Catholics are a bigot

[racing59]

Before any one goes off on me let me clearify what I mean by bigot. Webster dictonary discribes a bigot as follows: “One who holds blindly and intollerantly to a particular Creed.”
Catholics hold to the Nicene Creed which would have to make them bigots to anyone that did not hold this Creed as Truth.They would have to be! Understanding this explains a lot of passions running high on this site,for me. For the past week I have been challenged by some Catholics in why I came here. Some in a nice way and some not so nice. This has cause me to revisit the History of the Christian Church. I wanted an unbias view of history and I believe fond one in Schaff’s “History of the Christian Church”. I found through Church history this Creed to be trace back to the Apostles. I also found why the need for Apostolic Succession, all the trials an tribulation the early church went through, the teachings had to be Apostolic in accordance with the Gospels, other wise their was anarchy.I also found the Church was made up of different Apostolic churches( Western off of Peters teachings and Eastern off of John). I must now confess that a Church must be Apostolic with its links directly to the Apostles and their teachings which went along with what the Early Fathers had tought. I am yet convinced that Rome is supreme authority over all Apostolic Churches, I follow the Orthodox on this accord. I will continue studing further and revisiting this sight. I must no confess I hold on to the Creed of Nicene as Truth,but the Apostle Creed further study must be done. I guess now I’m a bigot too!

 

[amontoya]

May God richly bless you in your further studies!

 

[Nominefili]

Before any one goes off on me let me clearify what I mean by bigot. Webster dictonary discribes a bigot as follows: “One who holds blindly and intollerantly to a particular Creed.”
Catholics hold to the Nicene Creed which would have to make them bigots to anyone that did not hold this Creed as Truth.They would have to be! Understanding this explains a lot of passions running high on this site,for me. For the past week I have been challenged by some Catholics in why I came here. Some in a nice way and some not so nice. This has cause me to revisit the History of the Christian Church. I wanted an unbias view of history and I believe fond one in Schaff’s “History of the Christian Church”. I found through Church history this Creed to be trace back to the Apostles. I also found why the need for Apostolic Succession, all the trials an tribulation the early church went through, the teachings had to be Apostolic in accordance with the Gospels, other wise their was anarchy.I also found the Church was made up of different Apostolic churches( Western off of Peters teachings and Eastern off of John). I must now confess that a Church must be Apostolic with its links directly to the Apostles and their teachings which went along with what the Early Fathers had tought. I am yet convinced that Rome is supreme authority over all Apostolic Churches, I follow the Orthodox on this accord. I will continue studing further and revisiting this sight. I must no confess I hold on to the Creed of Nicene as Truth,but the Apostle Creed further study must be done. I guess now I’m a bigot too!

I don’t really know what the point of this thread was, but if you can’t confess the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds honestly, you have a serious problem.

 

[CAmeliaD]

It is possible for a Catholic to also be a bigot, but by your definition Catholics are not bigots. Your definition says “blindly and intolerably.” We don’t believe “blindly” in our faith, and I don’t know any Catholics who are intolerant of people whose beliefs differ from theirs.

 

[racing59]

I don’t really know what the point of this thread was, but if you can’t confess the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds honestly, you have a serious problem.

That is my point! Many Churches do not hold the Nicene Creed nor do the have a direct link to a succession of Bishops traced back to the Apostles. This was important in early Church history. I need to see this for myself in an unbais history of the Christian Church.It made me realise that the Reformation no matter how good in intent was in error to break off from an Apostolic Church.
Peace

 

[Newbie2]

It is possible for a Catholic to also be a bigot, but by your definition Catholics are not bigots. Your definition says “blindly and intolerably.” We don’t believe “blindly” in our faith, and I don’t know any Catholics who are intolerant of people whose beliefs differ from theirs.

Exactly what I was thinking.

 

[racing59]

It is possible for a Catholic to also be a bigot, but by your definition Catholics are not bigots. Your definition says “blindly and intolerably.” We don’t believe “blindly” in our faith, and I don’t know any Catholics who are intolerant of people whose beliefs differ from theirs.

Mine was not to offend. Is not Faith, believing without seeing." Blessed are they that have not seen yet believe", that classifies as blind faith don’t you think? An I have met some Catholics on this site that have no tolerence for non Catholics.
Peace

 

[gamewell45]

Mine was not to offend. Is not Faith, believing without seeing." Blessed are they that have not seen yet believe", that classifies as blind faith don’t you think? An I have met some Catholics on this site that have no tolerence for non Catholics.
Peace

I honestly think you’ll find bigots from all faiths and all walks of life. In some people its the thread their cut from; in others over time they become intolerant.

 

[racing59]

I honestly think you’ll find bigots from all faiths and all walks of life. In some people its the thread their cut from; in others over time they become intolerant.

I totally agree. I know the term bigot seems to have a negative conditation, but that isn’t always the case.My Mom was raised craddle Catholic, she never studied Apologetics, she believe in The Creed of the Church with blind faith.She shared her faith with people from all walks of life and was intolerant when some one attack her faith, that would be the end of discussion. Does that not qualify as a bigot accorrding to Webster? Why is holding fast to the Nicene Creed and Apostolic Succession mean your not a bigot? Why does the term bigot have to be a negative condition? I’m just trying to understand why some people got hostile when I asked questions. I understand now they took it as an attack on their Creed. I came here to learn and not to explot my own agenda. Part of that knowledge is to try to understand were others are comming from, putting myself in their shoes if you will.
Peace

 

[Joe_5859]

I’m glad I read your OP. By itself, your thread title seems to invite a very heated response.

I need to see this for myself in an unbais history of the Christian Church.

I think it’s important to keep in mind that there is no unbiased history of anything. Any account of Church History that you read will have some bias to it. The important thing is to know what the bias is. If you read a Catholic history, they may be biased towards the Catholic Church. If you read a Protestant history, they may be biased against the Catholic Church. If you read a secular history, they may be biased against Christianity and the supernatural.

Now, of course, these are over-generalizations. A good historian will look at the evidence and be honest, whether they are Catholic, Protestant, or atheist. But even the best historian will have some degree of bias. It’s simply human nature to be biased, and we don’t always recognize our own biases. The best we can do is to try to recognize those biases as much as we are able to.

I think it’s important to look at several perspectives and always look for the evidence. Remember, history is sort of like putting a puzzle together. Historians make assertions because of the pieces they have in front of them and the way they have put them together. So always look at the evidence for their assertions.

I’ve been getting into Church History as of late, so it’s on my mind. I have lots of resources from the Catholic perspective that I could give you.

 

[Joe_5859]

I totally agree. I know the term bigot seems to have a negative conditation, but that isn’t always the case.My Mom was raised craddle Catholic, she never studied Apologetics, she believe in The Creed of the Church with blind faith.She shared her faith with people from all walks of life and was intolerant when some one attack her faith, that would be the end of discussion. Does that not qualify as a bigot accorrding to Webster? Why is holding fast to the Nicene Creed and Apostolic Succession mean your not a bigot? Why does the term bigot have to be a negative condition? I’m just trying to understand why some people got hostile when I asked questions. I understand now they took it as an attack on their Creed. I came here to learn and not to explot my own agenda. Part of that knowledge is to try to understand were others are comming from, putting myself in their shoes if you will.
Peace

I don’t think anything you or I do can change the connotation that the word “bigot” holds to most people. Very few people would not take it as an insult regardless of what Webster says. Such is the nature of our language. Certain words which may start out as neutral become loaded with positive or negative connotations as they are used through the years.

 

[eichenb2]

May God richly bless you in your further studies!

I would like to second this post. May God guide you in your studies! Before attacking your post, I rather would like to recommend a book; Jesus of Nazareth by Pope benedict XVI.

 

[Nominefili]

I think it’s important to keep in mind that there is no unbiased history of anything. Any account of Church History that you read will have some bias to it. The important thing is to know what the bias is.

Wise words, my friend. Wise words.

Having read Reformation history from Concordia Publishing House and then also from the Catholic Encyclopedia… yeah. Slight variations lol.

 

[racing59]

I’m glad I read your OP. By itself, your thread title seems to invite a very heated response.

I think it’s important to keep in mind that there is no unbiased history of anything. Any account of Church History that you read will have some bias to it. The important thing is to know what the bias is. If you read a Catholic history, they may be biased towards the Catholic Church. If you read a Protestant history, they may be biased against the Catholic Church. If you read a secular history, they may be biased against Christianity and the supernatural.

Now, of course, these are over-generalizations. A good historian will look at the evidence and be honest, whether they are Catholic, Protestant, or atheist. But even the best historian will have some degree of bias. It’s simply human nature to be biased, and we don’t always recognize our own biases. The best we can do is to try to recognize those biases as much as we are able to.

I think it’s important to look at several perspectives and always look for the evidence. Remember, history is sort of like putting a puzzle together. Historians make assertions because of the pieces they have in front of them and the way they have put them together. So always look at the evidence for their assertions.

I’ve been getting into Church History as of late, so it’s on my mind. I have lots of resources from the Catholic perspective that I could give you.

Hi Joe, you bring up some good points I did not consider. I welcome any info and resources for my studies.

 

[prodigalson12]

I have another book to recommend which will really help you with your studies. It’s called Rome sweet Home, by Scott & Kimberly Hahn. I’m just over 1/2 way through it, and so far, it’s about testing and researching everything he’s learned from his protestant background, trying to bring what is taught into biblical, scriptural context and validity. What he finds out along the way, he makes all of these new discoveries and shares them within his sermons and lectures. There is more to it then this, but I know you will enjoy it., I don’t want to spoil the story they tell on it, but what’s good about it, it’s from a very educated perspective, and he too tests his own faith, his own church as well as the Catholic faith.

I am the type that never takes things as what they appear to be by faith alone, I have to test, prod, decipher, analyze, and in general, know it inside and out. I too put the church to the test in so many areas, and in the end, I learned the beauty we have as Catholics with our faith, that there is so much more that goes on within it, words cannot do it justice. I also think the key to a great deal of help with my situation was from Mary, and this is where I’m going to present to you a challenge. If you really want to know more along what we know and experience, I highly suggest learning as much as you can about her, hopefully developing not only a literal understanding, a spiritual one as well, she has led many, many people to the church and plays a vital roll within many people’s lives. This latter topic, protestants tend to glaze over upon, which is why I emphasis it to you.

 

[John_Larocque]

Those who do not adhere to the Nicene Creed have departed from not only Catholicism, or Eastern or Oriental Orthodoxy, but also nearly every denomination that came out of the Protestant Reformation. By this, I mean new religious movements like the Mormons or the Jehovah’s Witnesses, which cannot be called “Protestant”. Would it not be safe to say that if you are Protestant, you adhere to the Nicene Creed? I used to think that all Protestants (children of the Reformation) were Nicene Christians.

 

[pnewton]

I just read a couple of definitions of the word “bigot.” I am convinced almost everyone can meet at least one of the definitions in some area of thought. Yet, we do not go around labeling everyone we know as a bigot because the connotation is tied specifically to the blindness of one’s belief. It is easy to understand why words like this are considered uncharitable in their usage.

 

[racing59]

I don’t think anything you or I do can change the connotation that the word “bigot” holds to most people. Very few people would not take it as an insult regardless of what Webster says. Such is the nature of our language. Certain words which may start out as neutral become loaded with positive or negative connotations as they are used through the years.

Hi Joe, I understand what your saying. I prayed before I posted this thread and knew it might be controversial, but some times this can be a good thing of the way people come accross. I have been torn between to worlds for some time. Half my family is Catholic(Mom side) other half is Protestant(Dad’s side). It has always seemed each side was bigotted against the other, with me caught in the middle. I have been praying and searching my soul for the answers. I came to this site to ask questions, to get this war inside of me, resolved. On many of the threads I found the same bigotry I saw in my own family, this is confussing to some people. In my studies I found the Church has always had problems in this very thing. Catholics claim they are the One true Church(They have the fullness of Truth ), Protestants claim this is not true, the undecided get caught in the cross fire. I just wish people could think before the post, I am searching for answers and not emotion.
God Bless
Peace

 

[benidict]

Before any one goes off on me let me clearify what I mean by bigot. Webster dictonary discribes a bigot as follows: “One who holds blindly and intollerantly to a particular Creed.”
Catholics hold to the Nicene Creed which would have to make them bigots to anyone that did not hold this Creed as Truth.They would have to be! Understanding this explains a lot of passions running high on this site,for me. For the past week I have been challenged by some Catholics in why I came here. Some in a nice way and some not so nice. This has cause me to revisit the History of the Christian Church. I wanted an unbias view of history and I believe fond one in Schaff’s “History of the Christian Church”. I found through Church history this Creed to be trace back to the Apostles. I also found why the need for Apostolic Succession, all the trials an tribulation the early church went through, the teachings had to be Apostolic in accordance with the Gospels, other wise their was anarchy.I also found the Church was made up of different Apostolic churches( Western off of Peters teachings and Eastern off of John). I must now confess that a Church must be Apostolic with its links directly to the Apostles and their teachings which went along with what the Early Fathers had tought. I am yet convinced that Rome is supreme authority over all Apostolic Churches, I follow the Orthodox on this accord. I will continue studing further and revisiting this sight. I must no confess I hold on to the Creed of Nicene as Truth,but the Apostle Creed further study must be done. I guess now I’m a bigot too!

i think, like myself a couple years back, you are on the verge of a very life changing epiphany. ill just keep my mouth shut, and let the Holy Spirit work on you my brother. lol! but as far as the Church, come on in, the water is soooo fine!

 

[Reuben_J]

Those who do not adhere to the Nicene Creed have departed from not only Catholicism, or Eastern or Oriental Orthodoxy, but also nearly every denomination that came out of the Protestant Reformation. By this, I mean new religious movements like the Mormons or the Jehovah’s Witnesses, which cannot be called “Protestant”. Would it not be safe to say that if you are Protestant, you adhere to the Nicene Creed? I used to think that all Protestants (children of the Reformation) were Nicene Christians.

I do not particularly like to talk or even think about this because it distracts me from my focus of my own faith. But come to think of it, this is a stark reality of how far the faith has mutated and deviated from its original purpose and intention. Jesus would not recognize his church if he comes here today.

We can only keep hoping and praying that not all is lost and that nothing has been changed from what the apostles intended. There are Christians who have some links with the apostles but some, sad to say, are completely cut off from the original practice and belief.

This is very dangerous because it also result in cutting off and leaving out the understanding of the faith as understood through traditions, as not all teachings are to be found in the Bible alone. Even understanding the Bible, one needs to know the context in which certain verses or teachings are written; and this must be seen through the traditions for which they are intended.

I have just come across a thread in the apologetic section where some non-Catholic Christians interpret the Bible without taking into consideration the tradition and the understanding of the ancient people about the particular topic. And how wrong they can be when they leave out these traditions; and now the Bible is totally reinvented and revised.

I don’t agree with the OP about the bigot thing but of course he does not mean bigot as in the classic sense. Nevertheless, the bottom line is we cannot compromise on the truth of our faith - and that truth is a package that can be found in the Bible and the traditions and the teachings of the apostles and their disciples.