Does Catholic rudeness keep you away from the Church?

[theistgal]

Not naming any names, but I notice quite a few posts and threads in this section which seem to be unnecessarily belligerent and argumentative towards Protestants.

I’m a Catholic, but I’ve been outside the Church more than once in my life. And during those times, when I would venture to Catholic or Christian discussion boards, I’d really be offended and put off by that kind of message.

For me, it was the kind Christians - the ones who had a sense of humor and tried to engage me where I was, rather than argue with me - who “softened me up” and got me in the state of mind where I could seriously reconsider coming home.

What do you think, non-Catholics (and non-Christians)? What kind of Catholic would you prefer to deal with - one who constantly tells you you’re on the road to Hell, or one who walks by your side, chatting and laughing and using “gentle persuasion”?

 

[Hesychios]

Ideally the Truth, however conveyed, would be the determining factor. We should be able to brush aside the “jerk factor” and analyze the arguments on their own merits. Rudeness on the part of internet posters should not have that kind of influence on rational inquirers (but most unfortunately it does).

When I was a Catholic under the Pope, I found that rudeness from my fellow Catholics did have a tendency to have me more seriously reflect on arguments from outside the church.

I think the important qualities for internet posting are…

• …a willingness to acknowledge the facts
• …a sense of humor
• …always have a reason for the Faith within one.

 

[theistgal]

Ideally the Truth, however conveyed, would be the determining factor. We should be able to brush aside the “jerk factor” and analyze the arguments on their own merits. Rudeness on the part of internet posters should not have that kind of influence on rational inquirers (but most unfortunately it does).

When I was a Catholic under the Pope, I found that rudeness from my fellow Catholics did have a tendency to have me more seriously reflect on arguments from outside the church.

I think the important qualities for internet posting are…

• …a willingness to acknowledge the facts
• …a sense of humor
• …always have a reason for the Faith within one.

Great points! I agree with you - I never had any problem with the Christians I encountered stating the facts of their beliefs clearly and uncompromisingly - however, I think the manner in which they conveyed those facts made all the difference to me.

 

[puzzleannie]

the only Christian I can trust is the one who speaks the truth, and I will be willing to put up with some personality quirks in order to hear it, but personal attacks, never. In any case a real Catholic will not be discussing personalities, making accusations against persons he will be expounding doctrine, and doing so in humility.

 

[NDfan]

Not naming any names, but I notice quite a few posts and threads in this section which seem to be unnecessarily belligerent and argumentative towards Protestants.

I’m a Catholic, but I’ve been outside the Church more than once in my life. And during those times, when I would venture to Catholic or Christian discussion boards, I’d really be offended and put off by that kind of message.

For me, it was the kind Christians - the ones who had a sense of humor and tried to engage me where I was, rather than argue with me - who “softened me up” and got me in the state of mind where I could seriously reconsider coming home.

What do you think, non-Catholics (and non-Christians)? What kind of Catholic would you prefer to deal with - one who constantly tells you you’re on the road to Hell, or one who walks by your side, chatting and laughing and using “gentle persuasion”?

Growing up Catholic I used to have the same disposition many on these boards do. That anything outside the RCC was irrelevant. Not attending Catholic services for over 2 years I can now see how I may have appeared to people outside the Catholic church.

Coming back to the RC would only happen if GOD lead me back. I don’t worry about what some inconsiderate individuals may say. It’s obvious many here just recite Catholic doctrine and typical Catholic arguments as do many Non-Catholics.

What I find amusing is that many here are not even familiar with what current Catholic doctrine states. Especially regarding Protestant denominations. After Vat I protestants were basically considered dog meat heretics in the eyes of the RCC. Now suddenly after Vat II they are considered separated brethren. I think at one time when the church strong armed people and threatened excommunicated they would adhere and comply with whatever the church stated. Obviously the Reformers weren’t having any of that which is what I think led to the softened position of Vat II.

Yet many on these boards will quote older Popes as saying no salvation outside the Catholic Church with the proverbial take that attitude as if they just spoke for GOD. Quite amusing.

Just my 2 cents

 

[Hisalone]

What I find amusing is that many here are not even familiar with what current Catholic doctrine states. Especially regarding Protestant denominations. After Vat I protestants were basically considered dog meat heretics in the eyes of the RCC. Now suddenly after Vat II they are considered separated brethren. I think at one time when the church strong armed people and threatened excommunicated they would adhere and comply with whatever the church stated. Obviously the Reformers weren’t having any of that which is what I think led to the softened position of Vat II.

Yet many on these boards will quote older Popes as saying no salvation outside the Catholic Church with the proverbial take that attitude as if they just spoke for GOD. Quite amusing.

Just my 2 cents

MY amusement is with those who claim that there has never been a change in doctrine, that the “Catholic” church is the same today as it has been for 2000 years, what are they looking at?:whacky:

 

[NDfan]

MY amusement is with those who claim that there has never been a change in doctrine, that the “Catholic” church is the same today as it has been for 2000 years, what are they looking at?:whacky:

That’s a great point. Many don’t realize that even today within the Vatican itself there are divisions on Marian beliefs, scripture vs tradition etc. etc. So to make a claim that everyone believes the same thing is quite ridiculous.

 

[Non_Serviam]

My preference is to have people be truthful and upfront about what they believe so I can make a decision about it rather than the “false face” that some endorse to woo converts while crossing their fingers and whispering under their breath “I’ll tell you the rest later”

I’ve seen both approaches in a number of different denominations and those people that I’ve known who were “won” by the second approach tend to have very stressful belief lives since there is inherent conflict in what they initially accepted versus what they are now asked to affirm.

I’ve had Catholics ask me to go to Mass with them and tell me to go ahead and take Communion, out of a loving hope that doing so would “soften me up”. I had to gently point out to them that if I did so they would be guilty of mortal sin for having been complicit in my partaking. While their intention was good, it would have been cause for future problems and even possible scandal to other members, and caring about the people I didn’t want that.

I’d far rather discuss things with someone who clearly states they think I’m going to Hell, (if they think so) and who follows up with why they feel their solution is the right one. Someone who doesn’t shy away from labeling a weak or false argument as such and who is able to acknowledge that some things they accept on faith might lack sufficient belief for others to accept them on that basis alone.

What has always been a warning for me was observing how individuals (Catholic or otherwise) treated fellow members who had questions or doubt or difficulty. If mean-spiritedness or sarcasm or anything of the sort showed itself in those situations, I was certain that I didn’t want to be part of that local group, whether or not the faith might have some points to commend it.

 

[theistgal]

That’s a great point. Many don’t realize that even today within the Vatican itself there are divisions on Marian beliefs, scripture vs tradition etc. etc. So to make a claim that everyone believes the same thing is quite ridiculous.

Well, we’re supposed to believe the same things. It’s quite true that there are disagreements among individual Catholics. However, we have a referee (aka the Pope ) who’s supposed to sort these things out and give us the straight dope.

 

[NDfan]

Well, we’re supposed to believe the same things. It’s quite true that there are disagreements among individual Catholics. However, we have a referee (aka the Pope ) who’s supposed to sort these things out and give us the straight dope.

But that’s the problem one man cannot possibly do that. That implies GOD is only speaking to that one man which is purely a gnostic view of Christianity.

And even if the Pope referees it as you say, that does not result in everyone believing what the Pope says. It will just reflect what the church will teach. Hence the statement that the church’s teachings are unchanged. That doesn’t mean they’re right.

 

[theistgal]

But that’s the problem one man cannot possibly do that. That implies GOD is only speaking to that one man which is purely a gnostic view of Christianity.

And even if the Pope referees it as you say, that does not result in everyone believing what the Pope says. It will just reflect what the church will teach. Hence the statement that the church’s teachings are unchanged. That doesn’t mean they’re right.

Well, as for the Pope, I’m sure you already know that what we believe about his authority is based on the words of Jesus to Peter in the Scriptures - definitely not a “gnostic view of Christianity”!

And you’re right - from your point of view as a non-Catholic, it doesn’t really matter whether the Church’s teachings have changed or not, if you don’t believe them. It’s God who enlightens your heart and mind, and if you are really seeking Him, you will find Him.

 

[NDfan]

Well, as for the Pope, I’m sure you already know that what we believe about his authority is based on the words of Jesus to Peter in the Scriptures - definitely not a “gnostic view of Christianity”!

Yes I’m familiar with how the church interprets these words. But this absolutely is a gnostic view of Christianity. The gnostics believed in private revelation from the Holy Spirit. That there was a knowledge base that was communicated only to those who were in touch with the spirit. This is the exact claim Catholics make of the Pope. Just because it’s an interpretation of scripture doesn’t make it non-gnostic.

And you’re right - from your point of view as a non-Catholic, it doesn’t really matter whether the Church’s teachings have changed or not, if you don’t believe them. It’s God who enlightens your heart and mind, and if you are really seeking Him, you will find Him.

Well I spent over 40 years in the Catholic church so I’m hardly a non-Catholic. But again just because the teaching is the same doesn’t make it right. There were those within the Vatican that did not believe in the assumption. But the Pope made a unilateral declaration that it happened so therefore it gets taught. But teaching something you believe to be true doesn’t make it a truth. People believed and taught the world was flat at one time.

 

[Sharcon]

When I was a Catholic under the Pope, I found that rudeness from my fellow Catholics did have a tendency to have me more seriously reflect on arguments from outside the church.

Truthfully, I find just as many rude non-Catholic posts here. I suppose some may be seeking “truth” but it often looks like people just want to engage in argument.

 

[theistgal]

Well I spent over 40 years in the Catholic church so I’m hardly a non-Catholic. But again just because the teaching is the same doesn’t make it right. There were those within the Vatican that did not believe in the assumption. But the Pope made a unilateral declaration that it happened so therefore it gets taught. But teaching something you believe to be true doesn’t make it a truth. People believed and taught the world was flat at one time.

I do see how you’re thinking; however, not to be rude ( ) but I don’t want to let my thread get derailed (and yes, I helped derail it, so mea culpa! ).

If you’d like to start another thread on the Pope’s authority, by all means, please do so. Thanks!

 

[NDfan]

I do see how you’re thinking; however, not to be rude ( ) but I don’t want to let my thread get derailed (and yes, I helped derail it, so mea culpa! ).

If you’d like to start another thread on the Pope’s authority, by all means, please do so. Thanks!

You’re not being rude And I do understand we don’t want to derail the thread.

Blessings

 

[SpiritMeadow]

One has only to look at the topics on this forum. They assume that anyone who is not Roman Catholic is wrong. “Why did God allow Protestantism?” “Why are Muslims violent?” “Do Protestants who lead others away from the TRUE Church go to hell,” “Who would you make a Saint, even though you can’t make saints, only Catholics can?” The list goes on and on.

This is supposed to be a non-Catholic forum, for a discussion I assume of other faith traditions. Instead it is used by some to degrade and run down every other faith. “Which faith tradition do you find easiest to debunk?” these are all pejorative in nature, intending to start fights, arguments, and the like.

I seldom post any more, because I am not going to buy into this trash and start by having to point out that my tradition is quite fine as far as I’m concerned.

The point is, you can believe what you wish, but in the end it is belief and nothing more. No one can prove that they reside in THE church, and they never will. Once a question is started in this manner, it is usual that the posters respond in kind.

You certainly convert no one by bashing their faith. Or talking to them like children who haven’t had the truth explained. People would do far better to explain AS THEIR BELIEF in the best logic they can muster and stop announcing that all other faith practices are wanting. You may believe it, but of course, I believe mine is valid, although I try to stop short of believing that I have the only way.

There is one truth to be sure, but basically, no matter what anyone says, truth is what you believe it to be. Often, if not most often, it is not subject to empirical proof as such. That is why it is faith in the first place. God intended it that way. If it were capable of scientific proof, then it would not be faith, and the entire process would be a farce.

It’s fine to debate, but it’s not worth my time or many others people’s time to engage when we must start with someone stating that they are right and we are wrong.

Apologetics is a strange beast, and to a great extent I find it useless. Honest research seems the better way. The faith is defended by facts and proof, not belligerent wordage. Much less of this would occur face to face no doubt. The anonymity of the web allows people to act rudely and most unseemly. It is sad.

Oddly in blogs, I find that good discussions do occur between people of very different faith systems. Catholics, Anglicans, Protestants and non-believers are able to come together and speak honestly and gently to each other. The tenor of this forum has since my very first day been accusatory and self righteous. I assume it is as the administration prefers it.

Happily, I seldom meet this sort in real life. Most Roman Catholics I have associated with in my life have been pleasant, intelligent people.

I would dearly love things to change, since I think we all benefit from different opinions and attitudes. But this pompous self-righteousness is not helpful and is on the contrary quite offputting.

 

[Hesychios]

Hello Sharcon,

Truthfully, I find just as many rude non-Catholic posts here. I suppose some may be seeking “truth” but it often looks like people just want to engage in argument.

I know that non-Catholics are rude too, equally as often. It is also quite clear that people from all sides just like to debate (or argue, fight or triumphantly belittle others). If I am correct the OP was interested in discussing the technique as it relates to apologetic success on this Catholic board. Certainly pointing out that the opponent uses a similar approach is not justification for it, and if rudeness really does have such a negative impact why would we ever want them to stop?

I suppose I should clarify my comment for your benefit.

There was a point in time when I, like most Eastern Catholics then, was really dumped on by Latin Catholics. It sometimes seems like there is more cordiality expressed to non-Catholics than to Eastern Christians trying to maintain communion with Rome. The pressure on Eastern Catholics to conform to Latin Catholic expectations can be enormous, although often misplaced. It seems as though Latin Catholics and Eastern Catholics can come into it from different directions, with different pre-conceived notions of what being in communion with Rome is supposed to mean.

Those who wish to attack their own confreres out of ignorance should not be surprised if their credibility has suffered and their arguments become moot. In the years since I see that nothing has really changed and there is nothing appealing or inviting about the prospect of coming back.

The bait threads I see around here are not good examples of apologetics. People should use this opportunity to hone their skills and talents for explaining and defending their beliefs. They should also be able to do this in their own words, not with recommendations to “read this” or “see attached”. Links and references are needed to back up an assertion, but these are not going to do the job for them.

 

[maryj]

One has only to look at the topics on this forum. They assume that anyone who is not Roman Catholic is wrong. “Why did God allow Protestantism?” “Why are Muslims violent?” “Do Protestants who lead others away from the TRUE Church go to hell,” “Who would you make a Saint, even though you can’t make saints, only Catholics can?” The list goes on and on.

This is supposed to be a non-Catholic forum, for a discussion I assume of other faith traditions. Instead it is used by some to degrade and run down every other faith. “Which faith tradition do you find easiest to debunk?” these are all pejorative in nature, intending to start fights, arguments, and the like.

I seldom post any more, because I am not going to buy into this trash and start by having to point out that my tradition is quite fine as far as I’m concerned.

The point is, you can believe what you wish, but in the end it is belief and nothing more. No one can prove that they reside in THE church, and they never will. Once a question is started in this manner, it is usual that the posters respond in kind.

You certainly convert no one by bashing their faith. Or talking to them like children who haven’t had the truth explained. People would do far better to explain AS THEIR BELIEF in the best logic they can muster and stop announcing that all other faith practices are wanting. You may believe it, but of course, I believe mine is valid, although I try to stop short of believing that I have the only way.

There is one truth to be sure, but basically, no matter what anyone says, truth is what you believe it to be. Often, if not most often, it is not subject to empirical proof as such. That is why it is faith in the first place. God intended it that way. If it were capable of scientific proof, then it would not be faith, and the entire process would be a farce.

It’s fine to debate, but it’s not worth my time or many others people’s time to engage when we must start with someone stating that they are right and we are wrong.

Apologetics is a strange beast, and to a great extent I find it useless. Honest research seems the better way. The faith is defended by facts and proof, not belligerent wordage. Much less of this would occur face to face no doubt. The anonymity of the web allows people to act rudely and most unseemly. It is sad.

Oddly in blogs, I find that good discussions do occur between people of very different faith systems. Catholics, Anglicans, Protestants and non-believers are able to come together and speak honestly and gently to each other. The tenor of this forum has since my very first day been accusatory and self righteous. I assume it is as the administration prefers it.

Happily, I seldom meet this sort in real life. Most Roman Catholics I have associated with in my life have been pleasant, intelligent people.

I would dearly love things to change, since I think we all benefit from different opinions and attitudes. But this pompous self-righteousness is not helpful and is on the contrary quite offputting.

I agree with you about the topics on this forum, I seldom even read most of them, or get involved. And as you said “there is one truth to be sure” but I lose you after that “no matter what anyone says, truth is what you believe it to be. How can there be one truth, and then everyone decide what the truth is for themselves? That can’t work. We can be SURE that neither Jesus nor St. Paul intended a vague unity that glossed over differences. Quite the contrary, Paul says " I appeal to you bretheren, by the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgement” (1 Cor 1:10)

So I would assume you’d agree that there must be some way that God would let us know how we are all to agree. My guess will be the Holy Bible. The New Testament authors took great pains to describe a church that would be exemplary and normative for all subsequent generations. That teaches me that I don’t have to make the decisions on what the truth is, but I guess that’s where the differences begin…
How can we recognize the true church of Jesus Christ?
What a great place to begin in agreement!!!

 

[reteeks21]

One has only to look at the topics on this forum. They assume that anyone who is not Roman Catholic is wrong. “Why did God allow Protestantism?” “Why are Muslims violent?” “Do Protestants who lead others away from the TRUE Church go to hell,” “Who would you make a Saint, even though you can’t make saints, only Catholics can?” The list goes on and on.

This is supposed to be a non-Catholic forum, for a discussion I assume of other faith traditions. Instead it is used by some to degrade and run down every other faith. “Which faith tradition do you find easiest to debunk?” these are all pejorative in nature, intending to start fights, arguments, and the like.

I seldom post any more, because I am not going to buy into this trash and start by having to point out that my tradition is quite fine as far as I’m concerned.

The point is, you can believe what you wish, but in the end it is belief and nothing more. No one can prove that they reside in THE church, and they never will. Once a question is started in this manner, it is usual that the posters respond in kind.

You certainly convert no one by bashing their faith. Or talking to them like children who haven’t had the truth explained. People would do far better to explain AS THEIR BELIEF in the best logic they can muster and stop announcing that all other faith practices are wanting. You may believe it, but of course, I believe mine is valid, although I try to stop short of believing that I have the only way.

There is one truth to be sure, but basically, no matter what anyone says, truth is what you believe it to be. Often, if not most often, it is not subject to empirical proof as such. That is why it is faith in the first place. God intended it that way. If it were capable of scientific proof, then it would not be faith, and the entire process would be a farce.

It’s fine to debate, but it’s not worth my time or many others people’s time to engage when we must start with someone stating that they are right and we are wrong.

Apologetics is a strange beast, and to a great extent I find it useless. Honest research seems the better way. The faith is defended by facts and proof, not belligerent wordage. Much less of this would occur face to face no doubt. The anonymity of the web allows people to act rudely and most unseemly. It is sad.

Oddly in blogs, I find that good discussions do occur between people of very different faith systems. Catholics, Anglicans, Protestants and non-believers are able to come together and speak honestly and gently to each other. The tenor of this forum has since my very first day been accusatory and self righteous. I assume it is as the administration prefers it.

Happily, I seldom meet this sort in real life. Most Roman Catholics I have associated with in my life have been pleasant, intelligent people.

I would dearly love things to change, since I think we all benefit from different opinions and attitudes. But this pompous self-righteousness is not helpful and is on the contrary quite offputting.

SM, look at who starts them and then go back and look at the other ones they have started! Talk about a pattern! They obviously have certain motivations and their actions show it.

 

[NDfan]

SM, look at who starts them and then go back and look at the other ones they have started! Talk about a pattern! They obviously have certain motivations and their actions show it.

Yes Jimmy B, BILL PICK with the constant supposed keyboard problem, Mannyfit etc. etc.

What’s interesting is that people will continue to respond to them. Usually it’s other RCs that say something to the effect of you are so right, or Amen, or they just don’t get it. etc. etc. Which then insights non-RCs to respond in defense.

Is this really Christ-like behavior on our part??? I say emphatically no myself included.