Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. That sentence above is so unwieldy and awkward.
The Church does speak with one voice. Dissenters do not speak for the Church.
With respect, the above are “facts” only when viewed through a Catholic filter. For those who do not accept them as stated, some qualification is required. That can be taken into account by referring to them as disputed facts.
**
Hi SS,
Actually you are incorrect. Since the Catholic church is the only group authorized to interpret scriptures as we actually wrote and taught them for 1,500 years, before the first Protestant was corrupted by Satan ,we know what we are talking about. **
There is no insult in putting forward what you perceive to be a fact provided that it is adduced in a courteous manner. This would come quite naturally if you first recognize that there are others who through no fault of their own do not share your assumptions and presuppositions and therefore do not reach the same conclusions as you do. I hope that makes sense?
**I totally 100%agree with your statement “… there are others who through no fault of their own do not share your assumptions and presuppositions and therefore do not reach the same conclusions as you do.” That is even taught by the RCC actually. Your ignorance of the truth wasn’t your fault. But now that you have been told the truth you continued ignorance could be considered pure foolishness couldn’t it? **
D’you know any rude Catholic clergymen, by the way?
**That is a subject question. I can think of one that I really admire for his boldly speaking the truth. He is a holy priest who pulls no punches. Here are some of my favorite quotes from one of my heros that you might consider rude, if you perhaps mistakenly consider mine to be rude. His name is Fr John Corapi. You can decide on his rudeness or honesty as I rather call it:
“Ignorance of the Catechism is ignorance of Christ, just like the Bible says”
“There are people who say, ‘oh every time Catholics make the sign of the cross they re-crucify Christ.’ Look, that’s what comes under the theological classification of happy horse manure! **Got it, that’s what that is. That’s bologna, absolute bologna! They don’t know anything about our religion, and I don’t purport to know anything about theirs. I respect theirs, respect ours. When we make the sign of the cross we are simply making a statement of faith. I believe in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and I believe in the sign of the cross, because that is the sign of our salvation!”
“In the end, forever, you and I will be in Heaven or Hell. Period.”
“Sometimes people will say ‘Well I’ve outgrown my faith.’ I’ve met eight zillion people who have said ‘Yeah I used to be Catholic…’ Well what are you now? And they may be Buddhist, or who knows what? And they sometimes say ‘Well I outgrew my Catholic faith, I became more sophisticated, I became more educated.’ There’s something I have found. Now I have some education. I have earned five university degrees, most of them with highest honors. I’m not bragging, I’m just saying that to let you know that I respect education. I have a high regard for education. But in my many years around the education establishment, I was given a great revelation by God, and the revelation is: a lot of people done been educated into imbecility.”
“More than once I’ve had discussions with persons who say, things, based on a misunderstanding. …] ‘Oh you Catholics worship images.’ No we don’t, ‘yes you do,’ no we don’t, ‘yes you do,’ no we don’t! The final retort to that is… I have a doctorate, in Catholic theology that I have earned the hard way; by sitting in university classrooms for twelve years. I know what we believe! You get a doctorate in Catholic theology? What do you know about it? Nothing! You don’t know anything about it. You’re saying things that are born of misunderstanding or ignorance.”
Does this ring true to anyone here claiming to had “Catholic theology” before Satan drug her off on her way towards eternal damnation? To quote Fr Corapi in case you missed it “You don’t know anything about it. You’re saying things that are born of misunderstanding or ignorance” to which I add AMEN!
God Bless
That’s a real coicidence, because I almost mentioned it! I thought it was relevant because he guilts his son for not attending Mass more often, but it then turns out he himself is going for the wrong reasons. That episode was definitely comedic for the truth in that stereotype, and both my husband and I had a good chuckle at it. Which is also how we handle the same situations in real life.
That’s pretty ironic that you are making the claim that Catholics do such things, because in my daily encounters in college, the people who do that have always been Non-Catholic Christians…and all of the Catholics I know are completely opposite of the stereotype you’re displaying.
That is an opinion you hold. You are welcome to the politics of hate and otherness. I embrace God’s love and the teachings of Jesus and am quite comfortable in doing so. I am not the least interested in your subjective view of whatever errors you believe are committed by those who don’t think like you. But again, it seems you don’t think on your own, but merely mouth the words of a man made institution. That is your right, and I am happy for your comfort there. Sadly you cannot see that others have found their home in other ways. You may rant all you wish, but it is but your opinion, one that you did not produce, but was given to you by a heirarchy of other humans.
If I have read your posts correctly, I doubt that much would be learned from continuing to hash it out. That doesn’t mean I am not interested however, like I said, just strapped for time. I am helping to co-teach a class on Paul at my church, and am spending my extra time in preparation. Along with the usual cooking, cleaning and blogging, I don’t find 24 hours adequate. Perhaps we can take this up at another time Mary. I am grateful for your pleasant demeanor, though I suspect we don’t agree on some basic things. Blessings.
Speaking from an Anglican point of view, we draw what we deem appropriate from the RCC, the Eastern Orthodox and the Scottish Church. We do not believe in a magisterium or heirarchy however. We do examine tradition, but re-examine it as necessary to see if it is still valid. We also add reason to the mix for we believe God presented us with these fine instruments for a reason. Since they have served us so well in other aspects of life, we assume they are functional to discern truth in metaphysical things. I say this in no way to promote my faith. It is my opinion that we are all structured to fit better in one place rather than in others. I hope your journey leads you to a place of peace and love where you can express Jesus to the best of your ability.Guyonthestreet,
Yes you’re absolutely right. I’m currently checking into Catholicism but I’m comparing it to Orthodoxy as I do so (I’m comparing only the beliefs of Churches not the level of courtesy of the individual members). As far as I can see, as an outsider, the claim of the Eastern Orthodox Church to be the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is just as valid as that of the Catholic Church. The existence of both Churches making the exact same claim rather weakens the claim itself, methinks. I’ve got as far as “they can’t both be right,” which isn’t exactly what you might call progress.
Musingly,
Mick
Indeed I agree with what you have said. I believe that Paul very correctly interpreted that women were equal partners in marriage. Much of the anti-woman stuff in the scriptures was I believe not authentic Pauline writing, but followers of him, who interpreted him, and rather badly I think. In any case, when we look directly at Jesus, there seems no reason whatsoever to come to the paternalistic conclusions that are so prevelant among the conservative elements today.Yes, once again you present a sensible and reasoned argument.
It’s perhaps worthwhile bringing to mind from the Gospel accounts how Jesus treated women. At the risk of censure from the Hebrew good old boys club Jesus talked to women, responded to their touch, healed them, received their emotional and financial support and used them as main characters in His stories. He even welcomed a woman’s anointing of His head as indicative of her understanding of His real mission. Moreover, Jesus spoke directly to the matter of treating a woman as a sex object. In the Sermon on the Mount, He redefined adultery to include a lustful look. So as Jesus made religion a matter of the heart instead of the law He elevated women from the level of sexual exploitation to the level of full personhood.
Conclusion: The Founder of Christianity wasn’t rude to women (I’m making a feeble attempt to stay on topic).
Biblically,
Mick
So sad to see this. You treat this as some exclusive club. You need to look for the mote in the eye as they say, and see the glorious work being done by others in the name of Jesus. I believe in the real presence, but I do not condemn those who don’t. If their works are the same, I suspect God cares more for substance than rhetoric.
We believe because we hope. The essence of faith is hope in things not seen. We do the best we can to understand God, but we all recognize in the end, that there is little we can know from a scientific point of view. Augustine said as much when he said that what we know about God is probably precisely what we don’t know. I’m stating that poorly of course, but his point was that matters of faith are not subject to knowledge and aren’t meant to be. They are faith for a reason. We are to believe. Belief can be rational and based on a certain internal logic, but you can no more prove the existance of God definitely than I can disprove his existence.
Forgive me but I thought you used the word deciding on a whim. I merely pointed out your word choice.
Do you not see that that too is a matter of belief? You claim that perhaps I was taught by unorthodox and in error Catholics. That is no doubt your interpretation of encyclicals, other magisterium writings, and the opinions of clergy you have CHOSEN to respect. I fully believed and still do that I was taught by exceptionally well trained clergy and religious. They headed departments and ran programs teaching the faith and ministry applications for laity. Your heretic is my orthodox. Isn’t this obvious to you? You have an opinon that somebody is not genuine by some formulae that you have defined as genuine. Others don’t agree with your interpretation. Why is there this utterly fanatical need to be right?
Well I’m sure we don’t agree on some basic things, there’s a lot of that going around in this world. Good luck on your classes, my diocese here in minnesota has had many classes on Paul too. Fr. Mitch Pacwa from EWTN has a wonderful series out on the teachings of St. Paul, that I have spent many hours listening too. He’s quite the speaker. Maybe we can take this up at another time…until then…May God bless you in ways that are unimaginable.
You are still missing it. Whether we believe Peter was or wasnt’ I agree, changes not the truth. The truth is what it is. But It is precisely the truth which we don’t know. It is a belief. And I invite you, absent the bible, ECF, Magisterium prove that he was. You cannot. You prove it circularly. You are starting from the proposition that the bible is a literally true document. It says what it means and means what it says. I don’t agree. I believe the writers were inspired to speak truthful that which they BELIEVED to be true. That does not necessarily mean they were correct.
Interesting comments. I would not accept a premise that we are to have blind faith, rely on science to discover God or know His nature, or that our belief comes from hope that there is a God. I agree that I don’t know why I would argue against basic truth either. One option to consider would be that I did not. While we believe in things unseen, must they be completely unknown? God indeed revealed things about Himself to us. Because we can’t see with our eyes, does that equate to promoting blind faith in things we also don’t know anything about? Also, if God revealed it, why would we ignore that? We certainly don’t substitute science for believing what God has told us. No one is asking anyone to substitute science for believing in God (I think you may have misunderstood what was meant). In science, we discover His creation, and anyone who sees the order and intricacy might start to realize that a wonderful creation demands that there be a Creator. We know that believing in Him means having faith in, being committed to, and obeying Him.
