Anti-Catholic Whoppers

  • Thread starter Thread starter The_Fly
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
minkymurph said:
A Catholics eyes are closer together than a Protestant’s.

Catholics get all the jobs.

In discussion with a friend about how many heretics were burned by Catholics and Protestants alike, after much denial Protestants ever did anything wrong and much discussion to the contrary she said, ‘Well, the Catholic Church did it first.’
Click to expand...
Wow, if Catholics get all the jobs I want to come over there because I’ve been trying for almost a year to grab a job and nothing as been coming my way.

Also- when I’m with people talking about who killed heretics first (Catholics or Protestants) I tilt my head and say, “Actually I believe it was the Romans and the Jewish Sanhedrin since they were the ones who killed Jesus.” And in their eyes what he claimed was heresy.

I had a Baptist ministers wife with me at my last job and she was inviting everyone to go to church with them. I said I’d come, but I’d have to leave the “feast” afterwards early because I had my own mass to go to. Couldn’t get them to understand that I had to visit my own Church for the Eucharist because I can’t get it at the Baptist service. I ended up not going at all.
Althought I will say that at least at work none of the others actually were openly negative about the Catholic faith-- but then I had a reputation for leaping to the defense of it as well.
 
c2six said:
This is all within the past couple of weeks…
  1. Catholics sacrifice aborted babies in the mass.
  2. The Pope is pressing the US government to pass mind control laws with which he would control our minds.
  3. The Pope is a proven sun-worshipper and worships satan.
  4. The Pope plans to baptize extra-terestrials, yes aliens, that have been hiding in the vatican.
  5. The Catholic Church is the illuminati.
  6. Satan has posessed all of the Popes.
  7. Catholic saints did not perform miracles, it was the work of the devil and his demons.
  8. The Catholic Church secretly started the protestant reformation to purposely divide Christians.
Crazy huh?🤷
Click to expand...
Very, however there is a glimmer of truth in a couple of them.

#4, for example, although I’m sure is untrue at the moment, doesn’t seem to be any sort of a scandal to me. After all, if extra-terrestrials do exist, then God created them too, so His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church would and should certainly be willing to baptize them if they want to join the Universal Church! If anti-Catholics see this as a “scandal,” then they’re either forgetting that God is the God of the whole universe, or… their “god” is just mind-boglingly smaller than the True God. In either case, they need our prayers.

#7, on the other hand, is half-true. They’re absolutely right: it’s not the Saints who performed the miracles, it’s God. Now, if they want to see God’s miraculous witness to the veracity of the Catholic Faith as actually being the witness of Satan, they desperately need our prayers.

You know, when you think about it, these anti-Catholic “whoppers” often say more about the people concocting them than they do about the Church…
minkymurph said:
The reason they re-named streets in Catholic areas in Belfast ‘Dale,’ and ‘Mews’ when they were re-developed instead of the original name ‘street’ is to help Catholics get jobs.
…
In discussion with a friend about how many heretics were burned by Catholics and Protestants alike, after much denial Protestants ever did anything wrong and much discussion to the contrary she said, ‘Well, the Catholic Church did it first.’
Click to expand...
Regarding the naming of streets, I just have to ask… How does that even work? What does changing the name of streets do to help Catholics get jobs?

As for the second part, I would just point out to these people that it’s obvious that the Protestants weren’t the first to burn heretics because for the first 1500 years of Christian history there were no Protestants whatsoever (much less any Protestants with enough power to burn what they called “heretics” - which, once they did, of course included both Catholic “heretics” and actual heretics). Before that, if you want to blame the Church for what governments did, then, sure, “the Church” burned heretics for centuries before Protestants even had existed to do likewise. But, of crouse, shaunakei is absolutely right; Catholics were burnt at the stake for heresy long before “Catholic” governments starting burning actual heretics austensibly “in the name of the Catholic Church”…
 
Originally Posted by c2six
This is all within the past couple of weeks…
  1. Catholics sacrifice aborted babies in the mass.
  2. The Pope is pressing the US government to pass mind control laws with which he would control our minds.
  3. The Pope is a proven sun-worshipper and worships satan.
  4. The Pope plans to baptize extra-terestrials, yes aliens, that have been hiding in the vatican.
  5. The Catholic Church is the illuminati.
  6. Satan has posessed all of the Popes.
  7. Catholic saints did not perform miracles, it was the work of the devil and his demons.
  8. The Catholic Church secretly started the protestant reformation to purposely divide Christians.
This is the most hilarious thing I’ve read in a long time! :rotfl:

What is the illuminati? That sounds like a good thing.
 
Tiberius1701 said:
Regarding the naming of streets, I just have to ask… How does that even work? What does changing the name of streets do to help Catholics get jobs?
Click to expand...
Well, apparently if you live in a ‘Dale’ or ‘Mews’ it is classier than living in a pure, simple, mud-raker of a ‘street,’ and an indication that you live in a classier area and are therefore a classier person than someone who lives in a street - meaning - more people will want to give you a job because your not some no hoper from a back street, but someone who lives in a ‘Dale’ or ‘Mews.’

Got all that? 😃
 
minkymurph said:
Well, apparently if you live in a ‘Dale’ or ‘Mews’ it is classier than living in a pure, simple, mud-raker of a ‘street,’ and an indication that you live in a classier area and are therefore a classier person than someone who lives in a street - meaning - more people will want to give you a job because your not some no hoper from a back street, but someone who lives in a ‘Dale’ or ‘Mews.’

Got all that? 😃
Click to expand...
Ah! I see. It didn’t occur to me that they meant making “Stump St” into “Golden Stump Dale.” I was thinking it was just “Stump St.” to “Dale St.” which didn’t seem very advantageous to me…
 
minkymurph said:
  1. The Pope is a proven sun-worshipper and worships satan.
Click to expand...
Satan = Sun?
Certainly explains the fire.
minkymurph said:
  1. The Catholic Church secretly started the protestant reformation to purposely divide Christians.
Click to expand...
This doesn’t even make sense in terms of Protestant belief if the Pope is trying to use mind control. Wouldn’t be better to make mind control a secret Sacrament or something stupid like that.
minkymurph said:
What is the illuminati? That sounds like a good thing.
Click to expand...
Not particularly. It largely refers to a Bavarian secret society (so maybe the Free Masons in lederhosen).

-Prophesy
 
“The only good Catholic is a bad Catholic.” – The New York Times as quoted by Mark Hurley in The Unholy Ghost.
 
sedonaman said:
“The only good Catholic is a bad Catholic.” – The New York Times as quoted by Mark Hurley in The Unholy Ghost.
Click to expand...
Look on the bright side. It’s better than ‘the only good Catholic is a dead one.’
 
The_Fly said:
Inspired by the Anti-Catholic Whoppers article Anti-Catholic Whoppers and some of the threads I have read today, I wanted to know what are some of the best Anti-Catholic whoppers you have heard. And by best I mean the most ridiculous.

Burger King
Click to expand...
I cam across quite a bit of whoppers dealing with the Church Fathers.

two months ago, I was talking to somebody about the material/formal sufficiency of Scripture. This person made some comments and gave me a long list of Church Fathers to show me they believe in the formal sufficiency of Scripture. I only showed him just three Church Fathers (Ambrose, Augustine, and Irenaeus) that showed they believe in the authority of Scripture and Church, not Scripture alone. He tried to change the subject and said those quotes were not interpreting Matthew 16 concerning the binding and loosing authority of the Church. After I said my thoughts, they stop talking to me.

Most recently, a person told me that the Primacy of Peter and his successors was a legend and fabricatied history. He even said the Church Fathers was believing in a legend that started hundreds of years after Peter death. I asked him where did he get that information where the Church Fathers was believing in a legend. I haven’t heard from him yet, and I probably never will.

Another person told me Tertullian interpretation of Matthew 16 was different from the Catholic interpretation. When I showed him what Tertullian wrote in On Modesty 21, he changed his mind and said Tertullian was wrong and I quoted an erroneous interpretation of Matthew 16. 🤷
 
vwtaylorii said:
I cam across quite a bit of whoppers dealing with the Church Fathers.

two months ago, I was talking to somebody about the material/formal sufficiency of Scripture. This person made some comments and gave me a long list of Church Fathers to show me they believe in the formal sufficiency of Scripture. I only showed him just three Church Fathers (Ambrose, Augustine, and Irenaeus) that showed they believe in the authority of Scripture and Church, not Scripture alone. He tried to change the subject and said those quotes were not interpreting Matthew 16 concerning the binding and loosing authority of the Church. After I said my thoughts, they stop talking to me.

Most recently, a person told me that the Primacy of Peter and his successors was a legend and fabricatied history. He even said the Church Fathers was believing in a legend that started hundreds of years after Peter death. I asked him where did he get that information where the Church Fathers was believing in a legend. I haven’t heard from him yet, and I probably never will.

Another person told me Tertullian interpretation of Matthew 16 was different from the Catholic interpretation. When I showed him what Tertullian wrote in On Modesty 21, he changed his mind and said Tertullian was wrong and I quoted an erroneous interpretation of Matthew 16. 🤷
Click to expand...
It’s like throwing water up a hill sometimes.

-Prophesy
 
Jesus admitted he had sex because he said, “I come quickly.” Rev. 22:7, 12, and 20.

Jesus didn’t die on a cross; he died on a tree.
 
sedonaman said:
Jesus admitted he had sex because he said, “I come quickly.” Rev. 22:7, 12, and 20.

Jesus didn’t die on a cross; he died on a tree.
Click to expand...
I hope those are someone else’s whoppers. Some people’s dumb jokes

-Prophesy
 
Someone had mentioned Dan Brown’s books and their lack of historical accuracy… I don’t think this was a mistake per se so much as him putting a fictional twist on them… either way what I think is a larger concern is that people who’ve read them don’t consider that they found them in the section called “fiction” so they think the stuff in the books/movies is what we actually believe.
 
mdrummer5 said:
… they think the stuff in the books/movies is what we actually believe.
Click to expand...
Working in a movie theater, I learned a lot about life. One thing I noticed was the almost blind faith people put in the veracity of movies. I don’t mean the obviously fictional type, but those with a historical backdrop. The factual backdrop lent credibility to the fictional part. A common reaction was, “They [the ubiquitous ‘they’] wouldn’t allow it if it wasn’t true.”

A good example is The Ten commandments with Charleton Heston. While the movie was accurate in many known historic details, there is no mention in the Bible of his love of the princess, a main part of the movie. Last time I checked, archaeologists are not even sure which pharaoh was the pharaoh of the Exodus. But you can find people who believe the love story actually happened.

So it doesn’t surprise me that the average person [including Catholics] believe in some of these way-out whoppers about Catholicism.
 
mdrummer5 said:
Someone had mentioned Dan Brown’s books and their lack of historical accuracy… I don’t think this was a mistake per se so much as him putting a fictional twist on them… either way what I think is a larger concern is that people who’ve read them don’t consider that they found them in the section called “fiction” so they think the stuff in the books/movies is what we actually believe.
Click to expand...
It’s a human condition thing. They’ve done extensive studies on this. I read one recently done on Yald grad students that were far more inclined to remember “facts” from a story than from a textbook.

Jesus understood this; that’s why he used parables.

RE: the tree thing.
I’ve heard this before too. Does anyone know where it comes from?
 
Personally I’m STILL trying to figure out how Catholics could sacrifice aborted babies–
it’s a bit hard to kill someone whos already dead :banghead:

The Illuminate are one of the secret societies that are either “in charge of” or “trying to be in charge of” the world. They’re in with the Free Masons, Skull and Bones, and a few other ones that are supposed to herald a “New World Order”.
Althought it would be interesting when Jesus comes and shows everyone what a “new world” is supposed to look like 😉
The cross is referenced in the Old Testament by the Tree of Everlasting life in the garden of Eden. There are also references in the Bible to the Messiah being hung on a tree- and there is some historical evidence that the Romans just used whatever tree was handy and put the crossbeam on top so that it formed a T shape. So yes, Jesus was crucified on a "tree" (in a symbolic sense-we won't know if it's a literal one until we can ask him). However, in this sense the cross and the "tree" mean the very same thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top