Does Catholic rudeness keep you away from the Church?

[MDK]

Forgive me but I thought you used the word deciding on a whim. I merely pointed out your word choice.

As to studying…of course we should rely on “reliable” sources, but that in itself is a conundrum. Does your tradition as you see if encourage you to read broadly or not? I can tell you that many on this forum consider a huge corpus of Catholic as well as protestant theology inappropriate and dangerous. They won’t touch it. Such things as liberation theology, feminist theology, deChardin, and a whole host of writers not acceptable. I was warned off these very things a good while ago here when I was still a Roman Catholic. Anyone who limits the faith to a set of approved writers is on dangerous ground for me. Truth can always withstand all interpretations. My tradition draws freely from theology and other faith traditions for any and all insights that are helpful in livng life as a Christian. Many in your faith do as well, but many here would chastise them heartily for doing so. For instance, I knew many a nun who meditated, learning from reading buddhist books on the subject. Some here find centering prayer alien and dangerous. It’s all a matter in the end of what you define as “responsible and reliable” isn’t it?

You were already forgiven. I did use the phrase, decide on a whim. Later I clarified the context of that phrase for you to have the proper conversational understanding.

Would your set of assumptions mean that the small set of inspired writers who wrote the Scriptures present a danger to you? We would hope not, and I doubt that would be true or fair to say. I would argue that it would be better to receive instruction or the teaching from one or a small set of people who were inspired by God, or who have been protected by God to teach His word, than to rely on those who have not been inspired and/or who have not been protected by God from error in teaching. Wouldn’t you agree?

That said, I don’t think it’s a problem to read many sources. It’s been helpful to me to know more about where people are coming from, and I see the errors in those other belief systems. Being exposed to as much as I have, has been a great benefit to me, and makes me even more grateful to have what I do have in the faith.

 

[MDK]

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?

Yes, I do not see that as a matter of belief. I see it as a matter of interpretation. My interpretation was that this is what occurred, and would have a certain level of confidence in that interpretation. My belief would lead me to an opinion about what occurred. My opinion was not the subject of that discussion, but was shown to contrast and have disclosure. I was also providing an example of why another might say he or she did not believe you, without objectively calling you a liar. The label “liar” seems also to be a ratcheted up denigration against one’s character, and takes the discussion to a completely different place never intended, whereas the not believing is regarding a specific issue. This is why I said the two were different. I still maintain that they are different, and that this was not his/her meaning.

Would you agree that which ever Church that God built along with doctrine He taught, would not have an equal to other faith systems. I propose that heresy is a matter of adherence to doctrine that is taught by God. It’s not as simple as relativism of equal religions as a standard. It’s a matter of adherence to God’s teachings or not. People can call each other names if they want, but it obviously doesn’t change the reality of Christ’s Truth. The difference is in where these teachings are, and how Christ conveys them to us. Where they are taught, and how is the matter of great debate among us humans. Nevertheless, it is easy and clear for God. When we use our free will to seek Him without interference, uniting our will with His, we are free to see what He has given us. Otherwise, we tend to be slaves to something or someone who is not God, not truly free.

 

[SSTeacher]

I am a Catholic and I have felt quite of rudeness thrown my way by Catholics. That being said- I am sure that I have been rude at times as well.

I think that the issue is not really about the different faiths of the posters but more about the nature of the internet itself.

Forums in general- on any given subject- attract VERY vehement people. You know- the kind of people who will sit in front of a computer and take time out of their day to type out sometimes lengthy posts on a given subject. Many people, like my wife- NEVER post on forums. The look at stuff or shop or whatever.

So you see- be the nature of the forums- they attract more extreme people. Personally I post a lot because I really don’t have much of a life! Yeah sad but true! Really I am a happy person I just don’t do a whole lot. I suspect some others on this forum are the same way.

Yours is an unexpected analysis. So, do you think this forum attracts vehement, angry people who happen to be Catholics or do you think it attracts Catholics who are angry because others do not believe as they do?

Curiously,
Mick

 

[SSTeacher]

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.

Thank you for saying this. I am rather struggling about the direction in which I should go so a kind word along the way is like apples of gold in settings of silver.

In Christ,
Mick

 

[MDK]

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.

I am indeed missing something. What I am missing here and other places is actually saying the things you claim I have meant. I ask you to please seek to interpret as it is meant. I didn’t and still don’t believe that is unreasonable to ask.

I never said or intended that the Bible is a document that says what it means, and means what it says, as in formally sufficient for anyone to understand. It’s actually difficult for many (or most) to understand. The Scriptures were inspired by God to be inerrant, but yet can be misinterpreted. The Scriptures are not simply whatever the writer(s) believed without any protection from the Holy Spirit. This is the inerrant inspired Word of God. I politely ask you to take this to a different thread, though, as a deeper discussion of this is a bit off topic, especially given that you believe the Scriptures inspired by God to be “not necessarily correct”.

If you knew what I believed, then you would say something more like I believe in Christ, meaning that I have faith in Him, am committed to Him and obey Him. Christ started a Church for me and the rest of His family, so I obey and am a member. This Church taught without error and without a Bible for years before it assembled the books into a Bible. Christ protects this Church from teaching error in faith and morals, and so I believe in Christ’s promise. We could go on, but I hope you understand the idea.

 

[1holycatholic]

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.

Christ established the Catholic Church.

You are not embracing God’s love and the teachings of Jesus. You are rejecting Christ and His teachings, and embracing an intrinsic evil and calling it a good.

 

[SSTeacher]

Christ established the Catholic Church.

That’s a disputed fact. Perhaps Christ established the Orthodox Church?

Speculatively,
Mick

 

[1holycatholic]

That’s a disputed fact. Perhaps Christ established the Orthodox Church?

Speculatively,
Mick

The Orthodox are schismatic Catholics, you are correct.

 

[SSTeacher]

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.

Bravely said. Of course, whether I choose Catholicism or Orthodoxy, the question of women priests won’t arise for me. But I think every Christian should undertake a careful study of the Gospel accounts and focus on the way in which Jesus interacted with women. It’s quite remarkable how absolutely counter–culture He was in this respect.

Factually,
Mick

 

[theistgal]

The Orthodox are schismatic Catholics, you are correct.

And they might retort that Catholics are very unorthodox Orthodox.

 

[MDK]

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. …

I ask one to consider whether this approach of determining one’s religion by picking from one faith here and choosing from another there is really following what the Holy Will of God established, or following what man’s intellect establishes? I propose that Christ established a Church. If Christ established a single Church, how could the method of creating a church by picking between some preexisting churches be the right thing to do in following what Christ has established?

 

[MDK]

And they might retort that Catholics are very unorthodox Orthodox.

Well, I have to admit to being unOrthodox… not anti-orthodox, though. I hope your people call my people, so we do healing of the unnecessary split.

 

[1holycatholic]

And they might retort that Catholics are very unorthodox Orthodox.

They can say whatever they want. The Orthodox aren’t completely orthodox, even by their own standards.

 

[theistgal]

They can say whatever they want. The Orthodox aren’t completely orthodox, even by their own standards.

Whether that’s true or not, I don’t see why it has anything to do with the OP - which I posted.

 

[Feanor]

Yours is an unexpected analysis. So, do you think this forum attracts vehement, angry people who happen to be Catholics or do you think it attracts Catholics who are angry because others do not believe as they do?

Curiously,
Mick

Well, I think that internet forums in general tend to attract more extreme people no matter their religion. Most Catholics or Protestants, or heck, non-christians don’t really spend as much of their time thinking and writting about the ins and outs of their faiths.

Now i am not talking about praying or spiritual issues- some holy people spend much or even most of their day lifting their minds to God. What they are likely not doing is thinking about more esoteric, concrete dynamics of history or doctrine. Most Catholics don’t go around thinking “did I just commit a venial or mortal sin- if it was venial how might it have been mortal. I wonder what are the Church documents that discuss. . . yadda yadda yadda.”

Overly extreme Protestants might go around thinking “So after the rapture and 1000 years of jesus doing this- it will be followed by 500 years of that- this will happen that will happen. Yadda Yadda Yadda.”

So I think it is the internet. Also let me assure you as a cradle Catholic that I have NEVER gone to a church with folks freely sharing more divisive views and condemnation like those expressed by more vocal posters. Catholics are on the whole- pretty nice people.

 

[1holycatholic]

Whether that’s true or not, I don’t see why it has anything to do with the OP - which I posted.

:byzsoc:

 

[RobHom]

Yours is an unexpected analysis. So, do you think this forum attracts vehement, angry people who happen to be Catholics or do you think it attracts Catholics who are angry because others do not believe as they do?

Curiously,
Mick

Mick,

Honestly, I do not think this site “attracts” Catholics who are antagonistic or angry for any reason.

I came to this site because it was somewhere that I could communicate with others of other faiths and beliefs and do so on a level keel. I am one of those people, that while I am very “Catholic”…I am not “judgmental” about another persons beliefs.
It is not mine to judge…

I think that what many non-Catholics see on this site are "ardent and very orthodox Catholics of the Roman Rite who are strong believers and not hesitant about defending their faith. If one looks very carefully… one can see a variety of people that come from many faiths, and all non-Catholics are welcome here, just as they are in our parish churches… Catholics embrace the concept of “All are welcome”!! The only thing that we have a tendency to take umbrage to is those who try to convert us or harangue us because we do not share their beliefs.

What I am trying to say…is that while there are those of us to are very “ardent” about our beliefs…one must always consider that not everyone is quite as ardent verbally…not that I find that a bad thing… I can be a little “Jesuit-ical” at times. I have my marker…or limit as do most. Some have more tolerance than others…and some of us just don’t really worry about the issues that much…

The difference between the “Orthodox Churches” and the Roman Rite… the minutiae that can be driven by semantics and politics, but I think I can safely say that we consider each other “Brothers and Sisters in Christ”…and though we may not agree on absolutely everything…our points of agreement make pale our points of disagreement. I know that if I ever found myself somewhere that I could not attend a Roman Catholic Mass, I would not hesitate to attend an Orthodox Mass…

 

[MDK]

…The difference between the “Orthodox Churches” and the Roman Rite… the minutiae that can be driven by semantics and politics, but I think I can safely say that we consider each other “Brothers and Sisters in Christ”…and though we may not agree on absolutely everything…our points of agreement make pale our points of disagreement. I know that if I ever found myself somewhere that I could not attend a Roman Catholic Mass, I would not hesitate to attend an Orthodox Mass…

Rob,

It’s coincidental that I just had this kind of conversation with my Greek Orthodox friend earlier this evening. Your paragraph could serve as a synopsis of my conversation with him.

 

[Protestant101]

Hi Non,
**Well I see you are still using false logic. The same stuff you did on other threads. There is no proof that any Alostle or saint had bowel movements. **

**Eph. 3:14-15- we are all one family (“Catholic”) in heaven and on earth, united together, as children of the Father, through Jesus Christ. **
And the dance goes on, Chase your tail, my foolish friend!

God Bless.

Your posts are very ignorant and rude - and you are the one using false logic. The word “Catholic” is not in the Bible verse I quoted from your post above.

 

[Protestant101]

Christ established the Catholic Church.

You are not embracing God’s love and the teachings of Jesus. You are rejecting Christ and His teachings, and embracing an intrinsic evil and calling it a good.

When the Bible says “Church” it does not say “Catholic”