Replies

...and anti-Catholics, even when moving into an earnest-sounding post, still manage to worm in such screed as "Catholics are not Christians". Classy.

1. You like to point out words and twists of words. I've seen you do it over and over again.

Where do you see my post say, "Catholics are not Christians" - as you declare? Are you guilty of misquoting me? Who's worming words here, sir?

Now, you may rightly quote this:
I have no problem saying that I do not believe most Roman Catholics are headed for glory. THAT is exactly why I am active in these threads. I have been clear about that at every turn.

You will argue my assertion. And I will say, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." You will say that refers to me and I, you perhaps.

"...because I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him until that day."

Here's something else you may quote:
I am not opposed to Catholics. I am opposed to Catholicism. I am not anti-Catholic. I am anti-Catholicism.

I KNOW the harm that the institution does and I oppose it.

2. Still, I made an attempt at discussing the challenge. Why don't you stick to the topic instead of attacking the messenger(s)? Is it so hard to have a civilized debate?

THAT would be "classy".

Where do you see my post say, "Catholics are not Christians" - as you declare?

Er... FRiend: with all due respect to your theatrical flair, may I point out something?

[kinsman redeemer]
I think the general rule is that Christians use scripture to defend scripture and Catholics use tradition to defend tradition. Both are acting out of faith.

Please, if you will: explain to me how your statement can distinguish clearly between "Christians" (who allegedly do one thing) and "Catholics" (who allegedly do quite another thing) like that, without categorizing Catholics as "non-Christians"? Had you said "Non-Catholics" and "Catholics", I wouldn't have blinked an eye; but you didn't say that.

Now, if that was simply a slip of the anti-Catholic tongue, fine: I'll happily accept a retraction and amended comment from you, and say no more about it. But otherwise, let's not have a maudlin show of wounded bluster, shall we?

As for your lament that I "do not address the topic"--perhaps you haven't read many of my replies? I've lost count of the thousands of words of text I've typed, in that regard... to you, as well, I think. Let's not let hearts run away with heads, here.

BTW: once upon a time, I went to the trouble to type "anti-Catholic-Church people" instead of "anti-Catholics" (much as I started writing "pro-legal-abortion people" instead of "pro-abortion people", since the same sort of objections came up: "I'm not pro-abortion! I'm pro-choice! Blah, blah, blah..."). But after the last 2 weeks or so, and the spate of anti-Catholic threads and posts, I'm really wondering whether it's worth the bother, and whether it would be a distinction without a difference.

Case in point: RnMomof7 has posted several of these anti-Catholic screeds PER WEEK. For anyone to complain that "we're not addressing the main point of the article/post/etc." is to display rather stunning ignorance and/or obliviousness about the many(!) prior attempts we Catholics have made, in oh-so-similar posts of just a few days prior to this. So please don't play your sad violin to me, re: our alleged unwillingness to engage the issue. If anti-Catholics (yes, I used the term) were willing to stay on one thread, tough it out, and ADDRESS issues (rather than degenerating into a morass of back-slapping of fellow anti-Catholics, verbal flames and sneers, vacuous comments about how "blind/hard-hearted/etc." Catholics are, etc., then you might see some progress. As it is, I hope you'll forgive us some "thread fatigue"; after 50+ anti-Catholic threads, one does get a bit less inclined to repeat absolutely everything one has written to every last Protestant and every last aspect of Church teaching.