Does Catholic rudeness keep you away from the Church?

[Gottle_of_Geer]

gentle persuasion can be a dangerous thing. Jesus said. “be aware of the wolves dressed as sheep.” here is your answer.

:byzsoc:

That’s more because of what is said than because of how it is said. Gentleness is not evil: it’s a fruit of the Holy Spirit; & neither is persuasion; unlike forcing of consciences, deceit, & persecution. Giving people Glasgow kisses until they submit & become RC is not exactly Christlike conduct. Knuckle-duster evangelism = bad idea. http://smilies.vidahost.com/contrib/dvv/bash.gif http://smilies.vidahost.com/contrib/edoom/blowingup.gif​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

your response does not even address what I said. This is a church of sinners, Jesus came to heal the sick and save the sinners, not to pat the righteous on the head. To make a choice of where to worship based on human personalities of one’s fellow worshippers, rather than on the basis of whether or not God’s Word and His Truth are proclaimed, is in my mind idolatry, placing human creatures in God’s place.

It addresses it directly - I don’t see how you got that last sentence out of it.​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

That is because Christ established the Catholic church whether that’s hard for you to grasp or not and people here and other Catholics defend their church. It is as if they are defending Christ. If you think Catholics take it to the extreme, it is because, well, Jesus founded the Catholic church.

What sort of Christ needs defending ? He must be pretty useless, & a pretty worthless God, if he needs help.​

As for his founding the CC, this is is just what is very often not at all certain, unless one is “Catholic” already. And even if it’s admitted that Jesus did found the CC, that proves far less than some Catholics appear to imagine. But in reality, the texts, even taken all together, are not nearly precise enough to exclude all other possibilities. And it is Catholics who lose most by reading the NT as though it is as unambiguously in favour of their position as they seem to think.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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

**That post is what is called a “keeper” **​

 

[LeroyCRHP]

I think you need to keep in mind the difference between being secure in your faith and not. When a catholic is secure in their faith the doctrine may be in conflict with other churches.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

So you must believe it?

Inquiringly,
Mick

It counts as dogma - so, yes.​

 

[SSTeacher]

It counts as dogma - so, yes.​

Thanks for giving me a straight answer.

Appreciatively,
Mick

 

[maryj]

What - like Catholicism ? That’s pretty varied. Unity is not the same thing as uniformity - an insect preserved in amber for millions of years is unchanging; it is also dead. Variety within unity OTOH is evidence of life, or it can be.​

Huh?? you completely have me lost here! but then again I haven’t had my coffee yet:compcoff:.

 

[SSTeacher]

**That post is what is called a “keeper” **​

I found it quite engaging. Why is it called a “keeper”?

Curiously,
Mick

 

[OriginalJS]

I haven’t seen any rudeness. Maybe I’m blind. I have never seen anyone turned away from a Catholic church or treated otherwise than respectfully. If there is anything that might be considered rude, I think it is the penchant of too many Catholics to slip into Mass at the last minute and head for the door as quickly as they can - some evening taking off as soon as they have received communion. Last Sunday at our church the KofC had a pancake breakfast and I’ll bet not 10% of those attending the preceding Mass attended. In protestant churches I have seen 90% would have stayed. I wish there was more socializing between worshippers in the Church.

 

[wisdomseeker]

That’s more because of what is said than because of how it is said. Gentleness is not evil: it’s a fruit of the Holy Spirit; & neither is persuasion; unlike forcing of consciences, deceit, & persecution. Giving people Glasgow kisses until they submit & become RC is not exactly Christlike conduct. Knuckle-duster evangelism = bad idea. http://smilies.vidahost.com/contrib/dvv/bash.gif http://smilies.vidahost.com/contrib/edoom/blowingup.gif​

let s say that the Church has done much better than our ancestors Israelites back in their days. yet that is where our religion comes from. we do not reject the Bible because the Jews did some barbaric things, do we? do we reject the Truth our Lord has given us because somebody under so much persecution react a certain way. you keep accusing the Church of doing barbaric things which it did not, but you refuse to acknowledge the sufferings and death of the Catholics to keep the faith that you have today.

do not make excuses because you cannot see the Truth.

“look for the bad and you shall find, look for the good and you shall also find”.

:byzsoc:

 

[Detales]

I have seen what you are talking about here, JS, at our local parrish, but I don’t know if it distributes over all Catholic churches. It seems to me that it happens more now, much more, than it used to. It has a dimension of casualness which I find both disrepectful and questionable in terms of devotion. It is so much of a question for me that I have had thoughts that if I was to recommend a church only on the basis of its society, I would go with the Mormons* or some Protestant sects.

But regarding the behavior in Catholic churches, our two at least, I know that there are things in one’s life that can demand tight scheduling. Nevertheless, ordinarily, if one is a practicing (lol! “practicing!” ie not perfect yet, ie not yet equal to God,) Catholic, I think that one knows ahead of time that the mass is at a scheduled time and lasts so long. But the number who act in the manner you describe, ducking in and out, and not being part of the social community, is beyond, as far as I can figure, the laws of chance for the number of people I would think really need to be somewhere else.

Along with that, I see a very dismaying casualness of costume. People are showing up to what we call Holy Mass in jeans and T-shirt, or moo-moos, or just looking sloppy.

If someone *sincerely *believes that it is the Son of God, the Word, the one who sits at the right hand of the Father who is Present in the church, and has taken to heart the full implications of that, I wonder how they could justify that kind of behavior or dress? Would those same people arrive late for an audience with the Pope or with the Queen, or the President? They wouldn’t show up that way to a job interview, because they know what the result would be! So is our relationship with God THAT casual? If so, then why are people showing up? Out of habit?

I think about it as if I was the host of a function. How would I feel if my guests kind of ducked in and out, and dresses like slobs when I was sharing a meal of great importance and symbolism with them? One whose preparation equaled my life! So I’m wondering who the “you” in the title of this thread might most properly apply to?

• I say that because I have first hand experience with my sister’s church, she being along with her husband and sons, all Mormons. Their social and economic infrastructure in terms of participation is nothing less than amazing, useful, and, in our case, enviable. (No comments, please, I know it’s a sin to envy. You know what I mean.) But if you were the host (it’s a pun), which group of guests would you prefer?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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.

Of course I am Catholic, but I thought you were referring to the Roman Catholic church. And for your information, many clergy in the Church refer to it that way as a way to distinguish it from the Universal Church----Catholic means universal.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

civility has nothing to do with evangelism

That is certainly a very sad way to view things in my opinion. And a way that hurts the process of showing the world the value of Christianity. First do no harm as the physician said.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Hi SpiritMeadow,

If it doesn’t derail the thread, would you mind briefly stating why you left Catholicism?

Curiously,
Mick

I suspect it would, but if you wish to start another thread, I’d be more than happy to answer. you might also like to look at my site linked below under autobiography. The last 7 or so posts are about my religious journey.

 

[MDK]

Of course I am Catholic, but I thought you were referring to the Roman Catholic church. And for your information, many clergy in the Church refer to it that way as a way to distinguish it from the Universal Church----Catholic means universal.

Christ put Peter as the visible head of the universal, or worldwide Church. So, the Catholic Church has the visible head in Rome. Doesn’t matter whether you or I believe that, as this is a truth larger than you or I. What does matter for us is whether we align ourselves with the truth, or reject it even for what may seem to be a valid reason. In the end, no matter who is doing the rejecting, we have to ask if there are there any valid reasons for rejecting the full Truth? I would say, no. We must seek and adopt the truth, to seek to be as Christ told us, perfect, even as our Father in Heaven is perfect.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I don’t believe it’s hard to know. The New Testament was not a user’s manual for a church still in shrink wrap. The church preceeded the Scriptures. All of the new testament books, except the Gospels, are primarily occupied with describing a community already well established, with distinctive policies,practices and patterns of devotion-with it’s own structures of authority and methods of decision making. The Acts of the Apostles recounts the establishment of the church in the towns and cities visited by the Apostles. The letters of Paul, Peter, James and Jude address the general concerns and questions of those scattered assemblies, once established by the Apostles. I would recognize those early churches as Catholic, being led by the Apostles and their disciples. Correcting them when necessary, and after those corrections, worshipping as “one”.
Since the protestant reformation, many people have tried to build the church anew based on the evidence they find in the NT. But they cannot agree on what exactly the NT means when it describes a Church, and how such a church would look two thousand years down the line.The wiser choice is to look to the Church that came before the Scriptures, the Church that produced the Scriptures with divine assistance. Let’s look to unity and again the only candidate for unity is the Catholic church. It professed one faith, undivided,unchanged, throughout the world and throughout the ages. Those seperated Christians who profess scripture alone, on the one hand have multiplied denominations. and those Christian bodies differ from one another on such key matters as the menaing of Charismatic gifts, the appropriate age for Baptism, the frequency of communion, the morality of abortion and uthenasia, the nature and function of the clergy, even the day of the week which Christians should worship. You believe we are all one “church” of believers…Denominations as large as the Lutherans and Baptists disagree profoundly on the nature of the sacraments. Could such confusion be what Jesus and St. Paul meant by the church’s unity?

This is perhaps where we fundamentally disagree. Long before I left the RCC, in fact while I was in process to enter the convent, I studied under various Catholic clergy and religious. It was there that I learned that there was no heirarchy in the Church for some hundreds of years. I don’t believe there was a “Pope” per se for a long time. Much of the “church” statements in the NT are later interpolations added after the fact, not by the original writers. So I believe at any event.

As to what Paul would have wanted, I suspect that is fairly irrelevant. As to Jesus, I suspect he would care more about whether we are about the business of doing his work rather than arguing about how we are to view the real presence at the Eucharist. If we did spend our time in caring for the poor, and so forth, we might find that in th end, a good deal of the rest of this doesn’t matter all that much.

It’s been a pleasure to hear your views Mary. Thank you.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Well then, if you studied Catholicism at a Masters Degree level, you would be Catholic for sure. There is just NO WAY you could study the church and the hitory of it at this level and not belong. Look at Scott Hahn, so didn’t he study to an even further degree, a PH.D in Bibliology and Theology, yet he converted from being a Protestant minister to a Roman Catholic after 17 years of studies. I am sorry, but I do not believe you.

You have some bizarre notions. But now you call me a liar. And that is quite enough. I don’t believe in tattling to the administration over every insult as do so many here. Suffice it to say, our conversation is at an end until you learn to be civil.

 

[Hajnalcsillag]

This is perhaps where we fundamentally disagree. Long before I left the RCC, in fact while I was in process to enter the convent, I studied under various Catholic clergy and religious. It was there that I learned that there was no heirarchy in the Church for some hundreds of years. I don’t believe there was a “Pope” per se for a long time. Much of the “church” statements in the NT are later interpolations added after the fact, not by the original writers. So I believe at any event.

**As to what Paul would have wanted, I suspect that is fairly irrelevant. As to Jesus, I suspect he would care more about whether we are about the business of doing his work rather than arguing about how we are to view the real presence at the Eucharist. If we did spend our time in caring for the poor, and so forth, we might find that in th end, a good deal of the rest of this doesn’t matter all that much. **

It’s been a pleasure to hear your views Mary. Thank you.

Excellent thought.

I’ve mentioned before that it’s striking to compare the fullness of faith and the incredible movement of God in the oppressed churches around the world. Perhaps it’s because those who believe suffer terribly, or perhaps it’s because they focus on living a Christ-like life and don’t sit around huddled in a basement with candles for light arguing over true presence or symbolic, over the proper authority to interpret Scripture, or over any of the minor (and frankly unimportant) things that divide those of us in the non-oppressed churches.

 

[1holycatholic]

Long before I left the RCC, in fact while I was in process to enter the convent, I studied under various Catholic clergy and religious. It was there that I learned that there was no heirarchy in the Church for some hundreds of years. I don’t believe there was a “Pope” per se for a long time. Much of the “church” statements in the NT are later interpolations added after the fact, not by the original writers.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Catholic and secular historians don’t teach that, Protestants do.