve got some. I also have former Protestants working for me - one a former Protestant minister - and he would never make the mistakes you made in your post. Read some real history and you won’t make those mistakes either.
>> “That would make you no better than the Mohammadan savages.”
> You make plenty of Ass umptions so I guess everyone can
> tell what you worship
Why don’t you quote me in context? After all, you’re all for accuracy, right?
I said ...
That would make you no better than the Mohammadan savages.
Do you think their horrible torture and deaths were justified? If so, then where is *YOUR* Christian charity, which you so sarcastically deny of me?
So, you are trying to swim away from Rome, huh?
(Note: if you look at a map of ancient Rome, you will see what I mean)
Note that to swim the Tiber to Vatican Hill, you'd have to swim away from (pagan) Rome...
Totally true! And I'll go even further, the corruption and abuse by Christians in general speaks volumes about Christians in general. Know what it says? It says we need a Saviour! The people who make up the Catholic Church are sinners and particularly rotten sinners at that! Our hierarchy is culled, it seems at times, from the Crème de la Crème of those sinners. If you judge the Catholic Church harshly because we're a bunch of lousy sinners how can you not judge all of Christendom thusly?
Don't fall for the perfect people trap, it's exactly what the enemy wants.
Again, I will not discuss matters of doctrine as thats between you and your maker
Please rethink this, an understanding of doctrine and the theology that underlies those doctrines and dogmas are the only legitimate reason to accept reject a religion, not the misbehavior of it's admittedly imperfect members.
Danke Schön very nice :o)
Mother of God
Pray for us sinners now
and at the hour of death
Just to finish up.
Hey Navy, did you get all that?
Waldensians - dualists who asserted that there was no need to be approved by the Church in order to preach. The Church, in fact, said they could continue teaching but could not preach in the Church. The Waldensians, however, refused that and asserted that since the Church accepted the Old Testament and since the Old Testament was of, by, and about, the evil God, the Church was evil and dared the Church to silence them. The Chruch is accused of “slaughtering” them but somehow, they only rounded up a few leaders and the Waldensians existed until the Turks purged Armenia just prior to WWI. I suppose some people think the Turks were part of the Catholic Church? Whatever.
Bogomilism - duelists who also somehow managed to survive until the 1980s when the Muslims wiped out the last few Churches and those who attended them. I guess all this Catholic slaughter wasn't all it's cracked up to be.
Oh, dualist means they thought God and Satan were equal and fighting over who would be in control. Now people like to say they knew God would defeat Satan, but their own writings left that in doubt and even encouraged many people to turn to Satan rather than God. Pretty much like a lot of New Age BS these days, really, that says all spiritual matters are about the same with no real, objective, good and evil.)
Cathars - didn't believe in the incarnation or the ressurection (since Christ was never human, he didn't need to rise from the dead). Believed the entire physical world including man himself was created by Satan and that freeing oneself from the physical (by starvation if you could) was the ideal. The majority of them were slaughtered by a French king who just happened to murder more Catholics at the same time since his idea was to just shut down the argument between the Cathars and the Dominicans in order to pacify the province the primary strength of the Cathars was from.
Albigenses - more duelists. How about that? Christ had no physical body he just made people think he did. He didn't come as our Savior but rather to let us know that the whole world was of Satan. They, too, were wiped out but during the whole French attack on them the Pope was trying to get the French to stop rather than continue slaughtering them. People like to overlook that part of the matter even though it's well documented. I've even seen people claim the Pope was just doing that to look good on paper (even though less than 3% of the population could read).
So, there were always dualists, those who are not Catholic these days are the real Christians, and are duelists as well. Right?
No, and claiming that there is a long thread of an alternate Church is just silly. It's some sort of history envy or something. If the Catholic Church went awry and Luther was right, then there doesn't need to be any prior history outside of the Church. There only needs to be a point at which the Church ceased to follow the truth. The problem is, of course, that little tidbit about “the gates of hell shall not prevail”. Without making up a history it gets difficult to claim that part of the Word for you own little group. Protestants really are each and every one their own Pope, something you realize when you've lived long enough and studied enough to recognize the fact that there's got to be something wrong with dozens upon dozens of denominations in every town and all of them claiming to be the only correct interpreter of the Word.
have a nice whatever I don't, by the by, advocate torture and death of those who are not Christian, I leave that sort of thinking to folks like you who ascribe their own inclinations to others.
“Hail Mary mother of grace...”, should be: “Hail Mary full of grace...”
Oh Yeah! And I’ve been getting it for about seventy years now.
Yea I know
For some reason I was thinking of
Mother of grace,
Mother of mercy,
Shield me from the enemy
And receive me at the hour of my death.
Not really sure why? Thanks
(hope the mistake is not trying to tell me something) :oO
> I don’t, by the by, advocate torture and death of those
> who are not Christian,
Nice to hear that.
I was raised Catholic. Attended a Catholic High school. Still have one of my Catholic History texts expounding their point of view.
If you’re at all interested in giving ear to another perspective, read “The Pilgrim Church” by E.H. Broadbent.
There is some evidence in there that you are either overlooking or unaware of.
> I leave that sort of thinking to folks like you
Really? Can you please point out to me in any of my posts in this thread where I gave any indication of such an inclination?
Read the Martyr’s Mirror.
The Roman Church has blood on its hands.
So does the Lutheran Church, as you well know.
Zwingli was known to dispatch a few “heretics” in his day, as well.
As was Henry VIII.
And the Russian Orthodox ruthlessly oppressed Anabaptists and Jews.
Burning, beheading, drowning, molten lead, dismemberment, iron maidens. Ever hear of the tongue-screw? Look it up to see what it was used for.
Where is the Christ in *ANY* of this?
Where is the Christ in the “My Denomination Is Best” spitting contest?
We don’t have a denomination, but rather try to find COMMON ground with all our Christian brethren.
At least with all who will receive it.
Brother, I think you “get it”.
Thank you for the refreshing post.
My pleasure. Your tag line is a perfect explanation and example of how Christ’s love gives us the capacity to love infinitely, not finitely, mind if I use it on occasion?
Please feel free to use the tagline. No need to give me credit, as it belongs to God.
You can freely use any of my ramblings that you deem worthy of repeating.
How many countless times have we told people this. ...... ..... check it out! At least I have!
You are always a Catholic once you are baptized a Catholic!