What is the biggest misconception non-Catholics have of Catholicism?

[randomuser]

Emperor Constantine founded our religion.

See also: Post #9 by username boomerang.

 

[Son_of_Niall]

Emperor Constantine founded our religion.

Oh yes, very common accusation. And easily refuted by anyone with a third grade knowledge of history.
There are many, many articles and threads on CAF for anyone to read, so if they still believe it they have nobody to blame but themselves. I’m glad CAF encourages such inquiry to wild theories like that.

 

[Tommy999]

Oh yes, very common accusation. And easily refuted by anyone with a third grade knowledge of history.
There are many, many articles and threads on CAF for anyone to read, so if they still believe it they have nobody to blame but themselves. I’m glad CAF encourages such inquiry to wild theories like that.

Regarding Emperor Constantine, I found this piece by Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin:
catholic.com/video/did-the-emperor-constantine-found-the-catholic-church

If I understand correctly, Jimmy’s point is that the Catholic Church pre-existed Constantine by quite a long time and that Constantine officially proclaimed tolerance for Christians that turned them from a persecuted group into a tolerated group in the Roman Empire during Constantine’s day and beyond.

Follow up question:
Was Rome the center of Christian leadership in Europe before Constantine or did it become that way due to Constantine’s influence or did it happen independently of Constantine? Obviously, Christianity was somewhat underground when it was deemed illegal and Christians were prosecuted for their faith and martyred in the Coliseum and elsewhere.

In other words, was there already a ‘Bishop of Rome’ prior to Constantine’s decree of tolerance towards Christians or did that come after? I am weak in this area and don’t know the answer. I would appreciate help on this.

 

[adf417]

Hi adf417,
No, I have not heard any direct reference to Mary in the handful of Masses that I have listened to on radio (that I remember) or the one Mass that I went to in person over a year ago. However, I have heard many references to her outside of that.

Outside of the Mass is the key point here. Catholic worship, “the source and summit”, is within the Mass, our perfect worship. Judging outside of the Mass is very dangerous.

In regards to my concerns with the Marian doctrines/dogmas, it would be best to discuss that topic on another thread because I don’t want to derail this thread with that discussion, because it might be a long back-and-forth.

I started this thread to find out in a general way what Catholics consider misconceptions that non-Catholics have about Catholicism. I would prefer to stay on that topic and not focus entirely on one specific concern to the exclusion of all others.

However, if someone would like to open a new thread asking how Protestants view Mary and how some of us struggle to understand the Catholic view of her or something to that effect, I promise I will weigh in on such a thread.

I concede that many Catholics would consider my position on Mary to be a misconception and that I haven’t come around to the correct view yet. Perhaps that is true. Nevertheless, I am not disingenuous. I cannot pretend to believe in a doctrine or dogma unless I actually do.

Understood!

PS. Perhaps I am a little dense, but I don’t understand the correlation you are making between attention given to Mary and the Super Bowl. Sorry about that.

That which is outside the Catholic Mass is just that, outside of our perfect worship. If your impression of Marian devotions of Catholics is troublesome, why wouldn’t the hoopla around the super bowl be that much more troublesome? There is much more super bowl devotion this week that Marian devotions yet it seems to be considered as acceptable for all Christians.

Peace!!!

 

[zz912]

Regarding Emperor Constantine, I found this piece by Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin:
catholic.com/video/did-the-emperor-constantine-found-the-catholic-church

If I understand correctly, Jimmy’s point is that the Catholic Church pre-existed Constantine by quite a long time and that Constantine officially proclaimed tolerance for Christians that turned them from a persecuted group into a tolerated group in the Roman Empire during Constantine’s day and beyond.

Follow up question:
Was Rome the center of Christianity in Europe before Constantine or did it become that due to Constantine’s influence or did it happen independently of Constantine?

In other words, was there already a ‘Bishop of Rome’ prior to Constantine’s decree of tolerance towards Christians or did that come after? I am weak in this area and don’t know the answer.

You are correct, the Edict of Toleration by Constantine allowed for Christians to be free of persecutions. Christianity wasn’t made the state religion until decades after Constantine’s death.

And yes, there was a Bishop of Rome well before Constantine. In fact, Constantine pulled more power towards Constantinople (the city he named after himself). Even with this, the Bishop of Rome was the universal leader.

 

[Tommy999]

You are correct, the Edict of Toleration by Constantine allowed for Christians to be free of persecutions. Christianity wasn’t made the state religion until decades after Constantine’s death.

And yes, there was a Bishop of Rome well before Constantine. In fact, Constantine pulled more power towards Constantinople (the city he named after himself). Even with this, the Bishop of Rome was the universal leader.

Thanks for clarifying, zz912.

 

[ptisme]

Hi Della,
Yes, that is a an unfortunate stereotype. I understand that many of the top Bible scholars in Christendom are Catholic. I also know many Catholics on CAF (like you, PJM, and others) who know their Bible inside and out.

However, in my real world experience, the Catholics I have known growing up and in adulthood – for the most part – are more well-versed in religious ritual and tradition than the Bible. For example, many of the Catholics I have known outside of CAF have more knowledge of which saint to seek out for a certain type of prayer intention or malady than they have knowledge of the most basic Bible stories that many Protestants learn in their childhood and youth.

I realize that everyone’s personal dealings are different and that our mileage may vary, but that has been my experience.

I agree with you that Protestants don’t have the rich tradition to fall back on that Catholics do so they tend to focus more on the Bible and their pastors for guidance whereas Catholics have both the Bible *and * tradition to fall back on, so Catholics must learn both, so it’s kind of like comparing apples and oranges to a certain degree.

You no doubt ran into Catholics that didn’t know their bible. Sadly in the last century it wasn’t pushed. Luckily there are many well versed Protestant Pastors converting to Catholicism that are bringing their strong bible back ground and are becoming great evangelists…

 

[MT1926]

You no doubt ran into Catholics that didn’t know their bible. Sadly in the last century it wasn’t pushed. Luckily there are many well versed Protestant Pastors converting to Catholicism that are bringing their strong bible back ground and are becoming great evangelists…

Isn’t it amazing how powerful God is? He sure does work in mysterious ways:
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
This reminded me of a talk I heard on CAL. I am repeating what I heard so this isn’t set in stone. I think he was talking about the protestant reformation how we lost many Catholics at that time. However, he noted this was also at the time of the Spanish conquest of Mexico which brought Catholicism to Mexico. He said it much better than I did and gave numbers of Catholic conversions, but I remember actually say “Wow”, out loud.

 

[Rasoleil]

This probably has been covered in some way, That Catholics don’t read or know the Bible, but I’d like to add something of my own experiences lately. I’m Catholic and have read the Bible all of my life. Of course in the Mass we hear parts of the Bible in the liturgy of the word. Anyway, my dear wife, whom I love so much, is Lutheran ( ironically, it was me responsible for converting from Catholicism), and we both attend our respecting services, I on Sunday vigil and Holy Days of Obligations, by myself, and her, with me attending with her. Yeah, that’s how it is and she’s very anti-Catholic, so I try not to rock the boat, Also, ironically, it was I who was responsible for her, her parents, and 30 or so members leaving one Lutheran congregation to another en masse ( very long story). I’m not making this up either. Anyway, after Divine Services, there is a Bible class. Many of the congregation are former Catholics and many are cradle Lutherans, probably 50/50 split. Now, I only consider myself a casual reader of the Bible, but I’ve done so most of my life, but in these Bible classes, and I often dominate the classes ( other than the pastor), because the little I know is much more than what the others know. I also know more about Lutheran theology than most of them too. Part of what I mean to say is that that there are many Catholics ( at least from my won experience) that really don’t know the Bible, but that goes for other faiths too, even Lutherans. I can never win a Bible discussion with my wife because even if I’m right, I’m wrong, so I try not to rock the boat, and she’s darn good at using straw man arguments, putting words in my mouth, and even if I know the theology, history, dogma, doctrine, etc. of the church, it’s always a losing battle. Sometimes you just gotta agree or keep silent. As most most married men know, even if she’s wrong, she’s right, and just let it be,

 

[Peter_J]

That which is outside the Catholic Mass is just that, outside of our perfect worship.

if I may chime in ,though, most of our conversations are about things said outside of mass. (Just trying to be fair.)

 

[Tommy999]

This probably has been covered in some way, That Catholics don’t read or know the Bible, but I’d like to add something of my own experiences lately. I’m Catholic and have read the Bible all of my life. Of course in the Mass we hear parts of the Bible in the liturgy of the word. Anyway, my dear wife, whom I love so much, is Lutheran ( ironically, it was me responsible for converting from Catholicism), and we both attend our respecting services, I on Sunday vigil and Holy Days of Obligations, by myself, and her, with me attending with her. Yeah, that’s how it is and she’s very anti-Catholic, so I try not to rock the boat, Also, ironically, it was I who was responsible for her, her parents, and 30 or so members leaving one Lutheran congregation to another en masse ( very long story). I’m not making this up either. Anyway, after Divine Services, there is a Bible class. Many of the congregation are former Catholics and many are cradle Lutherans, probably 50/50 split. Now, I only consider myself a casual reader of the Bible, but I’ve done so most of my life, but in these Bible classes, and I often dominate the classes ( other than the pastor), because the little I know is much more than what the others know. I also know more about Lutheran theology than most of them too. Part of what I mean to say is that that there are many Catholics ( at least from my won experience) that really don’t know the Bible, but that goes for other faiths too, even Lutherans.** I can never win a Bible discussion with my wife because even if I’m right, I’m wrong, so I try not to rock the boat, and she’s darn good at using straw man arguments, putting words in my mouth, and even if I know the theology, history, dogma, doctrine, etc. of the church, it’s always a losing battle. Sometimes you just gotta agree or keep silent. As most most married men know, even if she’s wrong, she’s right, and just let it be,**

Thanks for that, Rasoleil. That’s the thing about generalities – there are always exceptions, and you definitely sound like one of them with your Bible knowledge. I am familiar with many Catholics on CAF who can run circles around me and my Bible knowledge, so I can relate to what you said.

I also can relate to what you said about your dealings with your wife (in bolded). I find myself sometimes defending the Catholic position on certain subjects, and we will just agree to disagree. It can become a little tense, so I try to avoid it when practical.

There’s an old saying where I live that has a lot of truth to it, “If momma ain’t happy,
ain’t nobody happy”. I try to live by that motto

 

[Peter_J]

there are always exceptions

Hey, don’t make me come over there.

 

[Della]

Tommy999 you mentioned having difficulty with Marian devotion, so here’s an article by a former Evangelical (not meaning by “former” that he’s a better man merely for having become a Catholic, but just as a proper description of his faith journey): ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/honoring-mary-too-much. It might help give you a fresh perspective. I can attest that I used to feel about Mary the way Mr. Shea and you have expressed. It can take time to adjust old ideas–but only after we have admitted they’re wrong ideas.

 

[Tommy999]

Tommy999 you mentioned having difficulty with Marian devotion, so here’s an article by a former Evangelical (not meaning by “former” that he’s a better man merely for having become a Catholic, but just as a proper description of his faith journey): ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/honoring-mary-too-much. It might help give you a fresh perspective. I can attest that I used to feel about Mary the way Mr. Shea and you have expressed. It can take time to adjust old ideas–but only after we have admitted they’re wrong ideas.

Hi Della,
I just read the article by Mr Shea and agree with a lot of it. Thanks for sharing.

I believe he is correct when he said, Evangelicalism "recoils from any and mention of Mary as though she were leprous". I think that is true, for the most part.

Since I’ve joined CAF, I have grown to appreciate Mary more for saying “Yes” to God and risking a lot, including her life, to bear our Lord. She also obviously loved Him dearly and was so loyal and dedicated to Him that she remained at the foot of the cross when Jesus was crucified.

I even have memorized the “Hail Mary” and say it from time to time, like last spring when a tornado came through our area. It no longer seems weird to me to say it.

I even make the sign of the cross every now and then, which I had never done previously. I like the way I feel when I do it. It helps me concentrate when my ADD flairs up a little.

Mark Shea also said, “It began to seem to me that Evangelicals could talk all day about St. Paul and never feel as though by focusing 24 hours a day, seven days a week on the thought and life of St. Paul, they were "worshipping Paul”".

While it is true that the Apostle Paul is a favorite among evangelicals because he wrote many of the books of the New Testament and brought the gospel to much of the known Gentile world, no evangelical would say that he was without sin. He was still a man of God who deserves a lot of honor and respect, though.

Evangelicals would say the same about Mary, that she was a willing instrument used by God to bring Christ into the world and is a key part of salvation history. There would not have been an incarnation without her, so she has a special role.

I just don’t understand why it is so important that she had to be sinless. She even called Jesus her Savior. Why would she need a savior if she never sinned?

Regarding whether she had kids or not, I truly don’t know. My son, who knows I am considering Catholicism, recently engaged me in debate about Mary having kids. He told me that the Bible obviously speaks of Mary having children. He then rattled off the verses.

I responded, “If that is the case, then where were they when Jesus was crucified? Were they out delivering pizza or something? The Bible clearly records Mary being there with the Apostle John, but did not record the rest of her kids being there. Jesus also told her,‘Behold you son’, and to John, ‘Behold your mother’. Why would he need to do that if she had other children to take care of her?”.

This gave him some food for thought and made me feel good for having defended the Catholic position, to a certain degree.

 

[Peter_J]

I even have memorized the “Hail Mary” and say it from time to time, like last spring when a tornado came through our area. It no longer seems weird to me to say it.

Have you tried The Angelus?

 

[Peter_J]

Tommy999 you mentioned having difficulty with Marian devotion, so here’s an article by a former Evangelical (not meaning by “former” that he’s a better man merely for having become a Catholic, but just as a proper description of his faith journey)

We could also have a discussion about why “former” would mean that in general, but maybe that’s better left for another time.

 

[EricF]

A missile does seem extreme. Usually a small pistol is all that’s needed to achieve desires results. JUST KIDDING!

 

[Della]

Hi Della,
I just read the article by Mr Shea and agree with a lot of it. Thanks for sharing.

I believe he is correct when he said, Evangelicalism "recoils from any and mention of Mary as though she were leprous". I think that is true, for the most part.

Since I’ve joined CAF, I have grown to appreciate Mary more for saying “Yes” to God and risking a lot, including her life, to bear our Lord. She also obviously loved Him dearly and was so loyal and dedicated to Him that she remained at the foot of the cross when Jesus was crucified.

I even have memorized the “Hail Mary” and say it from time to time, like last spring when a tornado came through our area. It no longer seems weird to me to say it.

I even make the sign of the cross every now and then, which I had never done previously. I like the way I feel when I do it. It helps me concentrate when my ADD flairs up a little.

G. K. Chesterton once wrote: “The moment a man ceases to pull against it [the Church] he feels a tug towards it. The moment he ceases to shout it down he begins to listen to it with pleasure. The moment he tries to be fair to it he begins to be fond of it.”

Mark Shea also said, “It began to seem to me that Evangelicals could talk all day about St. Paul and never feel as though by focusing 24 hours a day, seven days a week on the thought and life of St. Paul, they were "worshipping Paul”".

While it is true that the Apostle Paul is a favorite among evangelicals because he wrote many of the books of the New Testament and brought the gospel to much of the known Gentile world, no evangelical would say that he was without sin. He was still a man of God who deserves a lot of honor and respect, though.

I think he is saying that many Evangelicals give much time and attention to St. Paul but don’t like it when Catholics give that same kind of time and attention to Mary, equating that time and attention to Mary as “worship” but are blind to the fact that they do the same thing with St. Paul. The funny thing is, we Catholics honor St. Paul, as well, even erecting statues and naming parishes after him. We are equal opportunity “worshippers” unlike our Evangelical brethren.

Evangelicals would say the same about Mary, that she was a willing instrument used by God to bring Christ into the world and is a key part of salvation history. There would not have been an incarnation without her, so she has a special role.

Her role was greater than Paul’s, even though he evangelized a large part of the ancient world. Why? Because without Mary there would have been no Jesus. Just as Eve, in disobeying God was the catalyst for our fall–a consequence God freely allowed–he didn’t recreate another Adam and Eve to take their place at that time. We are fallen creatures because of their sin which wounded us all. Just as Eve failed, Mary obeyed, becoming the Second Eve–the new mother of humanity in agreeing to conceive and bring forth the Second Adam (one of St. Pauls’ favorite expressions). If she had said no, no doubt God would have abased himself even more to save us than by becoming one of us. Still, without Mary’s fiat, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. It may be that mankind would have been left in sin. That’s quite a sobering thought. Thank God Mary said yes…yes?

I just don’t understand why it is so important that she had to be sinless. She even called Jesus her Savior. Why would she need a savior if she never sinned?

People can be saved, say from being hit by a car, by one of two methods. After being hit, by reviving the person and treating him for his injuries (our current state of being) or by keeping the person from being hit in the first place. In Mary’s case God kept her from receiving the stain of original sin through the merits of her Son’s redemption. We have to remember that Christ’s redemption is in eternity, which is why he could go to the souls in Abraham’s bosom and lead them to heaven–because his death and resurrection can be applied to us at any time in history, not just after the fact. Otherwise no one beforehand could possibly have been saved: Heb.10[4] For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins… All who are saved are saved in Christ, whether they were born pre or post Calvary.

Regarding whether she had kids or not, I truly don’t know. My son, who knows I am considering Catholicism, recently engaged me in debate about Mary having kids. He told me that the Bible obviously speaks of Mary having children. He then rattled off the verses.

I responded, “If that is the case, then where were they when Jesus was crucified? Were they out delivering pizza or something? The Bible clearly records Mary being there with the Apostle John, but did not record the rest of her kids being there. Jesus also told her,‘Behold you son’, and to John, ‘Behold your mother’. Why would he need to do that if she had other children to take care of her?”

This gave him some food for thought and made me feel good for having defended the Catholic position, to a certain degree.

Good job. Also, the sons and daughters mentioned are of members Jesus’ tribe–the House of David, not his core family of Mary and Joseph. Jesus said that a prophet is not without honor except in his home town in his own family. Clearly he didn’t mean his mother, but rather his cousins–fellow members of the House of David. Another important point to consider is that nowhere in the NT is Mary called the mother of anyone else except Jesus.

 

[zz912]

Evangelicals would say the same about Mary, that she was a willing instrument used by God to bring Christ into the world and is a key part of salvation history. There would not have been an incarnation without her, so she has a special role.

I just don’t understand why it is so important that she had to be sinless. She even called Jesus her Savior. Why would she need a savior if she never sinned?

For myself, it definitely made sense to me when I understood the Ark of the Covenant was a prefigurement and typology for Mary. The Ark was not worshipped, but it WAS holy, revered, and given high honor. It was holy and special because God made His Presence appear above it.

When you relate that to Mary, and realize that God made Himself PRESENT in Mary, you understand her importance.

 

[Della]

For myself, it definitely made sense to me when I understood the Ark of the Covenant was a prefigurement and typology for Mary. The Ark was not worshipped, but it WAS holy, revered, and given high honor. It was holy and special because God made His Presence appear above it.

When you relate that to Mary, and realize that God made Himself PRESENT in Mary, you understand her importance.

Another aspect of the Ark was it’s composition. It was made of a desert tree, common in the area, denoting Mary’s humanity and humility, but overlaid with pure gold, denoting the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit. As the Ark was commanded by God to be made of that tree and overlaid with gold, so he formed Mary to be perfect to conceive the very Son of God, prefigured by the books of the Law. Unlike the Ark, though Mary conceived Jesus in her womb, he wasn’t merely placed there. Jesus took his humanity from his mother making her truly the Mother of God in that he was fully divine when he took his humanity from her.