New anti-catholic book spreading falsehoods

[commenter]

This line of thinking could take a person to several Christian churches.
Many are disliked or “hated” by those who have such feelings.
.

At least in the United States, 90% of all attacks of religion are attacks on Catholicism.
Have you seen any anti-Presbyterian movies, or anti-Semitic scenes or comedy sketches on TV lately? I didn’t think so.
Go to the library or bookstore, look for all anti-religious books; there won’t be any anti-Lutheran, etc, nor any anti-Hindu. Or check out religion section of Huffington Post or other internet giants. Do they really bother attacking Methodism, or other Protestant churches, that had the same degree of problem with sexual offending clergy, but 1% of the media coverage the Catholic Church got? Have you checked out what religion is most often attacked on campus today?

Maybe some people have “feelings” against the other religions. But among the powerful opinion makers in academia, politics, and, most important, the media, Anti-Catholicism is the only remaining respectable prejudice.

 

[commenter]

Looks like this came out a year ago.
Just because a book questions and re-examines a belief system, it doesn’t mean it is “anti” anything.
There is nothing wrong with talking, questioning, and debating of course. That is healthy.
And just because someone doesn’t agree with one group’s beliefs, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are attacking it (tho I know you did not use that word).
.

The problem is that the author presents no new ideas, he is simply recycling old ideas that were previously examined, and found lacking. It’s not really creative to suggest “Maybe the earth really is flat”; that is equivalent to the old ideas he is dressing up as if they are bold, new, cutting-edge. He’s not really taking the courageous, unpopular view. Catholicism is the courageous, unpopular view, questioning the belief system of 2014. He’s embracing the establishment view on religion, the view of the mass media and academic establishment. He’s not challenging the establishment, he follows it slavishly.

 

[bisco1]

and yet, the same ol’ thang has been selling since before martin luther. give 'em what their itching ears want to hear.

 

[JackieO123]

and yet, the same ol’ thang has been selling since before martin luther. give 'em what their itching ears want to hear.

“And while you’re at it, tear out this inconvenient verse in the bible!”

Though to be fair, Luther wasn’t as bad as some other reformers.

 

[Dpoc41]

Once again, I don’t see how the author is being anti-Catholic. He seems to explore and question many possibilities and other interpretations of words and events.
But how is that spreading falsehoods and being anti-Catholic?

I can see how the “on this rock” quote could be interpreted a few different ways.

.

Is declaring - St Peter was infected with ideas of women’s inferiority, true or false ?

Is saying - There is no need to pray for the dead, true or false ?

Is saying - the idea that the death of Jesus is pleasing to The Father is utterly repugnant, and that the death of Jesus on the cross was not a sacrificial act, true or false ?

Is saying - The Church’s infallible doctrinal pronouncement regarding the Assumption fails, true or false ?

Is saying - purgatory does not exist true or false ?

Are not all these statements anti-catholic ?, or is it ok because he claims to be a catholic ?

 

[Dorothy]

The very first sentence may point out it is “a critical but sympathetic re-appraisal” of the doctrines of Christian churches over the last 2000 years but all he does is trash traditional catholic beliefs: " Hell does not exist, doubts The Trinity, Purgatory does not exist, no Venial or Mortal sins, all sins are the same, no need for Confession, Canonisation is farcical and irrelevant, no need to pray for the dead, calls the idea that the death of Jesus is a pleasing to The Father as utterly repugnant, questions Original Sin, says we have made a fetish of the use of water from a Baptismal Font, people sitting in the pews at Mass are living out a delusion, Obligatory Mass on sunday is a great disservice, the death of Jesus on the cross was not a sacrificial act, there is no moral justification for the Church’s condemnation of The use of contraceptives (excluding abortifacients). Coitus Interruptus, Homosexuality, Pre-marital / Casual Sex, Auto-Eroticism, St. Peter was infected with ideas of women’s inferiority, Jesus did not welcome or place a value on people’s suffering, (Had Jesus placed value on people’s pain and suffering he could have offered to make healthy people sick instead of healing their sicknesses, or he could have suggested to them other means whereby they could endure pain in order to offer it to the Father in love and homage.), The Church’s infallible doctrinal pronouncement regarding the Assumption fails on two counts. First, it has failed to take into account the fact that the Blessed Virgin Mary, like every other living being, effectively had, not one, but many bodies. And Second, it has “infallibly” adopted an impossibility, a self-contradictory proposal, that a material entity can exist in an entirely “spiritual” non-material domain?. If all this bile is not anti-catholic, what is?

Thank you for sharing what is in the book! It certainly is designed to fill vulnerable minds with doubts.

 

[Dpoc41]

“And while you’re at it, tear out this inconvenient verse in the bible!”

Though to be fair, Luther wasn’t as bad as some other reformers.

definitely not as bad as Calvin.

 

[bisco1]

Once again, I don’t see how the author is being anti-Catholic. He seems to explore and question many possibilities and other interpretations of words and events.
But how is that spreading falsehoods and being anti-Catholic?

I can see how the “on this rock” quote could be interpreted a few different ways.

.

sure, i understand that if you’re not catholic, you can interpret Jesus’ words to mean whatever you want. what will you say to Him at the judgement?

 

[lightbeamrider]

Is saying - the idea that the death of Jesus is pleasing to The Father is utterly repugnant, and that the death of Jesus on the cross was not a sacrificial act, true or false ?

Pleasing to the Father may have to do with Isaiah 53:10.

The LORD was pleased to crush him in infirmity. If he gives his life as an offering for sin,
he shall see his descendants in a long life,
and the will of the LORD shall be accomplished through him.

Because of his affliction
he shall see the light in fullness of days;
through his suffering, my servant shall justify many,
and their guilt he shall bear.

usccb.org/bible/readings/102112.cfm

studylight.org/commentaries/hcc/view.cgi?bk=isa&ch=53&vs=10

Verse 10

Bruise. Septuagint, “to cleanse him from the wound.” (Haydock) — God was pleased that he should satisfy fro our crimes. — Hand. Christ has died for all, and established a Church which shall not perish.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=300864