Does Catholic rudeness keep you away from the Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter theistgal
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
I would agree on all parts. I especially hate it when some smile and say "I love all my Christian brothers and sisters (i.e., protestants), then they do NOTHING but antagonize and mock them. It’s disgusting and disingenous.
 
Go to CARM.Compare the posts and the posters there with those here.This place is much more gentle.Please do not confuse spirited defense of one’s faith which is under constant attack with meanspiritedness.It is an understandable defensive reaction.
 
Go to CARM.Compare the posts and the posters there with those here.This place is much more gentle.Please do not confuse spirited defense of one’s faith which is under constant attack with meanspiritedness.It is an understandable defensive reaction.
We all know other sites are disgusting; that is brought up quite a bit, but we know the difference between spririted defense and flat-out rudeness. Both sides are guilty of this. Disagreements are expected, but mocking and condemning others is unacceptable.
 
Go to CARM.Compare the posts and the posters there with those here.This place is much more gentle.Please do not confuse spirited defense of one’s faith which is under constant attack with meanspiritedness.It is an understandable defensive reaction.
Just because there are worse places doesn’t mean there’s no room for improvement here. We’re supposed to remove the plank from our own eyes before dealing with the speck in our brother’s eye. I’m just pointing towards one of our 2x4’s. 😉
 
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.
My understanding of gnosticism is that gnostics don’t just believe in private interpretation, but they also believe in SECRET knowledge. In other words they don’t belive in sharing this private interpretation or knowledge with the whole world.

Which is, of course, the total opposite of the way the Pope and Catholicism go about things, since we believe that EVERYONE can and should arrive at the same understanding and knowledge as the Holy Spirit reveals to the Magisterium!
 
It does not. Catholic Internet debaters are, on average, very able to argue boldly and charitably at the same time. Boldness and charity - isn’t that what Christians are supposed to be like? The lesser ability of many other denominations to argue boldly and charitably made me wonder if Catholics were onto something in the same way steadier Catholic opposition to birth control and abortion made me wonder back in the day if they could really be Christians after all.
 
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!!!
There is one truth. Unfortunately we cannot agree on what that truth is in many cases. We cannot agree in many respects what the bible says, and what it means. We disagree on the value of various forms of biblical exegesis. Thus, we all end up having opinions on what the truth is.

I would argue that the NT does not in most cases give us difinitive truth, but rather a means to use to attain it. We see from the problems and solutions the WAY to address modern problems.

As to the true church? i would argue there has never been an issue. The true church is the universal church as it exists today in all its variations. The sum total is the church. Always was and always will be. There was NEVER a time that the church was once since the crucifixion. There has forever been different sects and groups. Paul’s letters make this abundantly clear as does Acts itself. From time to time, one arm or another has suppressed others, to be sure, but ultimately, that didn’t work.
 
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.
That would be my take on things. It seems to me at least that a few folks are of the opinion that their job is to destroy all other faith doctrines by argument. Since this has failed over the past 2000+ years, I suspect it will have little success. It does, however, keep us from exploring those areas of agreement and working together for the betterment of the world, and that is truly a shame as I see it.
 
I often wonder how “rude” people felt St. Paul was?
I doubt we will ever know, but to the extent he was, he lost opportunites. As others have said, I too don’t even open threads that start off being pejorative. My favorite by the way is the thread about “why God allows Protestants”—answer–because most people are not as strong as we are and can’t handle the toughness, so he allowed them easier faith traditions.

I mean how incredibly arrogant can a person be?
 
There is one truth. Unfortunately we cannot agree on what that truth is in many cases. We cannot agree in many respects what the bible says, and what it means. We disagree on the value of various forms of biblical exegesis. Thus, we all end up having opinions on what the truth is.

I would argue that the NT does not in most cases give us difinitive truth, but rather a means to use to attain it. We see from the problems and solutions the WAY to address modern problems.

As to the true church? i would argue there has never been an issue. The true church is the universal church as it exists today in all its variations. The sum total is the church. Always was and always will be. There was NEVER a time that the church was once since the crucifixion. There has forever been different sects and groups. Paul’s letters make this abundantly clear as does Acts itself. From time to time, one arm or another has suppressed others, to be sure, but ultimately, that didn’t work.
The true church is the univeral church as it exists today in all it’s variations?? How can something be true and have variations? As I’ve read, in the fourth century, the Fathers of the church looked at the biblical testimony and discerned four strong characteristics of the church those being one,holy,catholic,and apostolic.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hisalone forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cab/viewpost.gif
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.
Sometimes we don’t quite get the terminalogy correct. Just to clarify:

Doctrine developes, so yes it changes. However, developed doctrine cannot contradict any previous doctrine. And it has not.
So to make a claim that everyone believes the same thing is quite ridiculous.
To make such a claim is ridiculous when stated and understood exactly as you have stated above.

Once again, however, a Catholic listening with Catholic ears hears “we have certain non-negotiables that cannot be denied.”

Hope this helps.
 
This is my first time visiting the forum here since early November. I just went through 31 pages of threads, mostly looking at the titles and occasionally opening one.

I think the vitriol is worse than it was then. I think the topics and tone are more antagonistic than they were. And frankly I think there are more people who simply want to pick fights and argue rather than discuss and educate.

But what do I know…I’m some Protestant heathen and therefore can’t see the nose on my own face.

More to the point of the original topic, yes, yes it does. There’s a difference between teaching a hard truth and being a jerk. Not enough people actually seem to know the difference. It’s mostly the same regurgitated arguments over and over.
 
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.

That means that the Church is something people belong to intermittently - which is a ruinous principle for anything resembling Catholic ecclesiology. A lot of Catholics are foul human beings; but if their being Catholics is to be at the mercy of their nice outward behaviour, what hope have they ? Your principle destroys their identity & their hope of changing for the better: it’s a temptation to leave. Surely that is not intended 😦 ?​

If the CC is only for nice people, it is no church for normal human beings :mad:
 
I have met few Catholics in “real life” who were rude. They have been adamant, even insistant, usually engaging, but rarely rude. On here it seems to be a different matter. It seems to be kind of like driving a car. They say that road rage is somewhat a matter of lack of body language. That is to say that the subtle signals of face to face encounter are missing. Here we only have words in type, and that constitutes an insualtion of sorts, it being that we have to rely more on dictionaryisms and not so much on inflections and tones. Unfortunately for this kind of communication, that subtlty is where a large part of our social navigational information and markers come from. It may account for a large part of the rampant adversarialism found in these forums.

That being said, anyone’s religious, or other, convictions usually seem to fall into the catagory of an intractable position. In my experience, having been a very missionary minded Catholic, and having won a prestigious award in our state-wide high school system for knowledge of our theology, it took a major shock to get me to look at what I believed, and at how I was willing to look at it. Before the denouement shock, having had a few minor ones, I seriously persued the advice of my confessors. After, I found only one who even remotely understood the position I had metaphysically found myself in. I actually had to go outside the Church to rediscover its meaning for me. It wasn’t after that, by any means, the same Church in terms of understanding, that I had promoted with all my heart at the begining.

But I found that the position of religionists of any sort or description who had not faced a severe internal challange to be very inflexible and unaccomodating to the nature of the need for inquiry in many situations that were, for me at least, necessary and legitimate lines of questioning. I could not, myself, force my experience into the constraint of dogmatic belief as I understood it at the start. It was like I had to stop believing in Santa Clause, The Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy all at once, step back, erase the blackboard and start again. This time it was for real, on my own, and not because I had believed somone. Now I had to KNOW. In a way I envied those who simply believed, but I was in the position of the seeker who found the happy people by the river bank.

I was in the pain of crisis, and adamantine dogmatizing was not the solution for me. Ultimately I came to understand that Good, a synonym for God, and religious form are two different things that only seem to intersect. They are certainly not necessarily congrutent, at least from my perspective.

So it was kindness and understanding of my situation that allowed me to consider anyone’s offerings, while I became hypersensetive to anyone who was simply spouting an untested faith out of birth habit or from insecurity. So I have to say that I responded primarily to feeling, rather than to argument, though the feeling of being accepted on my own terms for who and what I am allowed me to listen to various cognative lines. Any hint of rudness or obvious false piety just set me off. What attracted me was the voice of experience. That never seeks converts, only the honesty which may beget transformation.

Anyway, that is my two cents worth on the topic, with one last observation. Given the parable of the lost sheep and the Love of the Almighty, I had to ask, which of my children would I allow to go to hell? Ask yourself that as a parent and choose, and decide if browbeating or rudeness, or any such acts of frustrated ignorance, would be your method of choice for demonstrating your love as a representative of God.
 
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”?
gentle persuasion can be a dangerous thing. Jesus said. “be aware of the wolves dressed as sheep.” here is your answer.

:byzsoc: :highprayer:
 
The true church is the univeral church as it exists today in all it’s variations?? How can something be true and have variations? As I’ve read, in the fourth century, the Fathers of the church looked at the biblical testimony and discerned four strong characteristics of the church those being one,holy,catholic,and apostolic.
It is my belief that all churches together make up the universal church, holy, catholic and apostolic. I would agree that some faith systems embody a more complete truth than others, otherwise there would be no point to the various denominations at all. Each finds his or her place in the great pantheon that is Christianity. I am convinced God speaks to all believers in any case.

I believe in giving due respect to those who came before, and what they believe. However, they were men and a few women just like you and me,and subject to faulty reasoning of course the same as we are.

One hopes that over time we discover greater and greater agreement on basic truths.
 
It is my belief that all churches together make up the universal church, holy, catholic and apostolic. I would agree that some faith systems embody a more complete truth than others, otherwise there would be no point to the various denominations at all. Each finds his or her place in the great pantheon that is Christianity. I am convinced God speaks to all believers in any case.

I believe in giving due respect to those who came before, and what they believe. However, they were men and a few women just like you and me,and subject to faulty reasoning of course the same as we are.

One hopes that over time we discover greater and greater agreement on basic truths.
On this site I often read “Protestants…” I can only say that most Protestants and their churches share this view in my opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top