Most Annoying Misconceptions About Your Tradition?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lokabrenna
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
For the traditionalist.
  1. You are in protest of the Church, therefore “Protestant”
  2. You do not accept the authority of the Catholic Church.
  3. You believe the Novus Ordo is invalid.
  4. You believe that our current Holy Father is invalid and the Chair is empty.
  5. You drive a cargo van, because you have 8-10 kids (although, this is somewhat true! and I love it!)
  6. You’re a stick in the mud due to your strict adherence to your faith, and not great company.
  7. You hate modern music.
  8. You are a feeneyite.
  9. You reject ANY change in our Church.
I could prolly go on, but I won’t.
 
You don’t believe in “the Church” or objective truth. You don’t believe in the Real Presence.

And “You belong tp a church where the Queen is the Pope and it was started because of adultery”.
 
Bran_Stark said:
Yup. It’s sadly often printed without them these days, but you could also print a Catholic Bible without them, were you so inclined. (And had copyright permission…)

Either translation would still be complete, just sold in an abridged version.
Click to expand...
The word “misconception” means something people think that is not accurate.

If people think that the KJV does not include the deuterocanonical books,

and the KJV in fact does not include the deuterocanonical books,

then that is not a misconception, that is the truth.
 
Irish_Polock said:
For the traditionalist.
  1. You are in protest of the Church, therefore “Protestant”
  2. You do not accept the authority of the Catholic Church.
  3. You believe the Novus Ordo is invalid.
  4. You believe that our current Holy Father is invalid and the Chair is empty.
  5. You drive a cargo van, because you have 8-10 kids (although, this is somewhat true! and I love it!)
  6. You’re a stick in the mud due to your strict adherence to your faith, and not great company.
  7. You hate modern music.
  8. You are a feeneyite.
  9. You reject ANY change in our Church.
I could prolly go on, but I won’t.
Click to expand...
So are you saying that they misperceive you as a sedevacantist? Because I thought sedevacantist believed, at the very least, 3 and 4.
 
seeker57 said:
Oh boy, where to begin . . .

Unitarian Universalists can believe anything they want.

UUs are lapsed Christians.

UUs don’t believe in anything.

UUs are heretics. (This is usually alleged by Christians because many of us were brought up Christian. Actually, those who were reared as Christians would more accurately be called apostates, not heretics.)

There are others, but I also don’t want to bore you.

Peace,

Seeker
Click to expand...
I must consider myself guilty of some of these. I always figured that UU could theoretically believe in anything they wanted. But then again I got this information from an atheist who works making music for the UU, so I have at least somewhat of an excuse. 😊
 
gatewood1988 said:
All Pagans worship Satan.
All Pagans sacrifice babies.
All Pagans sacrifice animals.

Again I could go on and on too lol 😛
Click to expand...
“Episcopalians don’t believe anything” or “Episcopalians aren’t recognizably Christian.”

Hello! Nicene Creed every week over here!

Edwin
 
mark_a said:
From an outsider’s point of view, besides the name (Lutheranism), that seems to be a massive PR failure.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you mean by that. Luther insisted over and over again that faith alone did not make works unimportant.

I’m not sure that it’s a PR failure so much as deliberate propaganda, at least among Catholics. Many Catholics find it convenient to believe in a caricature of Luther as a way of rejecting all Protestantism.

Granted, Luther himself had no sense of PR and left many “hostages to fortune.” But anyone who bothers to give any serious attention to the subject has no excuse.

I guess I don’t see a “PR failure” as a “failure” on the part of the group being misunderstood. PR is really another way of saying “I don’t care about truth enough to inform myself, so you have to explain yourself to the world very loudly in extremely simple terms or else I will engage in ridiculous caricatures of you and blame you for my misunderstanding.”

This is how many people treat Pope Benedict. He gets blamed for “gaffes” just because he tries to communicate in a thoughtful and intelligent way, caring about truth rather than about the silly modern idol called “PR.”

Same with the Primate of my Communion, Rowan Williams.

Edwin
 
Bluegoat said:
You don’t believe in “the Church” or objective truth. You don’t believe in the Real Presence.

And “You belong tp a church where the Queen is the Pope and it was started because of adultery”.
Click to expand...
Keeps me busy, it does.

GKC
 
PaulDupre said:
The word “misconception” means something people think that is not accurate.

If people think that the KJV does not include the deuterocanonical books,

and the KJV in fact does not include the deuterocanonical books,

then that is not a misconception, that is the truth.
Click to expand...
But it does. That’s the point. Some editions have them, others don’t.
 
Bluegoat said:
But it does. That’s the point. Some editions have them, others don’t.
Click to expand...
Really? I own two KJVs and neither one includes the deuterocanonical books. Where can I purchase a current KJV that includes them?

Paul
 
PaulDupre said:
Cool, thanks! I’ll check out the Oxford Press edition as well.

While I don’t appreciate the reference to the deuteros as “apocrypha”, I understand.

My favorite OT book is Sirach, a deuterocanonical book.

Paul
Click to expand...
I don’t use the term for the deuterocanonicals, myself. I keep that for New Testament work, as in M. R. James’ APOCRYPHAL NEW TESTAMENT. But it’s a common term.

Last time I was a reader for the Lesson at Mass, the reading was from Sirach.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus
 

  1. *]That Catholics worship Mary.
    *]That Catholicism is the “whore of Babylon”.
    *]That all Catholic priests are pedophiles.
 
Eutychus123 said:
I like Bel and the Dragon.
Click to expand...
Haha yes. It would be so nice to hear this read in church:

Then Daniel took pitch, and fat, and hair, and did seethe them together, and made lumps thereof: this he put in the dragon’s mouth, and so the dragon burst in sunder : and Daniel said, Lo, these are the gods ye worship.

But the most amazingly awesome story is surely from First Maccabees Six:

And to the end they might provoke the elephants to fight, they shewed them the blood of grapes and mulberries. Moreover they divided the beasts among the armies, and for every elephant they appointed a thousand men, armed with coats of mail, and with helmets of brass on their heads; and beside this, for every beast were ordained five hundred horsemen of the best. These were ready at every occasion: wheresoever the beast was, and whithersoever the beast went, they went also, neither departed they from him. And upon the beasts were there strong towers of wood, which covered every one of them, and were girt fast unto them with devices: there were also upon every one two and thirty strong men, that fought upon them, beside the Indian that ruled him. As for the remnant of the horsemen, they set them on this side and that side at the two parts of the host giving them signs what to do, and being harnessed all over amidst the ranks. Now when the sun shone upon the shields of gold and brass, the mountains glistered therewith, and shined like lamps of fire. So part of the king’s army being spread upon the high mountains, and part on the valleys below, they marched on safely and in order. Wherefore all that heard the noise of their multitude, and the marching of the company, and the rattling of the harness, were moved: for the army was very great and mighty. Then Judas and his host drew near, and entered into battle, and there were slain of the king’s army six hundred men. Eleazar also, surnamed Savaran, perceiving that one of the beasts, armed with royal harness, was higher than all the rest, and supposing that the king was upon him, Put himself in jeopardy, to the end he might deliver his people, and get him a perpetual name: Wherefore he ran upon him courageously through the midst of the battle, slaying on the right hand and on the left, so that they were divided from him on both sides. Which done, he crept under the elephant, and thrust him under, and slew him: whereupon the elephant fell down upon him, and there he died.
 
Holly3278 said:

  1. *]That Catholics worship Mary.
    *]That Catholicism is the “whore of Babylon”.
    *]That all Catholic priests are pedophiles.
Click to expand...

  1. Holly.
    This list does not belong here, for they are not “annoying misconceptions” as the OP requested. No, they are **hideous falsehoods **that should immediately be dispatched to the trash heap of history!
    The list I provided regarding the misconceptions of Lutheranism pales in their offensiveness when compared to these about our Catholic siblings in Christ.

    Jon
 
Bran_Stark said:
Haha yes. It would be so nice to hear this read in church:

Then Daniel took pitch, and fat, and hair, and did seethe them together, and made lumps thereof: this he put in the dragon’s mouth, and so the dragon burst in sunder : and Daniel said, Lo, these are the gods ye worship.

But the most amazingly awesome story is surely from First Maccabees Six:

And to the end they might provoke the elephants to fight, they shewed them the blood of grapes and mulberries. Moreover they divided the beasts among the armies, and for every elephant they appointed a thousand men, armed with coats of mail, and with helmets of brass on their heads; and beside this, for every beast were ordained five hundred horsemen of the best. These were ready at every occasion: wheresoever the beast was, and whithersoever the beast went, they went also, neither departed they from him. And upon the beasts were there strong towers of wood, which covered every one of them, and were girt fast unto them with devices: there were also upon every one two and thirty strong men, that fought upon them, beside the Indian that ruled him. As for the remnant of the horsemen, they set them on this side and that side at the two parts of the host giving them signs what to do, and being harnessed all over amidst the ranks. Now when the sun shone upon the shields of gold and brass, the mountains glistered therewith, and shined like lamps of fire. So part of the king’s army being spread upon the high mountains, and part on the valleys below, they marched on safely and in order. Wherefore all that heard the noise of their multitude, and the marching of the company, and the rattling of the harness, were moved: for the army was very great and mighty. Then Judas and his host drew near, and entered into battle, and there were slain of the king’s army six hundred men. Eleazar also, surnamed Savaran, perceiving that one of the beasts, armed with royal harness, was higher than all the rest, and supposing that the king was upon him, Put himself in jeopardy, to the end he might deliver his people, and get him a perpetual name: Wherefore he ran upon him courageously through the midst of the battle, slaying on the right hand and on the left, so that they were divided from him on both sides. Which done, he crept under the elephant, and thrust him under, and slew him: whereupon the elephant fell down upon him, and there he died.
Click to expand...
Funny True Story: This passage is one of the appointed readings for either Evening or Morning Prayer in the Book of Common Prayer. The first time I ever heard it I was at my college chapel with a few friends, while another friend was reading the office. Something about this story struck me so funny that I got a terrible case of the giggles and had to leave because I couldn’t stop laughing. I just couldn’t get the picture of the guy being squashed by the elephant out of my mind.
 
Bluegoat said:
Funny True Story: This passage is one of the appointed readings for either Evening or Morning Prayer in the Book of Common Prayer. The first time I ever heard it I was at my college chapel with a few friends, while another friend was reading the office. Something about this story struck me so funny that I got a terrible case of the giggles and had to leave because I couldn’t stop laughing. I just couldn’t get the picture of the guy being squashed by the elephant out of my mind.
Click to expand...
I see the battle of Pelennor Fields, from RETURN OF THE KING.

GKC
 
GKC said:
I see the battle of Pelennor Fields, from RETURN OF THE KING.

GKC
Click to expand...
Yes, or the other way around. The story was about pre-LOTR movie days, so it didn’t have any real associations for me then.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top