What's the craziest Anti-Catholic whopper you've ever heard?

[PRmerger]

Yet I’m guessing that you ponder it just the same. And develop opinions based on your reason and emotion?

Yes. As you suggested, there’s a legitimate diversity of opinion on whether the creation story is to be take literally or figuratively.

Here’s just a few more examples of things that fall under the category “we just don’t know and there’s lots of valid opinions about it”:

 ·       Whether Mary experienced labor pains
·       Capital punishment

· Communion on the tongue vs hand
· Confession face to face or behind a screen
· Does the book of Revelation deal with the future or 1st century Christianity?
· When did the Patristic era end? Who exactly are the ECFs?

 

[PRmerger]

Since the CC is the repository of all Truth, do you think that there is anything that you could learn (theologically) from a non-Catholic?

Well, yes. I’ve learned quite a bit from my non-Catholic friends.

I recently acknowledged that I was wrong to reference a website that I had initially viewed as a valid reference for the obscene number of Protestant denominations in existence resulting from the false paradigm, “The Holy Spirit will guide me to interpret Scripture correctly”.

I also have learned from an atheist here that a Pope received 100 slaves as a gift!

I also have learned quite a bit about Calvinist double pre-destination.

I also learned that some of the books that were rejected by the early Church contained references to Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.

I have learned that one of the deutero-canonicals contains some historical errors (something about Nebuchadnezzar not being a ruler in Assyria or something like that.)

So, yes, I have learned quite a bit of theology from non-Catholics.

 

[PRmerger]

I submit that those rules and details are somewhat arbitrary.

Indeed they are, in a sense. Just like your rules for your children can be arbitrary. Why is the curfew 10pm and not 10:15? Why should your boys keep their hair short? Why are shorts not appropriate to wear to a wedding?

However, doctrines and dogmas are never arbitrary.

Could you not make a case for abstaining from meat for ALL of Lent if it’s a luxury?

Yes, indeed we could. And we have! There’s lots of folks who do do that. (ha ha! I just said do-do!)

Why the Fridays of Lent before Jesus died, individuals days that have no concrete value?

All Fridays are actually days of penitence.

Why not also Holy Saturday, the second day after Jesus death, perhaps culminating in a breaking of the fast with a meal of lamb on Easter?

Um…that’s what we do do. (Again, you’re making me say that!)

 

[PRmerger]

So you can read the Koran, ponder that the Trinity is not real, and read books positing such…? I mean, not just allowed, but encouraged?

Indeed it is allowed and encouraged. In fact, Tom, some of our best thinkers have been elevated to doctors of the Church–for this very reason: they pondered the Trinity and contemplated the juxtaposition of faith/reason and argued about the value of science. For this they were rewarded with sainthood.

When asked about say, suggestive lyrics, or Ouija boards (they seem to get a lot of attention) responders here on this Forum tend to say “ooh, I suggest staying away from that”. But you’re suggesting what? That would be correct, because those are actions that may lead to sin…?

I think it’s just the Church being wise saying, “Stay away from poison.”

Wouldn’t you tell your children not to play in a mine field?

 

[Petergee]

I was interested in reading the quote by Chesterton: “Tolerance is the virtue of a man without convictions.” Wow! I’ve read over the years that Chesterton was an anti-Semite, among other things, but to make tolerance into a vice is wild.

That, in fact, has been a major problem with so much religion. Traditional Catholicism, fundamentalist Protestantism, extreme Islamists - followers of the three Abrahamic faiths, ironically - too often have been promoters of intolerance over the years. Fortunately, most Catholics, Protestants and Muslims in America favor tolerance, a virtue of democracy. Regimes like that of Nazi Germany and the USSR were intolerant. Would Chesterton view those as superior to our democratic society?

 I had some doubts about the wisdom of Chesterton already because of what I've read and heard, but his eerie condemnation of tolerance makes him sound like a whacko - at least as I define the term.

It’s your absurd twisting of Chesterton’s words which is wild. He didn’t say tolerance is a vice, he said that it is a very minor virtue compared to other virtues. With he usual amazing prescience he foresaw our current age where many in the Wdest see tolerance (except tolerance of Christianity/Catholicism) as the supreme virtue which must be upheld even at the cost of trampling on all other virtues.

Btw Chesterton was roundly condemning the Nazis for many years before other British commentators stopped saying how wonderful they were. Absolute tolerance is neither necessary nor desirable, nor even possible in a properly functioning democracy.

 

[Petergee]

Yes. As you suggested, there’s a legitimate diversity of opinion on whether the creation story is to be take literally or figuratively.

Here’s just a few more examples of things that fall under the category “we just don’t know and there’s lots of valid opinions about it”:

Capital punishment

Actually the Church teaches that we do know that CP is in principle permissible, and even necessary, when done by properly constituted civil authority in the proper circumstances when there is no practicable alternative. It is laudable to campaign for the abolition of CP where possible, but Catholics must not condemn those who support the use of CP in principle.

 Communion on the tongue vs hand
 Confession face to face or behind a screen

Actually these don’t concern what we “know” about doctrine or morals. they are disciplinary rules which can be changed.

 

[Petergee]

Well, yes. I’ve learned quite a bit from my non-Catholic friends.
…

I also learned that some of the books that were rejected by the early Church contained references to Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.

I’m sure Hitler’s Mein Kampf and Marx’s *The Communist Manifesto
*contain references to at least one thing that really happened. Do you think that tehrefore the Catholic Church should not reject them?

Perhaps by “rejected” you mean "decided not to include in the list of books used for readings in the Mass (which was later codified as the Bible - from Greek Biblios, literally just “the books”). There are many early Catholic religious books full of many truths which are not included inthe Canon, e.g. “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” (Didache), The Shepherd, The Apostolic Constitutions, etc.

I have learned that one of the deutero-canonicals contains some historical errors (something about Nebuchadnezzar not being a ruler in Assyria or something like that.)

So, yes, I have learned quite a bit of theology from non-Catholics.

Have you also learned that there are similar faulty claims of “historical errors” in just about every book of the Bible? All of which have very good refutations.

 

[PRmerger]

Actually the Church teaches that we do know that CP is in principle permissible, and even necessary, when done by properly constituted civil authority in the proper circumstances when there is no practicable alternative.

In principle, yes. But, “Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, **if not practically non-existent.” **Evangelium Vitae

However, Catholics are permitted to object to CP as well as view it as a legitimate form of “self-defense”.

 

[PRmerger]

Actually these don’t concern what we “know” about doctrine or morals. they are disciplinary rules which can be changed.

Yes. The Catholic Church has not pronounced one “truth” regarding this, as in “we solemnly proclaim that the most reverent way to receive Our Lord is on the hands”. Or “we hereby decree that all the faithful must confess their sins behind a screen.”

 

[PRmerger]

I’m sure Hitler’s Mein Kampf and Marx’s *The Communist Manifesto
*contain references to at least one thing that really happened. Do you think that tehrefore the Catholic Church should not reject them?

Of course I think the CC should reject them.

And I trust in her wisdom in rejecting those ancient manuscripts that detailed Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.

 

[jmcrae]

I like the idea of choosing something that has value to you, and voluntarily doing without it as a method of reflection. But the “no meat on Friday” component loses some of that strength.

Actually, by all participating in the same penance together, we strengthen one another. If the whole family and the whole community is abstaining from meat, instead of just one person, you can abstain more quietly - you don’t have to explain yourself at every meal that you aren’t eating meat today. The whole family doing it together means that you can talk about other things over your fish and chips, or your mac and cheese.

What if you don’t eat meat?

Vegetarians would choose another discipline to follow, and again, if the whole family were doing it together, there would be no need for explanations.

Why Friday?

Because it was on a Friday that Jesus gave up His flesh (carne) for the salvation of our souls, so in response, we give up warm-blooded meat (carne) on Fridays, to remember His sacrifice for us. It’s kind of a pun, but it helps us remember why Fridays are set apart from the rest of the week as days of penance, just as Sundays are set apart from the rest of the week as days of celebration and worship, in remembrance of the Resurrection.

 

[Major_Tom]

Indeed it is allowed and encouraged. In fact, Tom, some of our best thinkers have been elevated to doctors of the Church–for this very reason: they pondered the Trinity and contemplated the juxtaposition of faith/reason and argued about the value of science. For this they were rewarded with sainthood.

I think it’s just the Church being wise saying, “Stay away from poison.”

Wouldn’t you tell your children not to play in a mine field?

Hmmm. It’s allowed and encouraged… yet it’s also the Church saying ‘stay away from posion’. How can it be both? I encourage you… yet stay away. Sounds a little passive/aggressive…!

I did not know about abstaining from meat on Holy Saturday. That’s absolutely new to me. I did not find it in the Cathechism.

I’m heading out of the town for the holiday weekend. I’ll share a few more thoughts on Tuesday. Enjoy Memorial Day!

 

[PRmerger]

Hmmm. It’s allowed and encouraged… yet it’s also the Church saying ‘stay away from posion’. How can it be both? I encourage you… yet stay away. Sounds a little passive/aggressive…!

Just like you allow and encourage your children to think and learn–but don’t you tell them to stay away from poison? I mean, really, do you let them drink acetone so they can experience it and learn?

 

[MariaG]

Okay, wait a minute.

Let’s back up a little.

There is no Santa Claus

:bighanky:

 

[PRmerger]

I did not know about abstaining from meat on Holy Saturday. That’s absolutely new to me. I did not find it in the Cathechism.

I don’t know what you’re referring to. Who said we abstain from meat on Holy Saturday?

All Fridays are “mini-Good Fridays” and are days of penitence. All Sundays are “mini-Easters”.

I’m heading out of the town for the holiday weekend. I’ll share a few more thoughts on Tuesday. Enjoy Memorial Day!

Right back at cha!

 

[jmcrae]

Hmmm. It’s allowed and encouraged… yet it’s also the Church saying ‘stay away from posion’. How can it be both? I encourage you… yet stay away. Sounds a little passive/aggressive…!

I did not know about abstaining from meat on Holy Saturday. That’s absolutely new to me. I did not find it in the Cathechism.

The fast of Good Friday extends until the Easter Vigil, which begins after sunset on Saturday.

 

[Roy5]

Let me venture one criticism of Catholicism that confuses me. It goes like this.

Catholics pray to various saints, all of whom have performed miracles - or at least been responsible for initiating miracles. Maybe Mary Smith prayed to St. Anthony of Padua to help her find a lost item, she finds it, and credits him. Maybe John Jones has a very sick child, prays to St. Jude, the child recovers, and he credits St. Jude. Etc.

According to a Protestant I know well, this smacks of the remnants of polytheism. Praying to these saints, in effect, is praying to someone other than God (Christ) who can, in effect, bring about miracles. He argues that this was a major point made by the Reformation. Protestants, he argues, go right to God through Christ our Redeemer.

 The Protestant - actually very ecumenical, friendly to Catholicism and nearly all Christian groups (certain fundamentalists, Mormons, etc. excepted) - feels that this whole business of saintly intercession is a relic of ancient Greco-Roman polytheism. Catholicism provides a vast pantheon (10,000 or so?) of saints who have supernatural powers either directly or by interceding with (special influence with) God.

  How does one respond? Why don't we all go directly to God through Christ? He feels that this pantheon of saints easily can lead to superstition???

  Thanks for any responses.

 

[John_of_Woking]

The idea that Opus Dei & the Illuminati are in cahoots. When people start down that path it is all I can to stop doing my cuckoo clock impression and when I do that I get distinctly uncharitable

C…U…C…K…O…O…

brings out wet fish and slaps round face

 

[nuntym]

Let me venture one criticism of Catholicism that confuses me. It goes like this.

Catholics pray to various saints, all of whom have performed miracles - or at least been responsible for initiating miracles. Maybe Mary Smith prayed to St. Anthony of Padua to help her find a lost item, she finds it, and credits him. Maybe John Jones has a very sick child, prays to St. Jude, the child recovers, and he credits St. Jude. Etc.

According to a Protestant I know well, this smacks of the remnants of polytheism. Praying to these saints, in effect, is praying to someone other than God (Christ) who can, in effect, bring about miracles. He argues that this was a major point made by the Reformation. Protestants, he argues, go right to God through Christ our Redeemer.

 The Protestant - actually very ecumenical, friendly to Catholicism and nearly all Christian groups (certain fundamentalists, Mormons, etc. excepted) - feels that this whole business of saintly intercession is a relic of ancient Greco-Roman polytheism. Catholicism provides a vast pantheon (10,000 or so?) of saints who have supernatural powers either directly or by interceding with (special influence with) God.

  How does one respond? Why don't we all go directly to God through Christ? He feels that this pantheon of saints easily can lead to superstition???

  Thanks for any responses.

These are excellent resources for that:

scripturecatholic.com/saints.html
catholic.com/library/mary_saints.asp

Search also CAF for past discussions, as this has been discussed quite a few times already.

 

[jmcrae]

Let me venture one criticism of Catholicism that confuses me. It goes like this.

Catholics pray to various saints, all of whom have performed miracles - or at least been responsible for initiating miracles. Maybe Mary Smith prayed to St. Anthony of Padua to help her find a lost item, she finds it, and credits him. Maybe John Jones has a very sick child, prays to St. Jude, the child recovers, and he credits St. Jude. Etc.

Here’s how I look at it. The Saints in Heaven are just as alive as we are. They seem to have particular areas of expertise, which we can call on, in times of emergency.

Here in the material world, if something goes wrong, yes, you certainly pray to Jesus (at least, I know I do), but you also pick up the phone and ask for human help, as well.

For example, if I get a flat tire, I certainly pray to Jesus, but I also pick up the phone and call my motor club. They send a guy out who has the equipment and knowledge to be able to fix my tire very quickly and get me back out on the road again.

Now, I could pray to Jesus alone, and there is a small chance that the tire would appear to miraculously re-inflate itself, but I don’t count on that happening. Not that I don’t think Jesus is capable of re-inflating my tire, but rather, I understand that that’s just not how Jesus has set things up for us.

Jesus’ final and most important commandment to us was “Love one another” and, there was a time when it was well understood that love works best when we need each other. So, Jesus has created a world in which we must depend for our needs on other human beings; not only on Him.

It also continues to work this way in Heaven, as well - even in Heaven, it won’t just be a “me and Jesus” experience - we’re also going to be loving one another in Heaven, as well.

The Communion of Saints means that the Saints still on earth, the Saints in Purgatory, and the Saints in Heaven all have the ability to help each other (that is, to love one another in practical ways). Jesus set it up this way on purpose, to show us the true meaning of love - that it’s not just a nice feeling in your chest, or nice thoughts in your mind, but actual, practical assistance to one another.