Skip to comments.What Are We To Make of the Anti-Catholics.
Posted on 01/08/2011 4:15:03 PM PST by Natural Law
What are we to make of the anti-Catholics?
What are we to make of the anti-Catholics? How can we explain the assault on the Church by those who profess in their words the same mission of the Church, the Salvation of mankind, but through their deeds deny it? Are the fabrications, falsehoods, and lies about the supporting beliefs of the Church, about the lives of its saints and clergy, about the verifiable facts of history justified because of doctrinal disagreements? Does any of this matter in the face of the greater assault on Christ and his flock? It defies rational thinking.
In the face of a Muslim onslaught that is bombing Christmas Masses, executing Christians for a nonexistent heresy and apostasy, and a jihad against Christians of all stripes on a massive scale we get shrill unwarranted criticism of how Catholics peaceably worship the One true God. Is smells and bells really a greater sin than sawing off heads in the name of the prophet?
In the face of a secular socialist assault that is killing babies at a pace that outpaces the crimes of Hitler, Stalin and Mao combined there are degrading insults and accusations over the difference between worship and veneration. Corrections and explanations are ignored and the apologists are pilloried. For what purpose?
In the face of the threat of Communist China that suppresses worship of all kinds and enforces forced abortions we get feeble ad naseum criticism of the Real Presence in spite of the acceptance by Catholics, both Eastern and Latin Rite, Lutherans, Anglicans, and Methodists. All the while the anti-Catholics continue the charade of Christian unity, minus those damned Catholics of course.
So in the face of the advance of worldwide evil some would have us believe that it is the Catholic Church should be destroyed when the destruction of the Church would serve to provide aid and comfort to that evil. Why? Qui Bono, for whom the benefit?
That the Church is and has always been a target of evil cannot be denied. Neither can it be denied that the Church has never been harmed or compromised by that evil. Satan can only work in this world through the actions of his willing accomplices. Those accomplices have long ago recognized that the greatest harm can be done from within the Church and history has produced numerous examples of sinners wearing the collars of priests. Regardless of the contentions of the anti-Catholics that does not negate the good that the Church has done not diminish the saints who have served God through her. Nor does it excuse those who blame one of the victims of the evil doers, the Church itself.
Perhaps those who irrationally assault the Church daily, those who spend inordinate hours researching the internet looking for dirt, those who accept any lie or indiscretion on nothing more than its bias against the Church are consciously or unconsciously in league with evil. Lex Parsimoniae, the principle which generally recommends accepting the answer that requires the fewest assumptions, when the potential answers are equal in all other respects. Is there a simpler answer?
Most people suffer from Dogma and don’t understand doctrine.
Catholics are most certainly Christians and those who believe other wise don’t understand the origins of their particular faith.
Here’s hoping this thing actually posts. 503’s all day.
Oh, and I’m not Catholic.
We are not to make anything of them. We are to educate them, chastise them, love them, and pray for them. Pray, hope and don’t worry...it’s in God’s hands.
I’d be interested in your take on the Pope’s recent comments about evolution - God being the cause of the Big Bang, to paraphrase.
God has most of them our brethren. This is why living in community is a spiritual discipline.
I am so convicted (as they say) by all this. Am I preaching Christ in my life as well as my words? I don’t know.
Prayer — always a good thing to do.
“We are to educate them, chastise them, love them, and pray for them”
This Romish Mary-worshipping dogma-following mackerel snapping papist would like some details concerning the above, especially the “chastise” part.
Your response will be forwarded to the “Beast of Rome” himself.
The Pope' comments are not out of character or different than his positions before he became Pope. Science is not incompatible with Christian faith. He says that scientific processes are among the creations of God. Their perfection is a reflection of their Creator and the wonder of their complexity, with every new discovery, a testament to their author. He states that the Bible is not intended to be a science text book seeking to answer how God created the universe. It is a declaration that He created it and an explanation why.
In his 1986 Commentary on Genesis; "In the Beginning..." then Cardinal Ratzinger said;
"These words, with which Holy Scripture begins, always have the effect on me of the solemn tolling of a great old bell, which stirs the heart from afar with its beauty and dignity and gives it an inkling of the mystery of eternity. For many of us, moreover, these words recall the memory of our first encounter with God's holy book, the Bible, which was opened for us at this spot. It at once brought us out of our small child's world, captivated us with its poetry, and gave us a feeling for the immeasurability of creation and its Creator.
Yet these words give rise to a certain conflict. They are beautiful and familiar, but are they also true? Everything seems to speak against it, for science has long since disposed of the concepts that we have just now heard -- the idea of a world that is completely comprehensible in terms of space and time, and the idea that creation was built up piece by piece over the course of seven [or six] days. Instead of this we now face measurements that transcend all comprehension. Today we hear of the Big Bang, which happened billions of years ago and with which the universe began its expansion -- an expansion that continues to occur without interruption. And it was not in neat succession that the stars were hung and the green of the fields created; it was rather in complex ways and over vast periods of time that the earth and the universe were constructed as we now know them.
Do these words, then, count for anything? In fact a theologian said not long ago that creation has now become an "unreal" concept; that if one is to be intellectually honest one ought to speak no longer of creation but rather of "mutation and selection." Are these words true? Or have they perhaps, along with the entire Word of God and the whole biblical tradition, come out of the reveries of the infant age of human history, for which we occasionally experience homesickness but to which we can nevertheless not return, inasmuch as we cannot live on nostalgia? Is there an answer to this that we can claim for ourselves in this day and age?
Difference Between Form and Content
One answer was already worked out some time ago, as the scientific view of the world was gradually crystallizing; many of you probably came across it in your religious instruction. It says that the Bible is not a natural science textbook, nor does it intend to be such. It is a religious book, and consequently one cannot obtain information about the natural sciences from it. One cannot get from it a scientific explanation of how the world arose; one can only glean religious experience from it. Anything else is an image and a way of describing things whose aim is to make profound realities graspable to human beings. One must distinguish between the form of portrayal and the content that is portrayed. The form would have been chosen from what was understandable at the time -- from the images which surrounded the people who lived then, which they used in speaking and in thinking, and thanks to which they were able to understand the greater realities. And only the reality that shines through these images would be what was intended and what was truly enduring. Thus Scripture would not wish to inform us about how the different species of plant life gradually appeared or how the sun and the moon and the stars were established. Its purpose ultimately would be to say one thing: God created the world.
Generally speaking, people who call themselves Christian, but are anti-Catholic (not to be confused with merely disagreeing with Catholic belief, but in despising or insulting the Church) are simply fools for whom vanity is the driving force in what passes for their faith.
“This is why living in community is a spiritual discipline.”
Ain’t that the truth!
I’ve learned to love the word “mortify.”
Generally speaking, According to my Bible, I am not supposed to think people like you are a fool. This will be settled when we die. I’m not worried, are you?
Quite specifically speaking, yes, according to Sacred Scripture, we are not to call our brother a fool.
Is thinking our brother is a fool the same ?
That will be settled when we die.
Is that the Bible that was brought forth from the Apostolic Tradition with the guidance of the Holy Spirit and preserved and defended by the very people you are not supposed to think are fools?
Anti-Catholics are of two types:You may also find Lutherans copied in the replies but they don't exhibit the same kind of loony responses and I don't know why they don't point out to these guys when they attack the Real Presence. There are also Pentecostals who don't seem to realise that the OPC and PCA consider them heretics for talking in tongues and believing in modern miracles. The Pentecostals also reject Calvinist double predestination so we know the PCA/OPC cliche hate them. And woe betide any Arminian Baptist (Mr. Rogers or GRizzled Bear as a case in point) for debating double predestination with the Calvinists -- they scream at him and call him names and say he doesn't know anything or that he is a Catholic "tool" and then use the same insults and lies against him as they do against us. That's why most Protestants stay away from these threads because the PCA/OPC cliche either disgusts them with their vitriol, or if they object, THEY become the target of the PCA/OPC anti-Catholic cliche.
1. Members of the OPC and PCA. These are the shouters, fully filled with the hate of their master and hating Christians all. They may call themselves doctors or moms or whatever, but their words are filled with hate and not with doctrine or love. They will insult, post fake photographs, links to fake articles, whatever. They never post what they believe. And when they do not get Catholics to attack, they will attack Arminian (Baptists, Methodists, etc.) telling them they follow a Satanic gospel, or Lutherans, Anglicans who believe in the true presence calling it a heresy to believe that Christ is really present in the Eucharist. The noise they make belies the size of these groups (20,000 for the OCP and 300,000 for the PCA and dropping).
2. The singletons who form kirks of one. You can make these out by the cluelessness in which they post. Whether they say they were cool or are babel truths or evangelical MLKs, it's the same, tired repeated nonsense they spout. They post threads stating how they hate large churches and how reading any Bible besides the KJV is a heresy. They also don't know anything about the Catholic Church besides how much they hate it -- they have been known to say "The pope never washes anyones feet" and then when given pictures of Maundy Thursday, they move on to another fake attack.
you can refer Cardinal Ratzinger, In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall [Eerdmans, 1986, 1995]
We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the 'project' of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary -- rather than mutually exclusive -- realities.
The word, yeah. The process, not so much.
Some hate the Church more than they love the Lord.
Enough of this folly. I am through with it.
Very well written. Thanks for expressing our views. And I will add some scripture from the First Letter of St. John from this last week. It quite forcefully categorizes those who deny the Lord and his Church.
**This Romish Mary-worshipping dogma-following mackerel snapping papist**
Do you realize how offensive these words are?
**This Romish Mary-worshipping dogma-following mackerel snapping papist**
What happened to the old phrase “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all.”
**Some hate the Church more than they love the Lord.**
Oh, how true that simple statement is.
We can make a hat or a broach or a pterodactyl
Well, they aren’t so offensive when one of us uses them as a joke. ;-D
January 3, 2011
We receive from him whatever we ask,
because we keep his commandments and do what pleases him.
And his commandment is this:
we should believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ,
and love one another just as he commanded us.
Those who keep his commandments remain in him, and he in them,
and the way we know that he remains in us
is from the Spirit whom he gave us.
Beloved, do not trust every spirit
but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God,
because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
This is how you can know the Spirit of God:
every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh
belongs to God,
and every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus
does not belong to God.
This is the spirit of the antichrist
who, as you heard, is to come,
but in fact is already in the world.
You belong to God, children, and you have conquered them,
for the one who is in you
is greater than the one who is in the world.
They belong to the world;
accordingly, their teaching belongs to the world,
and the world listens to them.
We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to us,
while anyone who does not belong to God refuses to hear us.
This is how we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit.
Kind of like, Mad Dawg is a “feelthy papist.” I myself am Nurse Rachett of the White Hanky Brigade.
January 4, 2011
Beloved, let us love one another,
because love is of God;
everyone who loves is begotten by God and knows God.
Whoever is without love does not know God, for God is love.
In this way the love of God was revealed to us:
God sent his only-begotten Son into the world
so that we might have life through him.
In this is love:
not that we have loved God, but that he loved us
and sent his Son as expiation for our sins.
January 5, 2011
Beloved, if God so loved us,
we also must love one another.
No one has ever seen God.
Yet, if we love one another, God remains in us,
and his love is brought to perfection in us.
This is how we know that we remain in him and he in us,
that he has given us of his Spirit.
Moreover, we have seen and testify
that the Father sent his Son as savior of the world.
Whoever acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God,
God remains in him and he in God.
We have come to know and to believe in the love God has for us.
God is love, and whoever remains in love remains in God and God in him.
In this is love brought to perfection among us,
that we have confidence on the day of judgment
because as he is, so are we in this world.
There is no fear in love,
but perfect love drives out fear
because fear has to do with punishment,
and so one who fears is not yet perfect in love.
January 6, 2011
Beloved, we love God because
he first loved us.
If anyone says, I love God,
but hates his brother, he is a liar;
for whoever does not love a brother whom he has seen
cannot love God whom he has not seen.
This is the commandment we have from him:
Whoever loves God must also love his brother.
Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is begotten by God,
and everyone who loves the Father
loves also the one begotten by him.
In this way we know that we love the children of God
when we love God and obey his commandments.
For the love of God is this,
that we keep his commandments.
And his commandments are not burdensome,
for whoever is begotten by God conquers the world.
And the victory that conquers the world is our faith.
January 7, 2011
Who indeed is the victor over the world
but the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?
This is the one who came through water and Blood, Jesus Christ,
not by water alone, but by water and Blood.
The Spirit is the one who testifies,
and the Spirit is truth.
So there are three who testify,
the Spirit, the water, and the Blood,
and the three are of one accord.
If we accept human testimony,
the testimony of God is surely greater.
Now the testimony of God is this,
that he has testified on behalf of his Son.
Whoever believes in the Son of God
has this testimony within himself.
Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar
by not believing the testimony God has given about his Son.
And this is the testimony:
God gave us eternal life,
and this life is in his Son.
Whoever possesses the Son has life;
whoever does not possess the Son of God does not have life.
I write these things to you so that you may know
that you have eternal life,
you who believe in the name of the Son of God.
January 8, 2011
We have this confidence in him
that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us.
And if we know that he hears us in regard to whatever we ask,
we know that what we have asked him for is ours.
If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly,
he should pray to God and he will give him life.
This is only for those whose sin is not deadly.
There is such a thing as deadly sin,
about which I do not say that you should pray.
All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly.
We know that anyone begotten by God does not sin;
but the one begotten by God he protects,
and the Evil One cannot touch him.
We know that we belong to God,
and the whole world is under the power of the Evil One.
We also know that the Son of God has come
and has given us discernment to know the one who is true.
And we are in the one who is true,
in his Son Jesus Christ.
He is the true God and eternal life.
Children, be on your guard against idols.
These Readings from St. John spoke to me all week about anti-Catholicism.
Amazing Scriptures! John is very blunt here....probably written later in his life!
1)"Creation," properly defined, has nothing to do with natural laws, natural processes, or how a theoretically tiny speck exploded to the size of the universe today. None of this is creation. Creation refers to ex-nihilation--the coming into being of reality (including scientific laws and processes) from absolute nothingness. As such, it is inherently inexplicable by scientific, natural means. Where did anyone ever get the idea that the explosion of a speck to an immense size had anything whatsoever to do with "creation???"
2)Everything recorded in the first eleven chapters of Genesis is just as plausible as any and all other events recorded in either the Hebrew Bible or the "new testament." To dismiss the creation of the first man as an adult directly by G-d by appealing to the birth process we observe today while insisting that J*sus' birth was unique and miraculous in contravention of those same observable laws is the height of hypocrisy, inconsistency, and irrationality. The only excuse for this war against the first eleven chapters of Genesis by people who profess to believe in every miracle or alleged miracle that has occurred since that time is sheer unadulterated sociological bigotry: "we don't believe that because that's what that white trash in the trailer parks believe."
Just as a general observation, I've always tried to avoid equating inconsistency and hypocrisy. it seems one can be inconsistent and neither intend nor even know it, while hypocrisy seems to me to involve more of a conscious act of will.
Thanks for a mild and thoughtful post.
“What are we to make of the anti-Catholics?”
Thank you. I have always been drawn to the Gospels of John and Peter, and to a lesser degree the accounts of St. Thomas. They were bold enough to call out their peers and remind them that it was Jesus and not themselves that mattered.
How in the name of all that is reasonable can anyone who rejects the literal historicity of the first eleven chapters of Genesis because "that isn't how the world really works" turn right around and claim that two thousand years ago a boy was born contrary to those very same laws of nature and not see his hypocrisy? It's as big as a billboard!
What is inexplicable is the insistence by some that God did not and could not have created the science and math by which He governs the universe because primitive tribes were unable to imagine or comprehend it. Some may accept the "abracadabra" process because they believe it more flattering of God, but to those who have invested their lives in the study of science God's magnificent schematic is even more breathtaking. Knowing how God created does not diminish His accomplishments. Not understanding the math and science does not diminish those who accept that He did.
I am sorry you opted not to read what I wrote but rather to simply hit the button and regurgitate the same talking points of all evolutionists and science worshipers. I am also sorry you persist in your ignorant belief that Genesis is the product of the primitive imagination of primitive people rather than (along with the rest of the Torah) written in its entirety by G-d and dictated to Moses letter-for-letter.
Though you will not read these words either, I will go to the trouble to type them on the off-chance that someone else will read them:
The whole point is that the laws of science are not eternal or self-existent--they were brought into existence from absolute nothingness by omnipotence in an act of ex-nihilation. No one dispute that G-d did not create the laws of science. What they do dispute is that the laws of science are eternal and governed the ex-nihilation event itself.
People who believe that children can be born without the participation of a human male at conception have no business invoking the "laws of science."
I notice the "laws of science" disappear whenever Genesis 1-11 is not the subject being discussed.
By the way, is “abracadabra” anything like “hocus pocus?”
No. One opens a door, the other is a trick.
From the wikipedia:
"Abracadabra is an incantation used as a magic word in conjuring tricks that historically was believed to have healing powers when inscribed on an amulet. Abracadabra origin is thought to be from the Aramaic language. Abra=אברה which is "to create" and cadabra=כדברא which is "as I say", ultimately when merging the two words abracadabra means in Aramaic is create as I say thus used oftentimes in magic tricks."
“Do you realize how offensive these words are?”
Yes, I do know. I’ve had them hurled at me on many occasions by backwoods Biblethumping snake-handling goobers from decades gone to the present. BTW I don’t hate Protestants, I pity them, especially the ones who believe that the term “protestant” means “protest against Rome” when it originally meant to _proclaim_ the belief of Sola Scriptura that the Bible is the only source of Christian belief.
I’ve been told that to cross oneself is to “curse oneself”, that asking intercession of the saints is “praying to dead sinners” and that when the last Apostle died there were no more sacraments. I have to teach these goobers how to pronounce the words “apostolic succession” in order to describe the authority of the Holy Father. I’ve heard the Pope called the devil and “Beast 666”. And then they top it all off by insisting that Jesus our Lord had siblings by Mary his Mother.
Oh - I forgot to add to my original title that Catholics are a bunch of drunks, too. And we have funny sounding non-Anglo-Saxon names. And our national allegiance is to be questioned.
So yes, I do know how offensive these words are.
“Romish” remains my favorite. It’s spoken with a hiss, through clenched teeth.
OBTW, if you want some REAL anti-Catholic rhetoric, check out the Doctrine & Covenants of the Mormon Latter-day Saints.
“Whore of Babylon”, anyone?
I hear "hocus pocus" accomplishes a neat magic trick as well.
The problem is that everyone (including yourself) subscribes to an "abracadabra" theory of ex-nihilation. The argument is on what followed . . . whether or not the formation of the universe followed natural processes, or if natural processes did not assume their current form until after the formation was complete.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.