Does Catholic rudeness keep you away from the Church?

[SSTeacher]

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.

Thanks for responding. Actually, I’ve already visited your site (I could have done that in the first place, sorry) and now have the full picture. I wish you well as you continue on your journey.

Grace and peace,
Mick

 

[MDK]

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.

Based on the idea that it’s better to reply to the intended meaning than not, the person said they “didn’t believe you.” That is not objectively calling you a liar. But it’s evident from the information given, perhaps not enough exists to have understanding and some justification. There are also other factors not yet discussed. It could also be that each has different standards. Nevertheless, though you did subjectively say that this person has bizarre notions… what does that even mean other than an unfocused broad brush statement which does not tell us where you disagree?

Nevertheless, one also may ask whether you may be cutting off the conversation because you really can’t back it up, or that you want the person to agree with you without support or evidence of your statement.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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.

The perfect way to end a discussion is to inform someone, the truth is this even if you don’t accept it as such. Thanks for ending the discussion.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

http://s3.amazonaws.com/advrider/ImaPoser.gif
Catholic and secular historians don’t teach that, Protestants do.

Indeed they do. Although again, I am called a liar, you should know there is a vast difference between those who teach as apologists and those who teach from a basis of actually following the evidence. There are many many fine Catholic scholars who are not afraid of the truth, and find no danger to their faith in doing so. Apologists on the other hand have a strong need to defend for psychological reasons apparently. Please do me the favor of not telling me I lie. I don’t care for that kind of discourse and will not respond to further remarks along that line. I know quite well what I was taught, and I have the Catholic textbooks still to prove it.

 

[1holycatholic]

Indeed they do. Although again, I am called a liar, you should know there is a vast difference between those who teach as apologists and those who teach from a basis of actually following the evidence. There are many many fine Catholic scholars who are not afraid of the truth, and find no danger to their faith in doing so. Apologists on the other hand have a strong need to defend for psychological reasons apparently. Please do me the favor of not telling me I lie. I don’t care for that kind of discourse and will not respond to further remarks along that line. I know quite well what I was taught, and I have the Catholic textbooks still to prove it.

There are no fine Catholic scholars who deny apostolic succession.

 

[grampben]

http://s3.amazonaws.com/advrider/ImaPoser.gif
Catholic and secular historians don’t teach that, Protestants do.

Here we are! Rudeness appears yet again. Now lets have some sources from secular historians dating the Popes please

I’m not denying there ever was a Pope, but you seem to have issued a challenge

 

[Detales]

Thanks, MDK, for helping to make this forum possible.

Have you read that very interesting book by a fellow aeronautical engineer J.W. Dunne? It is called an *Experiement with Time. * Also one of my favorite books on metaphysics is by an electrical engineer. Who says engineers don’t have imagination? Hooey!

I agree very much with your signature quote. I think that it explains much. We have some idea of how wildly varied even fresh eyewitness accounts of an event can be. I think that that is why, though many will agree with you about “the full truth” and being perfect as the Father, there will inevitably be some differences as to what constitutes accepting those and what they are in practice an meaning.

Some will certainly agree that what you say is completely valid within the belief system of Catholicism. But they will also question its prima facia truth, especially from a cradle Catholic. There is, from the standoint of scholarship, much to recommend this stance, not so much in historicity, but in meaning. I personally belive that the whole historicity question, fascinating as it is, is a red herring.

What I’m saying is that, from a non-Catholic perspective, your post appears to be mixing apples and organges in that it equates–from the outside–validity with truth.

I know from experience that the argument for Catholicism is unassailable if you accept the premises and exegisis presented by the Church. I submit, however, that for an argument or cognative line to be universally acceptable, as are the formulas you use in your aeronautical calculations, they must be as true as they are valid in the eyes of a non-Catholic. Lift, drag, thrust and weight don’t know religion. They simply* are*. That is experience.

Catholicism, despite its internal logic as a religion, is a personally accepted belief. You din’t know you were a Catholic until someone told you. You didn’t need to be told that you are. Belief is a grown up word for “lets pretend” and is necessariy so because it refers to, i the case of the thread, an internal experience based on arguable historicity and interpretation. If this weren’t so, we would not need the forum that you have so generously supported. Also, if you speak a foreign language, you know this experientially. You know that “Idem non idem.”

A case in point is what RA Heinlein said about the word “I.” He said that in English “only the first person singular is true to fact.” Simply knowing even that, and knowing that in the time of Jesus those very foreign languages had a three tiered (at least) language of parables, some at least would have some valid (lol!) questions about orthodox interpretations, even of origins.

 

[Guyonthestreet]

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”?

The problem I have with catholics is the hypocracy. I know many and many catholics.

Ask them about the pope - he is an irrelevancy.

Ask them about abortions - its the womans right.

Ask them about family planning - they all practice it.

Ask them if they own a bible - no.

Ask them when they last read a bible - no idea.

When did they last go to confession - years a go.

Ask them to explain a single tennet of their faith - they cant.

But they cowtow to the priests and turn up at catholic church and think theyre better than everyone else because they are catholics.

I even know a catholic nun who once told me it didnt really matter whether christ actually rose from the dead or not - the point really was that he was risen in peoples hearts

 

[1holycatholic]

Here we are! Rudeness appears yet again. Now lets have some sources from secular historians dating the Popes please

I’m not denying there ever was a Pope, but you seem to have issued a challenge

Written by an Anglican:
amazon.com/Oxford-Dictionary-Popes-Paperback-Reference/dp/0192820850

Secular:
amazon.com/Chronicle-Popes-Reign-Reign-Record/dp/0500017980/ref=pd_sim_b_3

I have the Oxford Dictionary of the Popes.

 

[cathopologist]

Guyonthestreet, your post brought back so many memories of my years studying in a Protestant-run missionary school. It was definitely a contributing factor to my hatred of evangelists and all things Christian when i was still a non-Christian.

I truly empathize with the really nice Protestants such as Billy Graham or the late C.S Lewis.

 

[SSTeacher]

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.

I daresay Jaroslav Pelikan developed just as great a familiarity and understanding about Church history as Scott Hahn yet Dr. Pelikan rejected the truth claims of the Catholic Church and became an Orthodox Christian. Here’s hoping you believe me.

Fingers crossed,
Mick

 

[rachah]

The problem I have with catholics is the hypocracy. I know many and many catholics.

Ask them about the pope - he is an irrelevancy.

Ask them about abortions - its the womans right.

Ask them about family planning - they all practice it.

Ask them if they own a bible - no.

Ask them when they last read a bible - no idea.

When did they last go to confession - years a go.

Ask them to explain a single tennet of their faith - they cant.

But they cowtow to the priests and turn up at catholic church and think theyre better than everyone else because they are catholics.

I even know a catholic nun who once told me it didnt really matter whether christ actually rose from the dead or not - the point really was that he was risen in peoples hearts

Your observation is like mine and many of my friends, and we are Catholic.

This is why I’m here, to get answers to some of those observations and maybe we will gain knowledge to change.

 

[LilyM]

The problem I have with catholics is the hypocracy. I know many and many catholics.

Ask them about the pope - he is an irrelevancy.

Ask them about abortions - its the womans right.

Ask them about family planning - they all practice it.

Ask them if they own a bible - no.

Ask them when they last read a bible - no idea.

When did they last go to confession - years a go.

Ask them to explain a single tennet of their faith - they cant.

But they cowtow to the priests and turn up at catholic church and think theyre better than everyone else because they are catholics.

I even know a catholic nun who once told me it didnt really matter whether christ actually rose from the dead or not - the point really was that he was risen in peoples hearts

Does it shock you that there are Catholics out there (or Orthodox, or non-denoms, or atheists, or Muslims) who do not live up to all the ideals of their professed belief system? Note, professing ideals doesn’t mean that you profess to live up to them.

Or who haven’t made sufficient study of their professed belief system to be able to properly verbally defend it when required? Or who don’t adhere to all the tenets of their belief system?

I’ve known MANY people of pretty much ALL religious (and irreligious) persusasions. Over the 35 years I’ve had of the privilege I can assure you that ignorance and hypocrisy are very evenly spread indeed through all manner of beliefs. It’s called being human.

 

[maryj]

The problem I have with catholics is the hypocracy. I know many and many catholics.

Ask them about the pope - he is an irrelevancy.

Ask them about abortions - its the womans right.

Ask them about family planning - they all practice it.

Ask them if they own a bible - no.

Ask them when they last read a bible - no idea.

When did they last go to confession - years a go.

Ask them to explain a single tennet of their faith - they cant.

But they cowtow to the priests and turn up at catholic church and think theyre better than everyone else because they are catholics.

I even know a catholic nun who once told me it didnt really matter whether christ actually rose from the dead or not - the point really was that he was risen in peoples hearts

Please ask me the same questions, I guarantee you you’ll get different answers. You call it hypocrisy I call it lack of knowledge.

 

[MDK]

Here we are! Rudeness appears yet again. Now lets have some sources from secular historians dating the Popes please

I’m not denying there ever was a Pope, but you seem to have issued a challenge

What’s really being discussed here? One would have to conclude that all secular historians was conveyed in order for there to be a challenge. I don’t know if that’s the case, or whether a preponderance was meant, or whether a majority. In truth, even if some secular historians did and some did not, it still doesn’t really change the truth, does it?

 

[maryj]

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.

Would you have a source for this belief ?

 

[MDK]

The perfect way to end a discussion is to inform someone, the truth is this even if you don’t accept it as such. Thanks for ending the discussion.

Actually, the perfect way to end a discussion is to walk away, satisfied in the knowledge you have…

And nevertheless, this was not the full meaning of the post.

Simply stated, the post meant that neither you nor I determine what the truth is. We seek and accept the truth, holding it as precious, desiring more fullness of Truth. Since Christ asks us to be perfect, as the Father is perfect, settling for less than the fullest truth we can have is setting the sight too low. We must keep searching and learning in order to learn more about the truth. For instance, it’s not being obedient to Christ to reject even one of His teachings, or to interpret in the way we would prefer. We keep seeking the truth to make it more full in our lives, no matter if we have 10 PhD’s and go to mass twice a day, every day.

I apologize, as I thought the original post was fairly straight forward.

 

[SSTeacher]

The problem I have with catholics is the hypocracy. I know many and many catholics.

Ask them about the pope - he is an irrelevancy.

Ask them about abortions - its the womans right.

Ask them about family planning - they all practice it.

Ask them if they own a bible - no.

Ask them when they last read a bible - no idea.

When did they last go to confession - years a go.

Ask them to explain a single tennet of their faith - they cant.

But they cowtow to the priests and turn up at catholic church and think theyre better than everyone else because they are catholics.

I even know a catholic nun who once told me it didnt really matter whether christ actually rose from the dead or not - the point really was that he was risen in peoples hearts

But, to be fair, the failings you’ve detailed above hardly apply to the Catholics on this forum do they? Saint Paul reminds us that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God so I guess we shouldn’t be surprised or disappointed or angry whenever we see confirmation of that truth. I daresay that if you loiter on this site long enough you might change your opinion about Catholics in general. I haven’t been visiting here that long myself but my early opinion is that the Catholics do quite well. I haven’t had any Catholic being rude to me as yet and I’ve learned a few things. I respectfully recommend that you give Catholicism the benefit of the doubt and stick around for a while. Perhaps you’ll find it productive and rewarding?

Hopefully,
Mick

 

[PJM]

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”?

My dear friend in Christ Jesus,

Right on:thumbsup:

As a lifelong RCC, I am more than embarrased, and at times deeply regretful, for the lack of common charity by fellow Catholics.

We know better, but sadly, allow ourselves at times to be drug down by responces to our post, rather than turning the other cheek, as Jesus would have us do.

It happened to me once, and I felt horrible until I confessed my sin. Even then I did not feel aquiited until I made ammends to the person I got angry with.

That person was angry that I would not change my beliefs, and would not accept the biblical evidence I presented. No doubt a very trying relationship for both parties. But I was more wrong!

This is a “Catholic Forum” and I volunteered to represent my Church and our Faith Beliefs, so no matter what is presented to us, and no matter what degree of rudeness it is presented, our obligation is to demonistrate Christian Love in action.

If we are unable to do this, then we should sign off of the thread and move on.

Never, Never:tsktsk: should a Catholic, or any Christian post in anger, and without Christian Charity. This is even more true for us Catholics, as we represent our Church and our faith. :angel1: :hug1:

God bless you, and thanks for reminding us of our Moral Duty!

 

[MDK]

Thanks, MDK, for helping to make this forum possible.

Have you read that very interesting book by a fellow aeronautical engineer J.W. Dunne? It is called an *Experiement with Time. * Also one of my favorite books on metaphysics is by an electrical engineer. Who says engineers don’t have imagination? Hooey!

I agree very much with your signature quote. I think that it explains much. We have some idea of how wildly varied even fresh eyewitness accounts of an event can be. I think that that is why, though many will agree with you about “the full truth” and being perfect as the Father, there will inevitably be some differences as to what constitutes accepting those and what they are in practice an meaning.

Some will certainly agree that what you say is completely valid within the belief system of Catholicism. But they will also question its prima facia truth, especially from a cradle Catholic. There is, from the standoint of scholarship, much to recommend this stance, not so much in historicity, but in meaning. I personally belive that the whole historicity question, fascinating as it is, is a red herring.

What I’m saying is that, from a non-Catholic perspective, your post appears to be mixing apples and organges in that it equates–from the outside–validity with truth.

I know from experience that the argument for Catholicism is unassailable if you accept the premises and exegisis presented by the Church. I submit, however, that for an argument or cognative line to be universally acceptable, as are the formulas you use in your aeronautical calculations, they must be as true as they are valid in the eyes of a non-Catholic. Lift, drag, thrust and weight don’t know religion. They simply* are*. That is experience.

Catholicism, despite its internal logic as a religion, is a personally accepted belief. You din’t know you were a Catholic until someone told you. You didn’t need to be told that you are. Belief is a grown up word for “lets pretend” and is necessariy so because it refers to, i the case of the thread, an internal experience based on arguable historicity and interpretation. If this weren’t so, we would not need the forum that you have so generously supported. Also, if you speak a foreign language, you know this experientially. You know that “Idem non idem.”

A case in point is what RA Heinlein said about the word “I.” He said that in English “only the first person singular is true to fact.” Simply knowing even that, and knowing that in the time of Jesus those very foreign languages had a three tiered (at least) language of parables, some at least would have some valid (lol!) questions about orthodox interpretations, even of origins.

Thanks for reading, and for the compliment as well. I support the forum financially as it is an important place to discuss ideas.

Yes, of course there will be differences. I hope you didn’t spend that ink for me.

I hope you’ve heard of the statment paraphrased *A little bit of science can take one away from God. A lot of science brings him back. *

The idea is that we keep searching, not settling and thinking that we have it all now. To become satisfied as-is is not obeying Christ. I would also say that we have to let God work in us as another saying God loves us just as we are, but loves us too much to leave us that way.

Belief in the Christian sense is much more than “let’s pretend.” Belief includes faith in things we cannot perceive with the five senses. It’s not an exercise for the flesh to discover, but that the Spirit may be in the flesh. So, I’m not pretending. I hope you aren’t either. Belief in the Christian sense is faith, committment, and obedience. I see Christ with the eyes of faith. Many who look only through eyes of flesh will miss many things.

What is ultimate reality? God is reality. What do we say when one is out of touch with God, or in other words, being out of touch with reality? That is insanity. What God has established is reality. We just need to discover this.

I find your view of Catholicism a bit limited. I don’t see Catholicism as a circular argument in itself.

I hope you didn’t come here expecting that everyone would agree with you?