Catholics are a bigot

[yankee_doodle]

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!

it’s almost like saying all Americans are bigots because we believe in the tenants expressed by the Declaration of Independence.

The definition of bigot is:

a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

Taken from Merriam-Webster (see link here).

A religious creed doesn’t fall under this definition either technically or in common usage of the term.

 

[Filioque]

You may want to look for a copy of Msgr. Philip Hughes books, he wrote a History of the Church, and another, History of the Reformation in England. (Both are three volume sets, however there are paperback one volume editions, both entitled “A Popular History…” which may be earier to start out with. Msgr. Hughes was a Protestant Minister, and Oxford Scholar who converted to the Catholic Faith, and became a priest. He has read the history from both sides, and while convinced of the Truths of the Catholic Faith, is very even handed. I think his History of the Catholic Church is back in print, as he died in the early 1960’s the history only goes to the eve of Vatican II. But there is much that you can get for the years since Vatican II.

Since the Councils of the Church were normally called to address questions or attacks at orthodox teachings, this link to one of Msgr Hughes book, The Church in Crisis, a history of the Councils of the Church, in an online format may also be helpful in seeing what heretical teachings came up over the history of the Church, and how the Church officially responded.
christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/coun0.html

 

[StrawberryJam]

You prefer the Nicene over the Apostle’s creed?

Really? And, by the way what can you tell me about your examination of Christian claims?

What kind of research have you done?

Thank you, I learn a lot from people like you

 

[imkingdad]

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.

---

Well Put & accurate. Too Many semantic games at times in here.

 

[StrawberryJam]

---

Well Put & accurate. Too Many semantic games at times in here.

Can you help me out here and find how catholics are led blindly?
say, give an example ? Would it be birth control? Or what other issue?

 

[Joe_5859]

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

Online, you can find Eusebius’ Church History. Eusebius lived from about 260-341 AD. This is a very important work as it outlines Church History from the beginning up to (but not including) the Council of Nicea in 325, and it was written by someone far closer to those events than any of us.

The 3 volume set, The Faith of the Early Fathers (Jurgens) is also a great resource. It’s not a history, per se, but rather it has loads of excerpts from the writings of the Early Church Fathers which gives you insight into what the early Church believed.

I would recommend Church History by Fr. John Laux as nice moderate size account of Church history (600+ pages), though Laux’s book only goes up through about 1944.

If you’re looking for short, sweet, and to-the-point, then you can’t do better than Dr. Schreck’s The Compact History of the Catholic Church.

If you’re looking for a very readable, somewhat humorous account of Church History, H. W. Crocker’s Triumph: The Power and Glory of the Catholic Church is excellent. This book has a deliberate bias in favor of the Catholic Church, though I think it is still very useful.

If you’re looking for a super swanky, full color church history book with maps and pictures galore, you can’t do better than The History of the Church textbook that is part of the original Didache Series. This title may be going out of print soon as the publisher (Midwest Theological Forum) is now producing a Didache Semester Series, which will include a Semester edition of this church history textbook due out in early 2010.

There’s plenty of other good stuff, but these are always my top recommendations.

If you have any particular areas of interest, there are many topical books out there as well. It seems the three event of Church History that always get brought up are the Crusades, the Inquisition (particularly the Spanish Inquisition), and Galileo. There should be a book just on these three things. There is so much misinformation out there on these events.

 

[adrift]

Websters definition sounded strange to me. I went to there on line site

Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: \ˈbi-gət
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1660

: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

— big·ot·ed -gə-təd\ adjective

— big·ot·ed·ly adverb

There is no mention of creed. Where did you get the definition? Do you have a link?

 

[Paul3144]

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.

Yes, Protestants do accept the Nicene Creed. In fact, I use the 3 ecumenical creeds to define the term “heresy.”

 

[Zooey]

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

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.

But I see people who–all, I believe sincerely–all well-meaning folk, who are re-writing the Creeds, and without knowing it, exposing themselves to the danger of falling into Mormon/JW territory.
The most obvious example is the current tendency of some to say “I believe in the Holy Christian Church” instead of “I believe in the Holy Catholic Church”…(I don’t even think a lot of them are–consciously at least–anti-Catholic; they just intend to “clarify” the language).
But look up the word “Christian” sometime in an online dictionary. (I have, sometime back, and had to severely edit my quote for space, to address this very point!) There are a hundred & one meanings.
Whereas Catholic means “universal”. Period. Yes, it can mean either (as Catholics use it) the visible Church, or it can imply an invisible/spiritual Church , but that is about it.
And we all know that what the Creed means by Catholic,& it is not simply “kind & charitable”, “believeing in one or another religion about Jesus”, or any of the other vagaries included by the dictionary.
There are a lot of folk out there (including, to my horror, some of the Free Methodists among whom I spent my childhood) who have jettisoned the classic and intentional words of the Creeds, in a vain attempt to be “ecumenical”. Or “less confusing”. Or something. Never minding that Joseph Smith grew up & invented the Mormon faith less than 100 miles from the Rev. B T Roberts’ home grounds, where Free Methodism was born.
Its scary. Very scary. Anybody who seeks clarity in Christian doctrine is lost without the traditional Creeds of the Church. This is precisely why Free Methodism is Christian & Mormonism is not…but without belief in the Creeds? Who knows? Only time will tell.

To OP: God’s richest blessings in your search & your studies.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Subject-verb agreement issues here…shouldn’t the thread be “Catholics are bigots?” Another thread says “Catholoc” Church…what is the deal with grammar and spelling on CAF today? This teacher is going mad!

 

[pnewton]

Subject-verb agreement issues here…shouldn’t the thread be “Catholics are bigots?” Another thread says “Catholoc” Church…what is the deal with grammar and spelling on CAF today? This teacher is going mad!

Typos happen. The “i” and the “o” are next to each other on the keyboard. Grammar and misspelling are not so easily excused and give an easy way of dismissing the intelligence of the posters. It is easy to lapse into conversational typing and come across as an uneducated oaf. This needs to be remembered as it is an acceptable way to post.

Also we should be patient and understanding with those whose primary language is not English. Anyone who has learned a second language know what difficulty it is getting all grammatical nuances correct.

 

[Joe_5859]

Typos happen. The “i” and the “o” are next to each other on the keyboard. Grammar and misspelling are not so easily excused and give an easy way of dismissing the intelligence of the posters. It is easy to lapse into conversational typing and come across as an uneducated oaf. This needs to be remembered as it is an acceptable way to post.

Also we should be patient and understanding with those whose primary language is not English. Anyone who has learned a second language know what difficulty it is getting all grammatical nuances correct.

Shouldn’t it be “knows”, not “know”? I think I’d probably also add a “a” before “difficulty” and a “the” before the word “grammatical.”

I’m just messing with you.

 

[Anna_Scott]

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 can understand your desire to study. I share that desire, also.

However, the tile of the Thread, even though explained, is still offensive.

Anna

 

[pnewton]

Shouldn’t it be “knows”, not “know”? I think I’d probably also add a “a” before “difficulty” and a “the” before the word “grammatical.”

I’m just messing with you.

I’m claiming typo.

 

[Joe_5859]

I’m claiming typo.

It happens to the bets of us.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

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

And think about it…why would the first 1500 years be wrong according to Luther? We, the Roman Catholic church, has an unbroken link from St. Peter, the first pope, who reigned for twenty-five years, 265 popes later until now. UNBROKEN. No one else can make this claim.