1
1holycatholic
Guest
There are always those that eschew Jesus because of Judas.
- Status
M
maryj
Guest
Now, you say you believe in a visible church. If I were to begin explaining what the Early Church Fathers said about a visible church and that the one visible church that has the four charecteristics, one,holy,catholic,and apostolic, and that St. Paul tells us that we are “to agree and have no dissentions among us” and that the only church that is a candidate for such unity is the Catholic church…How would I go about this with out sounding rude? If I explain each characteristic, and refute any challenges of this belief, am I being rude or am I simplying explaining the faith as a Catholic?
P
Protestant101
Guest
Personally; I would never in a million years darken the doors of a Catholic Church, and quite a bit of that is due to the ways I have been approached on this forum, both in private messages, and public postings.
This is not to say I have been absolutely perfect here either; but the overall experience of discussing our opposing ideas has not really been very positive.
Myself, and other non-Catholics are laced with adjectives such as “heretic” “led by Satan” “apostate,” and many similar terms; yet, if we try to express a belief, about Catholics, in similar ways, we are given infraction notices and great heaps of reproach for doing what the members who are Catholics are being given free reign to to to the non-Catholics.
Most of the Catholics I know personally are similar. They treat non-Catholics like the plague. I will never forget the atrocious treatment by a Catholic Priest to our family members who were not Catholic at the funeral of a little 6 month old nephew of mine who died.
One of the reasons I began posting on this forum was to really put my beliefs to the test. Many of my beliefs have been confirmed, and I believe more than ever that the Catholic leadership’s true world agenda will be similar to my personal experiences with the Catholic Church.
M
maryj
Guest
That is a shame. I am catholic, and have never used those words to define anyone. I have never known anyone personally who has ever expressed those feelings about another Christian. What a terrible thing to experience. God’s peace to you.
D
Detales
Guest
When I’m having a discussion, dialog, or even an arguement with someone face-to-face, I try to see if I can repeat back to them in my own words what they have said, what their premise is, etc. I ask them to do me the same favor. That’s because we are all such impeccable listeners, eh? I’ve not been astringent with that on here, but may take it up as a practice. But what always concerns me in these forums is that, as P.K. Howard said, “Obssesed with certainty, we see almost nothing.” I have seen, by participation, what the Catholic Church is about, having gone through Catholic school through grade 12, winning a state wide contest about Catholic theology in our school sytem, and having serious thoughts about joining a seminary,
I have also studied something about the Eastern systems, enough to know that we, as Christians, have really little or no clue as to what they are talking about in several dimensions of experience. I know very little about Muslim belief, though I own a Koran and have had interesting conversations with Muslims. I have also come to the defense of practitioners of a number of religions I can in no way endorse or participate in. These include Mormons, Seventh Day adventists, and Jehovas Witnesses, and yes, even atheists. I defended them, quite vocally on occasion, on the gounds that they were being beleagered by somone who was convinced that THEY had the one and only TRUE faith while they were demonstrating that they had zero interest in hearing if there was even a foothold of agreement. I began to understand, in these circumstances, why two men at the All Nations Barber Shop in Fresno, California, shot each other to death because they disagreed on the true meaning of some Bible verses.* The true meaning!
If you have the One, True, Catholic and Apostolic faith, great. Be thankful that you are living your belief and be a shining example of attractive, or even “tough” Love. But you have to understand, 1holy and OneTrueetc, or try to, that everyone didn’t come from the same place you did, or even nearly the same circumstances. In fact, I would hazzard that if either of you were born into a Muslim family of some denomination, or into a Pocomaniac family, or Mormon or whatever, you would be out there prosletyzing just as vehemently and adamantly for you personal view.
What I’m saying here, is that if there is any rudeness going on, its source might very well be the need of some to use an external authority to explain themselves and feel secure that they are right. I would go so far as to suggest that it is more, far more important for many to be right than it is to be Catholic, Shintoist, Cargo Cult or whatever. And in my experienc the clearest sign of that is presenting third party verifications as “proof” while neglecting the simple human courtesy of listening and then countering with your own experience, amazed all the time by the varieties of religious experience. That gives grounds for exploring our pemises as founded in the verificaton of our experience as distinct from using them as weapons of aggression and even as cloaking devices for our own insecurity, this by intellectually invalidating someone who is as sincere in their way as you are in yours.
If you can’t allow someone to set their beliefs on the table for observation without announcing that they are prima facia wrong, I doubt that many will be interested in you other than as an object of avoidance, as in my wont.
This being the forum for non-Catholic religions for “comparing and contrasting beliefs,” our purpose here is hardly served by deaf ear dogmatizing. As distinct from experience and interest, with solely dogma, you usually have a b–ch, her litter of poopies, and a mess ot clean up. I’d, for my part, like to listen to someone whose beliefs are so different that they make me stretch my mind in wonder** and learn something before someone came along with a “canon” and… well, you know, act like some folks on here.
*San Jose News, May 5th, 1969
**Some of these are Catholics
I have also studied something about the Eastern systems, enough to know that we, as Christians, have really little or no clue as to what they are talking about in several dimensions of experience. I know very little about Muslim belief, though I own a Koran and have had interesting conversations with Muslims. I have also come to the defense of practitioners of a number of religions I can in no way endorse or participate in. These include Mormons, Seventh Day adventists, and Jehovas Witnesses, and yes, even atheists. I defended them, quite vocally on occasion, on the gounds that they were being beleagered by somone who was convinced that THEY had the one and only TRUE faith while they were demonstrating that they had zero interest in hearing if there was even a foothold of agreement. I began to understand, in these circumstances, why two men at the All Nations Barber Shop in Fresno, California, shot each other to death because they disagreed on the true meaning of some Bible verses.* The true meaning!
If you have the One, True, Catholic and Apostolic faith, great. Be thankful that you are living your belief and be a shining example of attractive, or even “tough” Love. But you have to understand, 1holy and OneTrueetc, or try to, that everyone didn’t come from the same place you did, or even nearly the same circumstances. In fact, I would hazzard that if either of you were born into a Muslim family of some denomination, or into a Pocomaniac family, or Mormon or whatever, you would be out there prosletyzing just as vehemently and adamantly for you personal view.
What I’m saying here, is that if there is any rudeness going on, its source might very well be the need of some to use an external authority to explain themselves and feel secure that they are right. I would go so far as to suggest that it is more, far more important for many to be right than it is to be Catholic, Shintoist, Cargo Cult or whatever. And in my experienc the clearest sign of that is presenting third party verifications as “proof” while neglecting the simple human courtesy of listening and then countering with your own experience, amazed all the time by the varieties of religious experience. That gives grounds for exploring our pemises as founded in the verificaton of our experience as distinct from using them as weapons of aggression and even as cloaking devices for our own insecurity, this by intellectually invalidating someone who is as sincere in their way as you are in yours.
If you can’t allow someone to set their beliefs on the table for observation without announcing that they are prima facia wrong, I doubt that many will be interested in you other than as an object of avoidance, as in my wont.
This being the forum for non-Catholic religions for “comparing and contrasting beliefs,” our purpose here is hardly served by deaf ear dogmatizing. As distinct from experience and interest, with solely dogma, you usually have a b–ch, her litter of poopies, and a mess ot clean up. I’d, for my part, like to listen to someone whose beliefs are so different that they make me stretch my mind in wonder** and learn something before someone came along with a “canon” and… well, you know, act like some folks on here.
*San Jose News, May 5th, 1969
**Some of these are Catholics
B
BareKnuckler
Guest
I would prefer the latter. Jerks deserve to get beat up, and I do not think all Catholics would do either of them, I am sure some do not try to convert you.
S
SSTeacher
Guest
I prefer the kind of Catholic who chooses to be civil and courteous – the kind of Catholic who recognizes that I’m also made in the image of my Creator.
It seems to me that Christianity rightly understood ought to lead us to embrace gentleness and preacefulness in our dealings with others. “Acquire the spirit of peace,” declared Saint Seraphim of Sarov, “and a thousand souls around you shall be saved.”
The first pope directs believers as follows:
Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope but do it with gentleness and reverence keeping your conscience clear, so that, when you are maligned, those who defame your good conduct in Christ may themselves be put to shame.
It is right and fitting that Christians should seek fully to understand what they believe and why they believe it but there is no good reason for a Christian to be rude – and even if people are rude to you the correct response according to the Founder of Christianity is to turn the other cheek. Right?
Ecumenically,
Mick
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
I was Roman Catholic for many years. I have absolutely no need nor desire to “pick you apart” for any reason. You are simply be extremely rude and unseemly to others. You have absolutely no basis for determining that I am afraid of anything. I have studied Catholicism at the Master’s degree level. Your continued attempts to be uncivil are noted. You just seem so upset because what you consider truth is not shared by everyone.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
There is nothing rude in what you have said Mary. We simply disagree. The unity is in my view the composite of Christianity itself. Catholic has always meant universal. I too belong to a holy catholic and apostolic church. I recite the same creed.
Could you reference the part of Paul that you are referring to please? I should like to see what book it is in, and see the context.
We are called, I believe to try to reconcile our theological differences, but you must admit, that even between Gospels and the other letters and such, there was not agreement. There is disagreement on many points. Paul has some very harsh things to say about Peter for instance over the issue of the gentiles. Paul also suggests that on personal matters, we always cannot agree.
Agreement is fine to a point, but no one should sacrifice their deeply felt belief in what is true just to reach agreement. God alone knows the truth. I suspect he does not punish those who are seriously and honestly searching for it, no matter how far from the mark they may end up. The point is always to address our study in the spirit of love and deep honesty.
C
cathopologist
Guest
I have no respect for the Christian (Catholic or non-Catholic) who thinks any non-Christian is automatically a devil-worshipper or that their god(s) (or goddesses) are demons or the devil. I have no respect for the ill-informed Christian or one who thinks he/she is always right even though they are clearly wrong. I also tend to stay away from holier-than-thou types.
I would prefer a Christian chatting with me about life. politics and sometimes religion - even making an occasional cheeky joke or two. I prefer being informative (and that means doing my homework first - before i make my arguements) and being a good listener rather than use gentle persuasion, because sometimes even the gentlest persuasion can irritate or offend someone who does not share your beliefs. Of course, if the prospective ‘evangelist’ makes inflammatory comments about my religion, then i will not hesitate to let him/her have a taste of his/her own medicine. Hey, i never said i was an angel, but at least i try.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
A few observations:
First, I can appreciate why some want to “defend” the faith. But have you considered that sometimes no one is attacking it? To state what I believe is no attack on you. It is offered to suggest another way of looking at things, perhaps a new avenue of discourse.
It is extremely hard to remain civil when someone immediately suggests that my faith is no good, not apostolic, that my Eucharistic meal is worthless etc. You may well believe that, but it has no place in decent discourse. I am casting no such aspersions on your church.
I continue to be confused why it is so important to some Roman Catholics to remind everyone that their faith is first, best and the only worthwhile one. I am most satisfied with mine, and think there is much good in Roman Catholicism. I am happy that you have a vibrant faith. Why don’t you feel that way toward me?
At the bottom, much of this dissention is caused by psychological need. Some need to “prove” their faith the best so they can feel safe, that they have got the right one. Of course, such proof is non existent in the first place, and thus serves to start the fighting. Cannot we start from the premise that we all are most satisfied with our faiths? Those that are not can ask the questions designed to learn about others that they are interested in.
LIfe regardless of what you wish to believe is uncertain, and the future is more so. That is a basic in life. Faith provides our thread to some sense of certainty. But faith is by definition that which is beleived to be, not what is proven to be. Thus, there is no point to the endless bickering of who has the best, the easiest to debunk etc. It’s a waste of time, and hardly what our Lord should expect of us.
In the end, the best evidence that your faith is better than mine is how you live and present yourself to the world. If you are crass and rude, then I can easily judge that either you have not inculcated the tenets of your faith well, or your faith has few tenets I consider worthy. If on the other hand, you comport yourself with loving and civil discourse, that rebounds on your faith to the plus.
I have simply come to the conclusion that those who load questions and bait people have too many personal issues that need addressing. No amount of rational discourse will change their mind or behavior one whit. To that extent, I avoid them. Anything worthwhile they might have to say is lost to me, and others like me.
First, I can appreciate why some want to “defend” the faith. But have you considered that sometimes no one is attacking it? To state what I believe is no attack on you. It is offered to suggest another way of looking at things, perhaps a new avenue of discourse.
It is extremely hard to remain civil when someone immediately suggests that my faith is no good, not apostolic, that my Eucharistic meal is worthless etc. You may well believe that, but it has no place in decent discourse. I am casting no such aspersions on your church.
I continue to be confused why it is so important to some Roman Catholics to remind everyone that their faith is first, best and the only worthwhile one. I am most satisfied with mine, and think there is much good in Roman Catholicism. I am happy that you have a vibrant faith. Why don’t you feel that way toward me?
At the bottom, much of this dissention is caused by psychological need. Some need to “prove” their faith the best so they can feel safe, that they have got the right one. Of course, such proof is non existent in the first place, and thus serves to start the fighting. Cannot we start from the premise that we all are most satisfied with our faiths? Those that are not can ask the questions designed to learn about others that they are interested in.
LIfe regardless of what you wish to believe is uncertain, and the future is more so. That is a basic in life. Faith provides our thread to some sense of certainty. But faith is by definition that which is beleived to be, not what is proven to be. Thus, there is no point to the endless bickering of who has the best, the easiest to debunk etc. It’s a waste of time, and hardly what our Lord should expect of us.
In the end, the best evidence that your faith is better than mine is how you live and present yourself to the world. If you are crass and rude, then I can easily judge that either you have not inculcated the tenets of your faith well, or your faith has few tenets I consider worthy. If on the other hand, you comport yourself with loving and civil discourse, that rebounds on your faith to the plus.
I have simply come to the conclusion that those who load questions and bait people have too many personal issues that need addressing. No amount of rational discourse will change their mind or behavior one whit. To that extent, I avoid them. Anything worthwhile they might have to say is lost to me, and others like me.
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
I prefer the kind of Catholic who chooses to be civil and courteous – the kind of Catholic who recognizes that I’m also made in the image of my Creator.
It seems to me that Christianity rightly understood ought to lead us to embrace gentleness and preacefulness in our dealings with others. “Acquire the spirit of peace,” declared Saint Seraphim of Sarov, “and a thousand souls around you shall be saved.”
The first pope directs believers as follows:
Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope but do it with gentleness and reverence keeping your conscience clear, so that, when you are maligned, those who defame your good conduct in Christ may themselves be put to shame.
It is right and fitting that Christians should seek fully to understand what they believe and why they believe it but there is no good reason for a Christian to be rude – and even if people are rude to you the correct response according to the Founder of Christianity is to turn the other cheek. Right?
Ecumenically,
Mick
:byzsoc: 
C
c659smith
Guest
unfortunately rudeness today is when you advise and show proof that another has misconceptions and has been taught in a deceptive manner.
The rudeness though does come in when the person claims another is rude and does not learn for himself what is truth.
I am sure the Jewish Rabbi’s thought Jesus was rude when Jesus told them they were wrong.
Oh yea as a matter of fact they crucified Him for His rudeness.
M
maryj
Guest
I was referring to 1 Cor 1:10 as I stated in my first posting about the church being one. And I don’t agree that there are differences in Gospels, in the manner I believe you are speaking. Certainly different authors have different ways of expressing things, I don’t believe that to mean there are two different interpretations.
The Church is one, St. Paul emphasized that, just as there is one Lord and one God, so there is “one faith, one Baptism”( Eph 4:5). Repeatedly, he describes the Church as “One body”, identified with the integrity and uniqueness of Jesus’ own body. (Rom 12:5, 1 Cor 10:17,12:12-13, Eph 2:16, 4:4, Col 3:15) Paul acknowledges that Christians are many and diverse but he insists on the Church’s unity, and he casts that unity in Sacramental terms…" For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body…al are made to drink of one spirit (1 Cor 12:13) Christians are bound togethar by one baptism and the Eucharist.
Some people object that this “church” is purely a spiritual or meely figurative reality. But is that what Paul means when he speaks of the “body” of Christ. For a body is the visible part of a being endowed with a soul. If Paul had wanted to describe a purely spiritual church, he could have called it the “soul” of Christ, but “body” would be an unlikely choice…especially for ametaphor so dominant in his writings.
If “body” has any menaing whatsoever as a metaphor, it must indicate a visible unity. Jesus Christ himself expressed a profound desire church unity. Evoking Old Testament texts, He PROMISED “there shall be one flock, one shepherd” ( John 10:16) Shall I continue?
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
How does this help us in our quest to be more civil to one another?
M
maryj
Guest
I need to spell check before I post…my apologies
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Thank you mary. Again, I can only say that I see nothing in Paul that points to the need to separate one particular Christian church as THE church. I see all Christians as THE church. We are all of one body. I see no reason why body cannot be all Christians. I think you are artificially narrowing it to reflect your belief. But then I am enlarging it to reflect mine. I doubt Paul thought of it much at all. He certainly recognized that there were many different issues.
The Christmas Story has some discrepancies, but I would agree, the basic message is similar in all three at least of the synoptics. But when you lay them side by side, you do note differences, such as the Nazareth/Bethlehem thing. Also Luke writes a lot about Paul that Paul rather disagrees with in his various letters. These are on narrow issues. Perhaps they are of interest only to the scholar. Certainly I would agree, they are in no way a challenge to faith in any way.
YOu must remember of course, that for many many years after the resurrection, there was no centralized “Church” of any kind, and when there finally was, it had suppressed a number of other Christian groups who saw things a bit differently. I’m not sure there was a recognizable Roman Catholic Church per se until Constantine ordered the bishops to Nicea to develop and agree on a canon. Perhaps, the creed was more to the point. It is hard to know.
I know that Roman Catholics don’t much care for that kind of analysis, however, most scholars, even Catholic ones take that position I believe. It was certainly the teaching I received from both clergy and religious. I always got the wink wink of course, as they admitted that this was not “official” teaching, rather it was based on actual historical analysis of the documents of the time.
1
1holycatholic
Guest
If you have studied Catholicism then why would you say something nonsensical like “I was Roman Catholic”? You are a Catholic ad aeternum. You may not be in communion with the Church, but you’re still Catholic.
H
Hesychios
Guest
That is just sheer fantasy.
If you have studied Catholicism then why would you say something nonsensical like “I was Roman Catholic”? You are a Catholic ad aeternum. You may not be in communion with the Church, but you’re still Catholic.
C
c659smith
Guest
civility has nothing to do with evangelism
- Status