Anti-Catholicism: What's the Basis?

[vern_humphrey]

Of course.

It is the natural part of accepting something bigger than I am.

Any idea that requires faith for consent can be wrong.

Otherwise, there need be no faith.

I can answer, as a matter of logic, with certainty, that if anyone is certain that a statement contains no error, then either that person is wrong, or the statement requires no faith.

But again, you could be wrong.

I am reminded of what the Stranger said to Simley (in Mark Twain’s “The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calavaras County”), “I don’t see no points in that frawg that’s any better than any other frawg.”

I am waiting to be evangelized – to be told what I should believe. But no one will, and even those who might can offer nothing but, “This is what I believe, but I could be wrong.”

 

[noma]

I am waiting to be evangelized – to be told what I should believe. But no one will, and even those who might can offer nothing but, “This is what I believe, but I could be wrong.”

I think that’s the best Catholicism has to offer, but not always with as much honesty.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I think that’s the best Catholicism has to offer, but not always with as much honesty.

So this is all the evangelizing boils down to? A simple opinion with a nasty little dig at Catholicism at the end?

 

[noma]

So this is all the evangelizing boils down to? A simple opinion with a nasty little dig at Catholicism at the end?

I am certainly not trying to evangelize.

But I am trying to form thoughts, and share my thoughts with others.

I think it is clear the distinctions between thought in this case.

And, in my mind at least, the level of the honesty of the claims is also clear.

Catholics are no more certain about anything than anyone else, save in the light of faith. And this like all else, save that their faith is more informed than most, and less informed than some.

I believe the Church to be certainly wrong in its official teaching, and I have a certainty in this, by faith in Christ.

I do not hold this as being logically certain, just as no Catholic, being honest, can hold the infallibility of the magisterium as being logically certain, but must also accept that their claim rests on faith.

This certainty does not imply infallibility. After all, people may speak the truth by accident, or from a different source.

Rather, I hold that it has been revealed in Christ and with good reason that no person save Christ has been given any charism of infallibility.

 

[jmcrae]

So we can say that, through all generations, there have been Baptists, though not with the highly developed doctrine Baptists have today.

The first Baptist was a man named John Smyth, who lived in Holland during the 1700s.

There’s a lot more to being a Baptist than full-immersion Baptism. Other distinctives include things like taking pride in having no Sacramental system (meaning that if your full-immersion Christians of the First Century believed that their Baptism was Sacramental, then they weren’t Baptists; they were Catholic), bans on dancing and on drinking alcohol (so if they danced or drank at their weddings, then they weren’t Baptists), “once saved, always saved” (meaning again that if those first century Christians believed that they needed to become sanctified, then, once again, they definitely weren’t Baptists), Bible-alone (which was not even possible for first century Christians; they didn’t have a Bible, yet). Also, if any of those first century Christians you’re referring to were following the Pope, then they are definitely out, since Baptists definitely don’t follow the Pope.

These aren’t “highly developed doctrines” - these are things that just distinguish Baptists from Catholics.

 

[noma]

The first Baptist was a man named John Smyth, who lived in Holland during the 1700s.

There’s a lot more to being a Baptist than full-immersion Baptism.

I agree. But all the rest can best be seen in contrast to Catholicism.

And so much of the rest could be seen as a wise correction of Catholic errors.

I am not saying this is the way things are, but rather the way things may in fact be.

 

[jmcrae]

I agree. But all the rest can best be seen in contrast to Catholicism.

And so much of the rest could be seen as a wise correction of Catholic errors.

Any “correction” of “Catholic errors” is purely human invention - Jesus founded the Catholic Church and gifted it with all Truth. Therefore, anything that contradicts the Catholic Church is, by default, an error in and of itself, and an error cannot “correct” anything at all.

 

[noma]

Any “correction” of “Catholic errors” is purely human invention - Jesus founded the Catholic Church and gifted it with all Truth. Therefore, anything that contradicts the Catholic Church is, by default, an error in and of itself, and an error cannot “correct” anything at all.

That is one opinion.

 

[jmcrae]

That is one opinion.

It’s an opinion derived from the confluence of historical, biblical, and theological realities; Jesus really did found a Church; the only one He could have founded is the Catholic Church, based on the fact that it’s the only one that both exists now, and existed then (one of the qualifications of Christ’s Church is that it is eternal, meaning that it can’t have ever stopped existing at any point in time) - if you trace back the history of your denomination, leader by leader, you will eventually come to a disgruntled ex-Catholic who left the Church to establish his own religion - Catholicism alone goes back in a straight line to Jesus Christ, with no crossing of denominational boundaries at any point along the way.

 

[noma]

It’s an opinion derived from the confluence of historical, biblical, and theological realities…

Yes, it is an opinion that has lasted almost as long as flat-earth geocentrism, Hinduism, and Judaism.

Just because it’s the way things were done doesn’t mean it’s the way they were supposed to be done.

Changes aren’t bad just because they differ from the past. Often, as in the case of science and other areas of truth, the past practices and beliefs in faith are wrong.

There are some staples, but these come from the source of Truth.

And I believe that to be the Scriptures, Nature, and Reason.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Yes, it is an opinion that has lasted almost as long as flat-earth geocentrism, Hinduism, and Judaism.

Just because it’s the way things were done doesn’t mean it’s the way they were supposed to be done.

Changes aren’t bad just because they differ from the past. Often, as in the case of science and other areas of truth, the past practices and beliefs in faith are wrong.

There are some staples, but these come from the source of Truth.

And I believe that to be the Scriptures, Nature, and Reason.

But in the end, you rely not on God, but on yourself. You can never be sure you are right, so when you condemn others, you might well be condemning those who follow God’s true path.

 

[Randy_Carson]

That is one opinion.

Noma-

You are probably familiar with C.S. Lewis’ famous explanation that Jesus is either:

1. 
   *]a lunatic (he thought he was God but he wasn’t);
   *]a liar (he knew he wasn’t God but said he was);
   *]our Lord.
   Doesn’t it really come down to something like that regarding the Catholic Church? Either it is:
   1. 
      *]a diabolical deception leading millions into Hell
      *]the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church it claims to be
      Given the claims of the Catholic Church about itself, I really don’t see much room for a smarmy middle ground. You cannot carve out for yourself a “third way” based upon your admiration for a Church that may be deceiving a billion people. If it is in error, then you MUST condemn it.
      
      Many, many people believe that position #1 is correct, but they do so to their eternal peril if #2 is actually correct.
      
      I believe the historical evidence is overwhelming that Jesus founded one Church with Peter as its head. The Church founded by Christ must be one, holy, “universal” and Apostolic.
      
      When I look for a church that has all of these characteristics and is connected to Christ through Peter, I find that Church does still exist today, and it is the Catholic Church led by Peter’s successor, Benedict XVI, and the Bishops in communion with him.
      
      You must look for and find the same.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

If I wanted to be Jewish I would have a couple of similar problems, the constant killing in God’s name (OT). Second about half of the book of Leviticus. However that does not mean it is easier to be Catholic! For years I struggled with many church issues as have many. One issue which I could not get over was the vineyard parable, how could Jesus support the murder of innocent slaves, (& slavery) and innocent sons? How could he support the thief of the property? Then one day during a Priest less period one of many visiting Priest here he was young, minority looked like he could play pro football and he explained the parable during the homily. He said the killing was a symbol of people following false leadership, the innocent could die following the orders of their leader, in the story the leader is a land owner but the parable refers to Pharisees. The loss of the land is not about property thief but about God starting Christianity thus removing God’s people from the Pharisees (the property). For years I looked too literally at the story and thus remained confused, now thanks to the Priest I understand it. *I guess I was lucky not to be Protestant as that would mean I would believed in a God that allowed some killing and theif, and it would be up to me to decide when! *

When I read about bad Popes (600~1100), it is similar. However when I read he apparitions of Mary I see she clearly supports Catholism. So I know the church is still in the favor of God.

Hope that helps

 

[tizzidale]

Let’s just call it like it is: Photius was the first Protestant, and we’re still experiencing the effects of his actions.

rusty

 

[noma]

Doesn’t it really come down to something like that regarding the Catholic Church? Either it is:

1. 
   *]a diabolical deception leading millions into Hell
   *]the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church it claims to be
   Given the claims of the Catholic Church about itself, I really don’t see much room for a smarmy middle ground. You cannot carve out for yourself a “third way” based upon your admiration for a Church that may be deceiving a billion people. If it is in error, then you MUST condemn it.

1. 
   I will enter a possibility # 3: It may be a fallible human institution that includes some members who are part of an invisible Church, with only mistaken authority.
   
   Possibility #4: A schismatic group from the Orthodox Church
   
   Possibility #5: A purely human lie (humans can be, I think, just as devious as devils).
   
   Possibility #6: Part of the human condition, extant in a world with no Christian God.
   
   Possibility #7: Something else.
   
   Even with Lewis’s argument, there are more possibilities than first thought of. I always found that argument of his unconvincing. And for the reason that the number of possibilities are limited by a single human intellect. There is no way to be sure someone else can’t think of another way things could work out.

 

[noma]

However when I read he apparitions of Mary I see she clearly supports Catholism. So I know the church is still in the favor of God.

This is an interesting issue. If Orthodoxy/Protestantism were true, why wouldn’t Mary be appearing to them?

This is something I’m going to have to think about.

 

[tizzidale]

This is an interesting issue. If Orthodoxy/Protestantism were true, why wouldn’t Mary be appearing to them?

This is something I’m going to have to think about.

Be careful here, for you will find a plethora of Orthodox sources maintaining that the Catholic Marian apparitions are from ‘the devil’. Nevermind that similar actions of the Virgin are the basis for many Orthodox feasts and celebrations . . .

rusty

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Be careful here, for you will find a plethora of Orthodox sources maintaining that the Catholic Marian apparitions are from ‘the devil’. Nevermind that similar actions of the Virgin are the basis for many Orthodox feasts and celebrations . . .

rusty

True
I like to ask them “And why did the devil convert the Mexicans from pagan to Catholic 1500 years after the crucifixion?”

 

[vern_humphrey]

True
I like to ask them “And why did the devil convert the Mexicans from pagan to Catholic 1500 years after the crucifixion?”

I’d love to hear them answer that one.

 

[Jon_S]

The flat earth theory was invented by Washington Irving and never a defined doctrine in the Church.

Anyway, the Church doesn’t teach science, and if you read the Chatecism, you will find that the Church has no problem with science as long as it is done in an ethical manner, one that respects the dignity of human life.

As far as reason goes; try your best to illuminate the rest of us as to how you might reason Christ’s call for a unified Church in light of Protestant doctrine and their 30,000 different churches. You will find that the Papacy is not only very logical, but completely essential to Christian unity.

Also, can anyone tell me of a Catholic teaching that is not found in Apostolic Tradition? I have looked and looked and come up empty handed.

As far as the Eastern Orthodox Church, I have a great deal of respect for them and I sincerely hope and pray that we may find the path to re-unification in the near future. (Hopefully in my lifetime, I would throw the biggest party ever!)