Forum Rules

[Peter_J]

Why is it Catholics can be nasty and disrespectful to Protestants and it is easily tolerated?

As far as I’m concerned, it isn’t alright for Catholics to be nasty and disrespectful to Protestants.

And, conversely, it isn’t alright with you if Protestants are nasty and disrespectful to Catholics, am I right? (Incidentally, if you doubt that Protestants are nasty and disrespectful to Catholics, I would suggest you visit a few Protestant discussion forums on the internet.)

 

[Peter_J]

There are still those there that I avoid or ignore their posts. Usually, one of those that I’ve gained the respect of, comes in and rebukes the volatile. Those that I ignore, do not represent the whole, or so I’ve learned from experience.

Hear hear!

I’m always telling Protestant posters here, If you encounter a poster who’s unreasonably rude (or whatever other adjectives one might put in here) just ignore him/her; he/she does not represent Catholics in general.

P.S. Just out of curiosity, when you speak of “ignoring” some posters on that other forum, do you mean that it has an “Ignore List” feature like CAF does, or just that you “manually” ignore certain posters’ posts?

 

[Peter_J]

There is no one side right in this discussion. There are good and bad from all faiths. It would be silly to judge a whole group because of the actions of one, or a few.

Sometimes, it’s because the communication takes place through the written word and is no more than a mis-communication.

There are respectful ways to disagree and there are disrespectful ways to disagree.

Here’s an example of what I’m saying.

1. 
   *]I don’t believe in praying to Mary or the saints.
   *]Praying to Mary or the saints is a pagan practice.
   
   One states the obvious disagreement and can, or should, be acceptable; the other is an ad hominem worded statement, which is viewed as an attack. It’s hard to imagine someone accidently words an ad hominem type statement, especially when one has time to preview and reflect prior to clicking the submit button.
   
   Joh 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you: That you love one another, as I have loved you, that you also love one another.
   Joh 13:35 By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another.

1. You make an excellent point.
   
   On the other hand:
   
   A. My church teaches that there is no valid priesthood but our own, and thus no valid Eucharist but ours. I am required to accept my church’s teaching on this
   
   vs.
   
   B. Your church has no valid priesthood and your Eucharist is just bread of no spiritual value.
   
   You’d be surprised how many RC’s use B. And they are uniformly “surprised” that we get upset.
   
   I too am distressed that the rules don’t seem to operate for both sides. I’ve been called a lot of things here, and apparently it’s okay, but I have been “penalized” for disrepecting a political party, a corporate entity if you will…Bet you can guess which one!

   Prodigal Son1 and SpiritMeadow,
   
   I hear what you’re saying, but I’d like to chime that in the end, it’s a matter of moderation. Certainly politeness and charitable speech are very important, but on the other hand we want to avoid becoming so caught up in political correctness and not offending anyone that our speech becomes “tied up in knots”.
   
   For example, I would say that statements about Marian devotions being “pagan”, or talking about Anglican “priestesses”, are offensive.
   
   On the other hand, using a qualifier like "I believe that … " or "My opinion is that … " is generally advisable when making a statement that others are likely to disagree with, but is not strictly necessary 100% of the time. In some cases, the context simply makes it clear that I’m expressing my view while understanding that others may not agree with it.

 

[Finrock]

I frequent a Protestant forum for the Pentecostal, Church of God. I am the only Catholic and the majority of Church of God people there are pastors.

I’ve told them all, my only goal was to show them Catholics are Christians, based on Catholic interpretation of scriptures, even if they do not agree with the interpretation, there can be no doubt our beliefs come from scriptures.

I have a lone Episcopalian priest there, who cheers me on. Even though he and I don’t agree on everything, we have some very spirit filled discussions and always respect the fact that we will not agree on everything. We hit places where we respectfully agree to disagree. I respect him and consider him a friend. Of course we’re both in a situation there, that makes us see we have more in common with each other, than the regulars on that forum.

I have even gained the respect of about 25% of the regulars there. At least they’ve come to my defense on occasion. They say they respect me because of my demeanor and because I went to them to share my view knowing I would be going against a majority and more than likely suffer abuse because of it. It hasn’t always been easy, but I work hard at not being disrespectful, as I consider myself a guest there. My first discussions went from being disrespected by a majority, to being invited to participate in specific topic debates, where we both agreed to a format beforehand. Those are going amazingly well in my opinion; very respectful dialogue between us. The most rewarding discussions are when we find out that we agree, but just say it differently (semantics).

There are still those there that I avoid or ignore their posts. Usually, one of those that I’ve gained the respect of, comes in and rebukes the volatile. Those that I ignore, do not represent the whole, or so I’ve learned from experience.

Alot of discussions start backwards here, in my opinion. That is, we start at our differences and say we’re trying to find middle ground. I think we could do much better to find what we have in common and start there, and then with understanding of how another believes what they do. If two people will discuss their differences respectfully, it’s normally a misconception or semantics that separate us, in my opinon.

Another problem here, is the expectations of some posters. The expectation that they can make everyone see what they see so well in their heart. The expectation of agreement. The expectation of converting someone. We of ourselves cannot convert anyone. That’s only something the Holy Spirit can do. Guests here cannot admit to seeking conversions, because most of them know they will be banned for it. Leave expectations out of the discussions, try to understand and learn something new, be a witness to others by what you say, and let the Holy Spirit do His job. If anyone gets out of line, click the http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/report.gif and let the moderators deal with it.

It is my belief, hope and prayer that through God’s great economy, Christians from many different Churches will see the Kingdom of God, in heaven.

That’s my :twocents:, for whatever it’s worth.

Hi Prodigal Son1. I’m glad to meet you! I hope you are doing well today.

Awesome post and it is worth a lot. It is truth and goodness. Thank you very much for posting it!

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Hear hear!

I’m always telling Protestant posters here, If you encounter a poster who’s unreasonably rude (or whatever other adjectives one might put in here) just ignore him/her; he/she does not represent Catholics in general.

P.S. Just out of curiosity, when you speak of “ignoring” some posters on that other forum, do you mean that it has an “Ignore List” feature like CAF does, or just that you “manually” ignore certain posters’ posts?

There’s not an ignore feature there. I just don’t respond to anything they post, so it’s manual.

 

[Peter_J]

In the name of Allah , Most Gracious, Most Merciful

http://theislampath.com/smf/Smileys/default/salam.gif

If respectful means accepting Jesus (pbuh) as God & call Mary (pbuh) as mother of God , then it’s not possible for Muslims to do so . Also , I guess Jews , Hindus & people of other faith can’t show this respect to them .

No, “respecting” doesn’t mean “agreeing with”.

But if this means we must not use nasty languages about religious figures of other faiths , then I am afraid mainly it’s the Christians who are doing this offensive & provoking act .

The conversations that I engage in here are, usually, not about different religions but about differences/disagreements that exist within Christianity. So I can’t confirm or deny what you are saying; but assuming you’re correct, then that’s a credit to non-Christian posters for following the forum rules, or it’s an indication that the moderators are serious about enforcing the rules – or maybe a little of both.

 

[pnewton]

If respectful means accepting Jesus (pbuh) as God & call Mary (pbuh) as mother of God , then it’s not possible for Muslims to do so .

Muslim Woman, you could not, should not violate your faith in such matters. I concur with your observation that the greater disrespect is from Catholic posters, at least as it appears to me. Perhaps the best advice I can give to the OP, that if you want respect, earn it by showing respect. I suspect that posts are often not reported because the guilt is seldomn one-sided.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

=kalt;5166717]I understand exactly what you’re saying.

The following is a perfect example of your logic.

“It is a believe. It may or may not be true. It is not subject to proof. If it were every logical average intelligent person in the entire world would agree with you. I believe a good many things about my church as well, and I believe them to be true. I cannot prove them as such either, and so I refrain from declaring them as obvious truth. They are true to me.”

You may be unwilling to commit 100% to a faith. This is not true of Catholics. We believe that Catholicism is the truth.

Your argument is that all faiths are merely one truth among many contradictory truths that may or may not be true.

I’m sure that you can see just how illogical that logic is.

Catholics believe that our faith is the truth. This seems to bother you to no end.

If you could read what I say, your responses would be rationally related to what I say. All too often they are not.

You profoundedly don’t understand what faith is. Faith is belief in things not proveable. That is the essence of what faith is. That has nothing to do with what we each believe as truth. Hopefully we all believe that what our church teaches is truth. It would be an outrage to stay in a church you believed was lying to you. But this is not belief in objective truth, it is subjective in nature. I subjectively believe in what my church teaches as do you. There is NO ability to objectively prove it to another person. That another, after listening to you may be convinced you are right, only establishes that they too subjectively consider it truth. Truth is objective, capable of replication to everyone, proveable by logic and testing. Faith by its intrinsic nature cannot be this EVER.

And for the life of me I can’t figure out why you don’t believe that same thing about your own faith? Is it that the faith you have now is good for now, but if something truer comes along that will be better? Why the reluctance to commit to your faith? Why say you believe is is true and then say that it may or may not be true. That makes no sense. You either believe it’s true, or you believe it’s not true. A more accurate statement would be, “I think that my faith might be true. Since I can’t prove it, I’m not going to commit.”

But I do believe in what my church teaches, and believe it to be true. Faith is and always should be tested and corrected, added to or subtracted to as new information, insight, are gained. Faith is growth hopefully. It should not remain static for that is faith that is dead. I have no reluctance to commit, and you again have no rational basis for this conclusion based on anything I have said. I have explained to you which no one can say that they have truth, because all truth is based on belief. Why do you think it is called faith? Your logic is faulty. I do think my faith is true. I cannot prove it. I therefore explain it as true for me, without trying to tell others that it MUST be theirs. They may well have ideas of their own, such as you have.

Actually, it is you who plays victim. You’ve posted oddles of responses complainging that Catholics don’t use the words to describe their faith that make you happy. If Catholic says that Catholicism is the truth, you are offended. You want us to say that it might be the truth, because that is what you believe about your own faith.

I rightly object to illogical statements that claim that because your faith defines something as true, that it necessarily is for anyone other than yourself and those who agree with you. That is all. Be logical, we have no problem. I don’t object to anyone saying Catholicism is truth, just be sure to say “for me”. It is not objectively true for the world quite obviously. No your last sentence is again incorrect. You apparently are unable to discern what I think unfortunately. I’ve said it again and again.

You insist on discussing the differences between Catholicism and your faith, but you want Catholics to water-down their faith when communicating with you. If the Catholic states a believe that you don’t like, that you think is insulting to you (that the Catholic faith is truth, for example), you try to insist that the Catholic change the belief to agree with your views on your own faith, namely that “it may or may not be true.”

Speaking rationally and with logic is not watering down anything. You simply are as I said unable to grasp the difference between faith and objective truth. I have never attempted to get any Catholic to change their belief. Again, you make it up as you understand it incorrectly. Look, you and I both believe that God exists. For both of us that is truth. You cannot prove God’s existence any more than I can. It remains our belief. This is not hard to get.

The truth is that Catholics do believe that their faith is the truth. They believe that Jesus founded the Church, for example, and that that is a fact, not just a possibility among many possibilities.

You are most correct. Most Catholics presumably do believe this. Believe would be the key word here.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

con’t of Kalt reply

You want to discuss the Catholic faith, but you can’t handle the truth about what Catholics believe. This is why you go around insisting that we say our faith might be true, but might not be.

Again, this is pure nonsense. I believe absolutely that you believe what you believe. I have no illusions whatsoever about what you believe. I have never said to anyone that they say their faith might be true or might not be. I said that is the objective fact for all of us since we are not dealing with verifiable testable premises. We are dealing with belief.
When that effort failed, you say that any Catholic who refuses to say that the Catholic faith might not be true, can’t speak English and needs an interpreter.

Disagreeing with you is not the same as not understanding you. I understand what you are saying–the complaint that you’ve been repeating for days now - and I disagree.

If you disagree, with what I have no explained again for you, then you determine to be illogical.
con’t.

QUOTE]You are under no obligation to agree with Catholic doctrine or theology, and I’ve already said that several times. Perhaps it is you who can’t read, since you insist on claiming that I want you accept my faith.

No I take you at your word that you don’t care if we believe as you do or not.

What I ask–and this may be emotionally or intellectually impossible for you–is to accept the Catholic faith for what it is. Not to become Catholic, but to accept Catholicism for what it is, and to quit insisting that Catholics denounce their faith with statments like, “My faith may or may not be true.”

I’m able to grasp your meaning, thanks. I accept Catholicism for what it is, a faith among many. Again, no one is asking you to denounce anything. Your blind spot on this is enormous it seems, you’ve said the same thing now 20 times.

I will repeat it again. - The above is not a Catholic thought. Believing that our faith may or may not be true, is not a Catholic belief.

Of course it’s not a Catholic teaching, it’s comes with the territory of being a believer in God.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

=kalt;5166960]Finally found this, and it’s too late to edit my last post.

Spiritmeadow, as an example of what Catholics believe (one of the beliefs you had a problem with, I think) -

In an earlier thread, you and others were quite upset about what Catholics believe about the Eucharist. No one asked you to believe what was stated, but only to accept that it is what Catholics believe.

I don’t have any problem with what the church teaches about the Eucharist. I don’t agree with all of it necessarily, but I have no problem with it. I have no problem with what Catholics belief therefore.

I think however I have uncovered your confusion. What I was saying on the other thread was that we both agree fairly well on what the “real presence” means. This has nothing to do with whether or not the RCC agrees that any other Christian faith can properly confect the bread and wine. This cannot logically be the reason that it would deny non-RC’s who believe in the RP communion. We don’t have to agree that other churches can’t properly confect. That has nothing to do with real presence insofar as receiving it in a RCC. Their refusal is based more I believe on whether the doctrine of transubstantiation, when the change occurs,and whether the change is permanent (allowing for adoration and such.) I believe Episcopalians disagree so far with the 1st, am not sure on the 2nd, but we do believe that once consecrated it remains so, and it remains in the tabernacle or is sent out to the homebound.

This is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

1400 Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, “**have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders.”**239 It is for this reason that, for the Catholic Church, Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible."

No one doubts that this is what the RCC teaches. That is the belief of the RCC. It doesn’t make it objective reality however and it never can be made to be that. That would be logically absurd.

However this is our faith–This is the truth.

Yes it remains your belief as to what truth is. It cannot be objectively defined as truth except for yourself. You cannot prove that no non Catholic consecration is invalid by any means, save the words of your church. That is not proof, but explanation.

Catholics do not believe that truth is relative or subjective. Truth exists, and it can be known.

Of course you do. Everyone does that. Otherwise there would be no faith. We believe that for ourselves, we have garnered sufficient information upon which to judge a thing as true. It remains a subject by its definition and very being,not proveable objectively to the disinterested person. It is not a scientific proposition. You cannot ever win a debate proving the existence of God. It cannot be done. It’s been tried, many times. It convinces the believer, but not any one else. Ask anyone in philosophy to explain this to you.

I

think coming to a Catholic site and insisting that any Catholic member denounce or deny the faith by agreeing with you that truth can’t be known and that the Catholic faith may or may not be true is a grave misuse.

It is only through your faulty logic that you somehow twist things to arrive at that conclusion. You are wrong. It is laughable to suggest such a silly thing. I find way too much of value in the RCC to suggest that anyone who is doctrinally happy there should leave. That would be outrageous. For the last time, you need to figure out what faith, objective versus subjective reality, truth, etc mean.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Prodigal Son1 and SpiritMeadow,

I hear what you’re saying, but I’d like to chime that in the end, it’s a matter of moderation. Certainly politeness and charitable speech are very important, but on the other hand we want to avoid becoming so caught up in political correctness and not offending anyone that our speech becomes “tied up in knots”.

For example, I would say that statements about Marian devotions being “pagan”, or talking about Anglican “priestesses”, are offensive.

On the other hand, using a qualifier like "I believe that … " or "My opinion is that … " is generally advisable when making a statement that others are likely to disagree with, but is not strictly necessary 100% of the time. In some cases, the context simply makes it clear that I’m expressing my view while understanding that others may not agree with it.

Peter that is all that is asked. You have stated it quite well IMO

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

You make an excellent point.

On the other hand:

A. My church teaches that there is no valid priesthood but our own, and thus no valid Eucharist but ours. I am required to accept my church’s teaching on this

vs.

B. Your church has no valid priesthood and your Eucharist is just bread of no spiritual value.

You’d be surprised how many RC’s use B. And they are uniformly “surprised” that we get upset.

I too am distressed that the rules don’t seem to operate for both sides. I’ve been called a lot of things here, and apparently it’s okay, but I have been “penalized” for disrepecting a political party, a corporate entity if you will…Bet you can guess which one!

Yes - sometimes this site seems like “the [Republican] Party at prayer”. ​

About this:

• Praying to Mary or the saints is a pagan practice

• in principle, and in the Church’s intention, it’s not - but as practiced, it can be & often has been; there is absolutely nothing to stop that, or any other thing done by Christians of any Church, sinking into paganism. Prayer - even among Christians - can be pagan in its assumptions, whether it be to Saints or not. It seems a bit over-sensitive to be upset by that particular theological position in all circumstances, as though it could never in any sense be valid as a criticism of (in this case) Catholics. :twocents: So there does seem to be a place for saying it.

 

[kalt]

Prodigal Son1 and SpiritMeadow,

I hear what you’re saying, but I’d like to chime that in the end, it’s a matter of moderation. Certainly politeness and charitable speech are very important, but on the other hand we want to avoid becoming so caught up in political correctness and not offending anyone that our speech becomes “tied up in knots”.

For example, I would say that statements about Marian devotions being “pagan”, or talking about Anglican “priestesses”, are offensive.

On the other hand, using a qualifier like "I believe that … " or "My opinion is that … " is generally advisable when making a statement that others are likely to disagree with, but is not strictly necessary 100% of the time. In some cases, the context simply makes it clear that I’m expressing my view while understanding that others may not agree with it.

When talking about the differences in belief, there is no reason whatsoever to say “I believe” or “In my opinion”. When you’re speaking as a Catholic, it’s clear that you are expressing a Catholic opinion or belief. When you’re speaking as a Protestant, it’s abuntantly obvious that you are expressing a Protestant opinion or belief.

I think it should be noted that no one here has suggested that a Protestant, when discussing his faith here, preface his statements with “I believe” or “In my opinion”.

But is this really about PC language?

This is all going around because one non-Catholic poster insists that I, a Catholic, “admit” that the Catholic faith may or may not be true.

This debate, obviously, isn’t about using “soft” language. The goal isn’t really even to compare and contrast the different beliefs, but is, instead, an effort to get Catholics “admit” (her word) that the Catholic faith might be true or might not be, because there is no such thing as “objective truth”.

These are not Catholic beliefs, and there is no reason that a Catholic has to agree to “admitting” any of that.

PC language is pointless in a discussion on the differences in belief, since coming to a board that is used to compare and contrast these differences, the person must assume, logically, that we are sometimes talking about the differences in belief. We know that we are discussing the things that are different about the beliefs, so what reason is there to say, “In my opinion”. We already know we’re talking about things that are different! Is that really that hard to understand?

This is really a carry-over from another thread in which people were talking about the differences in belief about the Eucharist in the different Christian churches. This particular poster went bananas (for lack of a better way to explain her over-blown reaction) when I explained the Catholic belief on the Eucharist. That’s when she claimed that Catholics are arrogant when they say “This is the one, true Church which was founded by Jesus.” and other Catholic beliefs.

Well, we are discussing the differences as well as the similarities between religions here. But apparently this particular poster is very uncomfortable with hearing what Catholics believe. Realizing this, you have to wonder why she’s here–on a Catholic site! Does she think that we won’t state our beliefs here, because it might upset someone???

 

[Peter_J]

About this:

• Praying to Mary or the saints is a pagan practice

• in principle, and in the Church’s intention, it’s not - but as practiced, it can be & often has been; there is absolutely nothing to stop that, or any other thing done by Christians of any Church, sinking into paganism. Prayer - even among Christians - can be pagan in its assumptions, whether it be to Saints or not. It seems a bit over-sensitive to be upset by that particular theological position in all circumstances, as though it could never in any sense be valid as a criticism of (in this case) Catholics. :twocents: So there does seem to be a place for saying it.

Yes, there’s that too.

At the risk of being called a lazy b*m, let me re-post here something I put in another thread:

I’d like to quote something Kimberly Hahn wrote, about the time shortly before her conversion to Catholicism. After describing some conversations she had concerning Mary, she says:

“At this point I realized that certain examples of Marian piety that focused on Mary to the point of neglecting Jesus perhaps were not faithful to Catholic teaching on her. Perhaps these dear souls did not even realize it, but they were offending the Blessed Virgin even in their attempts to honor her, if they were neglecting her primary mission to bring us to her Son.”

• Rome Sweet Home

Strong words – bear in mind that she was Catholic at the time she wrote this!

 

[kalt]

If you could read what I say, your responses would be rationally related to what I say. All too often they are not.

You profoundedly don’t understand what faith is. Faith is belief in things not proveable. That is the essence of what faith is. That has nothing to do with what we each believe as truth. Hopefully we all believe that what our church teaches is truth. It would be an outrage to stay in a church you believed was lying to you. But this is not belief in objective truth, it is subjective in nature. I subjectively believe in what my church teaches as do you. There is NO ability to objectively prove it to another person. That another, after listening to you may be convinced you are right, only establishes that they too subjectively consider it truth. Truth is objective, capable of replication to everyone, proveable by logic and testing. Faith by its intrinsic nature cannot be this EVER.

But I do believe in what my church teaches, and believe it to be true. Faith is and always should be tested and corrected, added to or subtracted to as new information, insight, are gained. Faith is growth hopefully. It should not remain static for that is faith that is dead. I have no reluctance to commit, and you again have no rational basis for this conclusion based on anything I have said. I have explained to you which no one can say that they have truth, because all truth is based on belief. Why do you think it is called faith? Your logic is faulty. I do think my faith is true. I cannot prove it. I therefore explain it as true for me, without trying to tell others that it MUST be theirs. They may well have ideas of their own, such as you have.

I rightly object to illogical statements that claim that because your faith defines something as true, that it necessarily is for anyone other than yourself and those who agree with you. That is all. Be logical, we have no problem. I don’t object to anyone saying Catholicism is truth, just be sure to say “for me”. It is not objectively true for the world quite obviously. No your last sentence is again incorrect. You apparently are unable to discern what I think unfortunately. I’ve said it again and again.

Speaking rationally and with logic is not watering down anything. You simply are as I said unable to grasp the difference between faith and objective truth. I have never attempted to get any Catholic to change their belief. Again, you make it up as you understand it incorrectly. Look, you and I both believe that God exists. For both of us that is truth. You cannot prove God’s existence any more than I can. It remains our belief. This is not hard to get.

You are most correct. Most Catholics presumably do believe this. Believe would be the key word here.

I didn’t read your entire post, because I don’t have time right now. The first few lines, though, show again that you insist that if I don’t agree with you, that objective truth doesn’t exist, and that I cannot know that my faith is true, I must not be able to read and understand what you have been writing.

As I said before, not agreeing with you doesn’t mean that I don’t understand what you are saying.

You insist that to be fair, I must accept your POV. And that I am unfair and disprespectful because I don’t accept it.

The fact is that I know your POV and accept it for what it is. You are free to believe what you wish. If you believe that there is no objective truth and that you can’t know that what you believe is true, good for you.

Ironically, with all your ranting about disprespect, arrogance and all sorts of perceived offenses, it is you who is unwilling to accept the Catholic POV. It is you who is being offensive and disrespectful to the Catholic faith and Catholics when you insist that they agree with your belief that we can’t know that if our faith is the truth.

I have never asked you to believe that what you believe is the truth, but you have insisted, in 2 threads now, that I beleive that my faith may or may not be true.

You are insisting that I change my belief to agree with you. That is offensive, arrogant, and disrespectful.

Rather than see your actions for what they are, you attempt to deflect by saying that a Catholic expressing his beliefs accurately is really the offensive, arrogant, and disprespectful act.

If I had ever told you that you should believe what I believe, you would have a leg to stand on. But it has been you all along who has been out of bounds with your insistance that another change his opinion to match yours.

We were talking about the differences, and several times you tried to claim that Catholics believe something other than what they do in order to say that they things that are different are actually the same.

Is your goal here to compare and constrast religious beliefs, or is it to concoct in your own mind a version of Catholicism that eliminates any Catholic beliefs that make you feel bad.

I still have no idea why a Catholic belief would make you feel bad. You’re not Catholic, and you are not required to believe these things.

I snatched this from another board, because it supports what I’ve been saying all along about the Eucharist and other Catholic beliefs–that these beliefs are not optional and that the individual may not alter these beliefs to suit himself or a sense of ecumenism, as in saying that they may or may not be true, either to appease a person who might be upset about a Catholic belief, or to agree to a non-Catholic view (that objective truth doesn’t exist and that we can’t know that our faith is true).

" **To be a Catholic means that one accepts all that the Catholic Church teaches **because it alone teaches with the authority God gave to it in the person of St. Peter, the first pope and all the popes who have succeeded him."

 

[Peter_J]

Peter that is all that is asked. You have stated it quite well IMO

 

[SpiritMeadow]

When talking about the differences in belief, there is no reason whatsoever to say “I believe” or “In my opinion”. When you’re speaking as a Catholic, it’s clear that you are expressing a Catholic opinion or belief. When you’re speaking as a Protestant, it’s abuntantly obvious that you are expressing a Protestant opinion or belief.

I think it should be noted that no one here has suggested that a Protestant, when discussing his faith here, preface his statements with “I believe” or “In my opinion”.

But is this really about PC language?

This is all going around because one non-Catholic poster insists that I, a Catholic, “admit” that the Catholic faith may or may not be true.

This debate, obviously, isn’t about using “soft” language. The goal isn’t really even to compare and contrast the different beliefs, but is, instead, an effort to get Catholics “admit” (her word) that the Catholic faith might be true or might not be, because there is no such thing as “objective truth”.

These are not Catholic beliefs, and there is no reason that a Catholic has to agree to “admitting” any of that.

PC language is pointless in a discussion on the differences in belief, since coming to a board that is used to compare and contrast these differences, the person must assume, logically, that we are sometimes talking about the differences in belief. We know that we are discussing the things that are different about the beliefs, so what reason is there to say, “In my opinion”. We already know we’re talking about things that are different! Is that really that hard to understand?

This is really a carry-over from another thread in which people were talking about the differences in belief about the Eucharist in the different Christian churches. This particular poster went bananas (for lack of a better way to explain her over-blown reaction) when I explained the Catholic belief on the Eucharist. That’s when she claimed that Catholics are arrogant when they say “This is the one, true Church which was founded by Jesus.” and other Catholic beliefs.

Well, we are discussing the differences as well as the similarities between religions here. But apparently this particular poster is very uncomfortable with hearing what Catholics believe. Realizing this, you have to wonder why she’s here–on a Catholic site! Does she think that we won’t state our beliefs here, because it might upset someone???

Too bad you don’t have the honesty to just say Spiritmeadow. Everyone knows you are referring to me. And I have explained at great length, in the simplest of terms, and with great patience your utter misunderstandings of most of what I have said. I need not continue to repeat that I am not asking you to water down, admit that what the RCC may not be truth, or anything like this. You cannot or will not grasp the obvious that in matters of faith, there is no proving concepts. There is only faith and belief, and apparently God so wishes it.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I didn’t read your entire post, because I don’t have time right now. The first few lines, though, show again that you insist that if I don’t agree with you, that objective truth doesn’t exist, and that I cannot know that my faith is true, I must not be able to read and understand what you have been writing.

As I said before, not agreeing with you doesn’t mean that I don’t understand what you are saying.

You insist that to be fair, I must accept your POV. And that I am unfair and disprespectful because I don’t accept it.

The fact is that I know your POV and accept it for what it is. You are free to believe what you wish. If you believe that there is no objective truth and that you can’t know that what you believe is true, good for you.

Ironically, with all your ranting about disprespect, arrogance and all sorts of perceived offenses, it is you who is unwilling to accept the Catholic POV. It is you who is being offensive and disrespectful to the Catholic faith and Catholics when you insist that they agree with your belief that we can’t know that if our faith is the truth.

I have never asked you to believe that what you believe is the truth, but you have insisted, in 2 threads now, that I beleive that my faith may or may not be true.

You are insisting that I change my belief to agree with you. That is offensive, arrogant, and disrespectful.

Rather than see your actions for what they are, you attempt to deflect by saying that a Catholic expressing his beliefs accurately is really the offensive, arrogant, and disprespectful act.

If I had ever told you that you should believe what I believe, you would have a leg to stand on. But it has been you all along who has been out of bounds with your insistance that another change his opinion to match yours.

We were talking about the differences, and several times you tried to claim that Catholics believe something other than what they do in order to say that they things that are different are actually the same.

Is your goal here to compare and constrast religious beliefs, or is it to concoct in your own mind a version of Catholicism that eliminates any Catholic beliefs that make you feel bad.

I still have no idea why a Catholic belief would make you feel bad. You’re not Catholic, and you are not required to believe these things.

I snatched this from another board, because it supports what I’ve been saying all along about the Eucharist and other Catholic beliefs–that these beliefs are not optional and that the individual may not alter these beliefs to suit himself or a sense of ecumenism, as in saying that they may or may not be true, either to appease a person who might be upset about a Catholic belief, or to agree to a non-Catholic view (that objective truth doesn’t exist and that we can’t know that our faith is true).

" **To be a Catholic means that one accepts all that the Catholic Church teaches **because it alone teaches with the authority God gave to it in the person of St. Peter, the first pope and all the popes who have succeeded him."

You said it all…you didn’t bother to read. And you restate the same exact line of inaccurate illogic each time around. Our conversation seems permanently at an end. I must perforce conclude that you cannot understand what is basic to the study of philosophy and metaphysics and theology.

You end where you always end, by stating the obvious. Every catholic must believe what the Church teaches. Of course they do. You BELIEVE IT. We get it, each and every time.

 

[adrift]

So many times I see the simplistic definition of faith to believe in what you cannot prove.

That is not faith. A friend tells you that they will meet you at three at the store. When you go to meet that friend you are demonstrating faith in that persons word. You will be able to prove your faith right or wrong. We express faith in things and people all the time that can be proven. When we drive a car we have faith that our car will work and that other drivers will drive in a way that will not hurt us.

A definition of FAITH

The acceptance of the word of another, trusting that one knows what the other is saying and is honest in telling the truth. The basic motive of all faith is the authority (or right to be believed) of someone who is speaking. This authority is an adequate knowledge of what he or she is talking about, and integrity in not wanting to deceive. It is called divine faith when the one believed is God, and human faith when the persons believed are human beings. (Etym. Latin fides, belief; habit of faith; object of faith.)

Faith - In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word means essentially steadfastness. As signifying man’s attitude towards God it means trustfulness or fiducia
Faith does not depend on proof or the lack of it. For if you say that it isn’t faith if you can prove it than none of the Apostles had faith. They saw the risen Jesus yet they still had faith. They witnessed all the miracles but still had faith. Faith can be without proof but it can also be with proof.

 

[Peter_J]

Too bad you don’t have the honesty to just say Spiritmeadow. Everyone knows you are referring to me.

I didn’t. Although I suppose that doesn’t count, since I didn’t read the post in question.

Every catholic must believe what the Church teaches.

That’s not the Catholic way of looking at it.

Take for example the Immaculate Conception. Are Catholics required to believe it? Yes. Were Catholics always required to believe it? No.

So does that means that it wasn’t always “taught by the Catholic Church”? This is where we disagree. Protestants would say that it wasn’t taught by the Catholic Church until 1854 because that’s when Catholics were required to believe it. But we Catholics would say that this truth (and all other Catholic doctrines) was contained in the Deposit of Faith from the beginning, even though it wasn’t a mandatory belief until 1854.

(Similarly, when certain Catholics lobby to have “Co-redemptrix” dogmatically defined, they are not saying “The Catholic Church doesn’t teach this, but she should.” Rather they are saying “The Catholic Church does teach this, and it would be even better if she proclaimed it as a dogma.”)