Please explain this to me

  • Thread starter Thread starter ralphinal
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ralphinal said:
You left out the forth reply: yes, it was done by people in the “name” of the Church. However, it was not done because of dogma or on orders of the Church herself but under the misguided plans of humans who are capable of horrible sins.
Click to expand...
But, see, at times, it WAS done on direct order of the church, esp. a Pope. What about those cases? A few of the Popes who gave such orders were later canonized, in fact.

How can this be explained by the modern church?
 
Jonathan_Cid said:
I think the problem is two-fold:
  1. Too much rationalization.
  2. Too little heart.
We can explain, but if people never feel how we actually feel about the Catholic Church, they will only stay away from Her. It may be hard for us to understand, but people are afraid of the Catholic Church, disturbed by their misunderstandings of the Catholic Church. Sometimes people hate what they fear. Rather than just arguing about the faith, we should also be showing warmth and Love. If we want to win hearts, we won’t do it by doing it our own way - we have to do it Christ’s way.

That means I love you and I consider you my own even before you have learned all that you should, or changed all the ways you should. That means I don’t degrade you as “less Catholic” (something I’ve personally seen) or “less worthy”. Jesus took Mary Magdalene amongst His own even before she had repented and seen her wrongs. It had nothing to do with being correct.
Click to expand...
I’m not afraid of the Catholic church. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m not.

The only time I could ever be afraid of the church is if she held vast temporal power again.
 
I’m not afraid of the Catholic church. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m not.
Click to expand...
Well, to be more specific, I mean that there are those who feel a tug towards the Catholic Church and are afraid because they don’t know what to think of the Catholic Church or are afraid of Her teachings.
 
Jonathan_Cid said:
Well, to be more specific, I mean that there are those who feel a tug towards the Catholic Church and are afraid because they don’t know what to think of the Catholic Church or are afraid of Her teachings.
Click to expand...
I have always felt a closeness to the rituals and external trappings of the pre-Vatican II Catholic church, because that is the church my mother’s (very ethnic) family grew up in. For me, certain aspects of the traditional church remind me of members of my family (in some ethnic cultures, like ours…Italian…the Catholic religion is very bound up in the ethnicity as well.) To this day I have a fondness for St Rita, St Rocco, St Maria Goretti…because they remind me of certain Italian festivals my family used to attend.

Even my mother, after her conversion to Orthodox Judaism, never spoke badly about her former religion…so I don’t see why so many today feel a need to badmouth their former faith.
 
  • First, do you even care about the truth or what anyone says?*
Yes!
  • Second, is it possible that we are not doing a good job discussing these things?
Sometimes. For one, we let threads get hijacked, instead of saying, for instance, “Why don’t you start a thread about the Spanish Inquisition, and I’ll answer you there?”

Second, sometimes we forget that we can’t hear someone’s tone of voice on the forums, and let ourselves feel insulted when no insult is intended.

Third, we don’t ignore insults when they are intended!

I could go on, and on, and on… and of course, I’m far from innocent here…

Finally, do any of you believe in impenetrable ignorance?

Yes. for instance, our Muslim friends believe the Quran to be infallible, so, since it says that we Trinitarians worship three gods, they will never accept any of our explanations of the Trinity. I will continue explaining it, though, to the best of my ability.

Ruthie
 
Sepharad said:
But, see, at times, it WAS done on direct order of the church, esp. a Pope. What about those cases? A few of the Popes who gave such orders were later canonized, in fact.

How can this be explained by the modern church?
Click to expand...
At times, it is ignored. At other times, it is explained with the truth: he messed up. Being a saint does not meant they never sinned. Nor does it mean they never made a mistake. Same with being the pope. The fact is that is has never been dogma of the Church that those who disagreed with her should be hunted down and killed. We are not militant Islamists.

I really hate the fact that people behaving in a way they saw fit but ina non-Christian manner non the less have put us in a position to defend the faith. Had all Catholics always acted like we are called to act, there would be only CAtholics in the world.
 
Ruthie said:
  • First, do you even care about the truth or what anyone says?*
Yes!
  • Second, is it possible that we are not doing a good job discussing these things?
Sometimes. For one, we let threads get hijacked, instead of saying, for instance, “Why don’t you start a thread about the Spanish Inquisition, and I’ll answer you there?”

Second, sometimes we forget that we can’t hear someone’s tone of voice on the forums, and let ourselves feel insulted when no insult is intended.

Third, we don’t ignore insults when they are intended!

I could go on, and on, and on… and of course, I’m far from innocent here…

Finally, do any of you believe in impenetrable ignorance?

Yes. for instance, our Muslim friends believe the Quran to be infallible, so, since it says that we Trinitarians worship three gods, they will never accept any of our explanations of the Trinity. I will continue explaining it, though, to the best of my ability.

Ruthie
Click to expand...
Excellent points.
 
Sepharad said:
It all depends on what you mean by “corrected”. Catholics and non-Catholics have different understandings of history, in many cases.

If you ask a Roman Catholic about their church’s treatment of, say, the Waldensians, they may say that the Waldensians deserved it because of this, that or the other.

However, if you ask a Waldensian, they will see it quite differently.

The Catholic “take” on, say, the Spanish Inquisition is quite different from the Jewish “take” on it.

I remember when I was learning about the Spanish Inquisition in history class in public school, I was shocked…I asked my mother (a former Catholic converted to Judaism) what she thought about it. She told me that in Catholic school, they did not teach anything about it. I don’t know if that is still true, but it may explain why so many Catholics I meet are shocked when they hear about it.

I think what infuriates me is when Catholics who DO know about it, try to play it down or even worse, turn the events back onto the victims. Perhaps I feel more sensitive about this, since it involved part of my ancestral family…but its very insulting when the descendants of those who persecuted your ancestors tries to say a) it didn’t happen, b) it happened but the church was justified in doing it, or c) hardly any Jews were affected (I’ve heard all three replies from varying types of Catholics.)
Click to expand...
As a side note the teaching in public schools are not always correct either. Many historical documents show that the Spanish Inquisition was driven by the Spanish Monarchy and were political in nature. There are letters written by the Pope to the monarchy requesting them to stop their actions. I agree that Catholics have often done shameful acts; however, sources have to be inspected. The Spanish Inquistion also can not be read out of context of the times. Muslims were taking over large parts of Christendom and Christians were afraid. Spain was one of the few western empires withstanding the invasions of the time.
 
Do not intend to spend the energy, time and thought to construct
another post on indulgences. Perhaps people refuse to see
indulgences - in a ‘Catholic way’ - because they hold that the
Church is in error, on this.

quote: reen12, from another thread
Poor Martin. As Tezel’s agents sang the ditty:

As soon as the coin in the coffer rings
A soul from purgatory springs…

Martin’s piety was injured. How could these men “sell” indulgences?
Not that this was ever the official teaching of the Church.

Consulting the current catechism of the CC, on the Vatican’s website:
In terms of indulgences, one finds:

#1441
“An indulgence is partial or plenary according as it removes either part or all
of the temporal punishment due to sin.”
“The faithful can gain indulgences for themselves or apply them to the dead.”

Apply them? This is fascinating terminology.

Apply them?

It ‘rings’ strangely, in the ear. Sounds more like the bus ‘transfer,’ of times past.
“This transfer entitles you to…”
Or collecting stamps, in a supermarket - in order to purchase your
very own set of dishes, at reduced cost.

“Here. Take my stamp - That’ll give you a full book.” :juggle: _____________________________________

“Gee. I’ve almost got enough days of indulgence, to spring my great great granny out of purgatory.”

“Here. Take the indulgence I earned. Then you’ll have a bigger number of days”

“I wonder if you’re allowed to ‘apply’ your earned indulgence to my great great granny?”

Thus are theological screeds generated, to address such weighty matters.

Summa ridiculosis. Part II section 11, paragraph 3:

“In the matter of rescuing one’s great, great, granny from purgatory,
please refer to the CCC, #1441, for details. And no, anticipating your next
question: An indulgence has no expiration date.
And please stop asking stupid questions.” :tsktsk:
Click to expand...
Three souls - awaiting the reception of the ‘all clear’ paperwork,
from the Indulgence Bureau. http://bestsmileys.com/nono/9.gif

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

reen12
 
I think one of the big reasons this happens is that there are always new people coming here who haven’t read all the previous explanations, and for them, the issue is fresh.

and they don’t just want to search old threads, they want to have their own personal “go” at it.

Good thing is, there are also fresh Catholic posters to provide correct information and correct any misunderstandings.

Some people, however, will persist with their pet theories, and beliefs no matter what. That is just how they are. They exist on both sides of any argument.

There are Catholic posters who repeat the same nonsense about non-Catholics no matter what anyone from the other side says, or how they present themselves.

It can be pretty threatening to some personality types to have the “other guy” turn out to be a pretty nice, intelligent guy, it’s easier when we can play us/them and the lines of demarcation are clear.

However, most people who stick around a while, become good contributing members of the forum. I think most of us here have friends on the “other side” that we respect, enjoy and who have taught us a great deal.

Give the newbies a chance, they’ll either get tired and leave or become a very productive contributer.
 
reen12 said:
Do not intend to spend the energy, time and thought to construct
another post on indulgences. Perhaps people refuse to see
indulgences - in a ‘Catholic way’ - because they hold that the
Church is in error, on this.

quote: reen12, from another thread

reen12
Click to expand...
This is not supposed to be a thread on indulgences, or any other doctrine, but if I may line out how this applies.

First, you raise the issue of the selling of indulgences.

Next, we show you that this was not ever Catholic teaching. It was an abuse carried out by certain men.

Now, instead of saying, ok, I was wrong, you begin to apply your misunderstanding of the doctrine to another part of it.

You may agree with what the Church teaches or disagree. That is not up to me to decide. You feel that the teaching on indugences is incorrect. So be it. My concern is that you are against the correct teaching and not what you have been told it is.

Now, for your other point, the Church has always taught that one can sacrafice for another. I can offer my sufferings in this world to help someone else. This is clearly spelled out when St. Paul said that his sufferings are offered up to make up that which is lacking in the sufferings of Christ.
 
quote: AnAtheist
Furthermore a well accepted theory is backed up by observation. Gravity is also “just a theory”, still things fall down.
Click to expand...
Bingo! My favorite? People of faith making a demand that an
atheist ‘prove’ that there is no deity.

When, when, when - will the simple canon of logic be
acknowledged. One is not to be called upon to ‘prove’ a negative.

One who asserts that unicorns exist, bears the burden of proof -
not the one who says I do not accept the assertion that a
deity exists.

Scenario:
North woods. Bigfoot enthusiast - scouring the woods for
evidence of the existence of this tall, furry creature.

“I tell you, he *does *exist!!”
“He does?” http://bestsmileys.com/nono/9.gif

‘evidence’ comes from the Latin ‘e’ [from] ‘videns’ [seeing]
*videre *= to see

Which is why Christ is quoted as saying:
“Blessed are those who have not seen…yet believed.”

“Believe” is the operative word, here.
If Christians could prove, empirically, that God existed -
there would be no call to have ‘faith.’

Theology is not illogical - once given assertions are granted
truth status, e.g. ‘Jesus was God/man.’’ ‘Human beings are
born into this world with original sin as part of their being.’
[an ontologic ‘reality.’]

I often think that what is considered ‘compelling evidence’
are faith-based statements.

reen12
 
quote: curtishouse29
I still have faith that someday I can get them to come to Mass once and let the Holy Spirit do Its Work though. 🙂
Click to expand...
I understand. 🙂 Was raised in an Irish-American Catholic family. Had 17 years of Catholic schooling. Did apologetics for years, even though I gave up the practice of the faith in 1965.

My endeavor was to make sure that Catholic belief and practice
was accurately stated. My motto? “If yer gonna reject something,
at least have a clear understanding of what it is that you are rejecting.”
Simple respect for accurate statement is, at the very least, a form of courtesy.

reen12
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top