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

[ALLGIRLS]

First off, I come from a mixed Catholic/Protestant heritage. The Catholic side was not able to so much as enter a Protestant church when I was a child, and they would not attend a bacculaureate service for high school graduation if it were in a Protestant church. This created considerable friction in my childhood home town at graduation time unless the service was in the local Catholic church.

 This meant, also, that Catholic relatives could not attend such ceremonies as baptisms, confirmations, weddings and funerals in Protestant churches. In contrast, Protestant relatives were free to attend anything held in a Catholic church.

 Now, tell me. Is that prejudice, or what? It suddenly changed with Vatican II, thanks to John XXIII, my favorite Pope.

 I attended worship in both traditions and came to respect both traditions. But I remember when some relative died and she could not be buried alongside her husband because his family plot and grave was in a Catholic cemetery and she had not converted to Catholicism. Now, was that a local thing, or was it the law of the Catholic Church at that time? And I remember relatives who married a non-Catholic and the wedding could not be held in the church, only in the Rectory. And the Protestant had to sign a pledge to bring up the children Catholic. What about that? If I thought for a few minutes I could come up with more examples of Catholic bias. But you get the gist.

 And the scurrilous material circulated about Martin Luther and John Calvin - horrendous. The material condemning Henry VIII was largely truthful, although Henry VIII kept all of Catholicism except for papal authority. 

  We could go on. I don't know about anti-Catholicism because I never hear it in Protestant churches I have attended. I do know that when at a Catholic wedding, funeral, etc., the priest always says that non-Catholics are not to receive communion. I realize why, but to Protestants it sounds like prejudice. Recently, when I attended a First Communion service, the priest was quite specific, inviting Protestants to come forward, cross their arms, and receive a blessing. Some Protestants I know thought that was demeaning, too. Second-class Christians. Most mainlines Protestant churches welcome 'whosoever will' to the communion table. If it is invalid for any reason, God will make that determination and neither the church nor its pastor. 

  I must say that the old prejudices have largely disappeared. I credit Vatican II, because I also recall hearing about Pius IX and his "Syllabus of Errors" from old Protestant kinfolk years ago. Now, tell me that that wasn't dripping with anti-Protestant as well as anti-dmeocratic venom. 

  **It is likely that certain Protestant extremists are anti-Catholic.** I suspect that these same people are very hostile to most other Protestants, too. They are narrow-minded ideologues, which we also often spot here on CAF. Since coming to CAF I have been surprised and disheartened by the postings full of half-truths about Protestantism.

  Both groups need to show more humility and good will. Fortunately, after Vatican II Catholic priests joined local clergy group, Catholic women joined Church Women United, etc. Let our religion, Catholic or Protestant, be a bridge and not a barrier. Jesus would be disgusted with the nonsense spread about both expressions of the Christian faith. The same commandment applies to both - love God and love one another. Everything else is secondary.

Likely? Have you heard of Jack Chick, Lorraine Boettner, John MacArthur, James White, etc. What you described ended w/ Vatican II, as you acknowledged. These anti-Catholics are still at it, at full force. And it’s not just “we disagree w/ your beliefs, therefore don’t consider you Christians”, if they were accurate about our beliefs, but did you read some of ridiculous accusations?

And I get so sick of nonCatholics complaining about our closed Communion. We are not the only Christian body that restricts Communion only to its members in good standing. LCMS, and, since WELS is even more conservative, I’m sure they do to. A LCMS friend of mine told me that, when visiting another LCMS church, she has to go to the pastor ahead of time to let him know that she’s a LCMS Lutheran in good standing b/f she can receive. How’s that for “closed”?? Catholics can walk into any Catholic Church in the world and receive, and will never be questioned. My husband was raised Southern Baptist, and they also have closed Communion, and they only believe it’s symbolic!

In Christ,

Ellen

 

[Roy5]

If you want to read a ‘good’ example of religious bigotry read #75 by bowwagger. Protestantism: “the enemy” - “destroyer of souls” - “tool of the devil”. Wow, that includes the faith of well over 50% of the American people. Washington, Lincoln, and nearly all of our historic leaders were fooled by this ‘evil’ religion? And, some of them actually were Masons, too, beginning with George. Miserabile dictu!

As for Chick and others, frankly I never see their crazy material. And, as I said above, I'm sure that such wild Protestant fanatics keep busy shooting down most Protestants, too. Like that guy in northern Ireland - what was his name? It began with a P? He finally calmed down a bit. What was it Washington said? Something like "to bigotry no ,,,," - can't recall that other word. Catholics and Protestants need to stand together against all forms of hatred and misunderstanding. And don't start with this "we hate the sin but not the sinner...." That doesn't cut it. 

 Extreme fundamentalists sound a lot like bowwagger, only their enemies are Catholicism, all but a tiny sliver of Protestantism, and any other movement that doesn't reflect their narrow, crude and usually ill-informed views. I would say ignorant but perhaps should avoid that word.

  This morning I read the weekly column of Fr. McBrien, a professor at Notre Dame. If you can find it on the web or elsewhere, please read it. His is the Catholicism that I have known personally and exists among my relatives and the sort that I strongly endorse.The headline in this paper is: "Demoralization in the Catholic Church". Great writing! And a wake-up call!

 

[Roy5]

Washington said: “To bigotry no sanction”. Sounds right to me

 

[MarcoPolo]

If you want to read a ‘good’ example of religious bigotry read #75 by bowwagger. Protestantism: “the enemy” - “destroyer of souls” - “tool of the devil”. Wow, that includes the faith of well over 50% of the American people. Washington, Lincoln, and nearly all of our historic leaders were fooled by this ‘evil’ religion? And, some of them actually were Masons, too, beginning with George. Miserabile dictu!

I agree a tit for tat is not entirely productive, but I just don’t know of “typical anti-Protestant fiction” that gets very specific. What you cite above is very harsh, but it’s not specific fiction advanced like “Did you know the Lutheran Church hides and sacrifices small children in their church basements?” That would be on par with many of the specific anti-Catholic “whoppers” we are sharing here. But I never hear stuff like that and I spend a lot of time chatting with other Christians. Maybe you know of some weird claims…

As for George Washington, I happen to like the man. More than once I’ve heard mention of his deathbed conversion to Catholicism, like here for example, although I was never able to substantiate it definitively. I’ll still like him either way.

 

[elvisman]

Trust me, I know MacArthur has made some moon bat accusations on the Catholic Church. Like when he said it is a “front for the kingdom of Satan.”

So you have this as a cassette tape? Is that correct?

Yup.
My Protestant brother (who is not anti-Catholic) asked me to listen to it and give my opinion of it.**
It made me sick. MacArthur is nothing but a false witness because he depends on lies to make his points. I have absolutely no respect for him as a theologian.

Although I may disagree with it - I can respect a difference of opinion or interpretation, but I have no time for liars.
And that is exactly what MacArthur is.

**I’ve heard enough of his podcasts and read enough of his sermons to make me nauseous for a lifetime.

 

[Wowbagger]

Then, in the spirit of fraternal correction, I clarify. The Church holds that converting to Protestantism is a sin.

Quite so! Thank you for the correction.

If you want to read a ‘good’ example of religious bigotry read #75 by bowwagger. Protestantism: “the enemy” - “destroyer of souls” - “tool of the devil”.

Wow-bagger. My name is Wowbagger. Starts with a W. Everywhere I go on the internet, people misread it, and I don’t understand why. It’s not “Wowbanger.” It’s not “Bowwager.” My handle is in honor a Douglas Adams character, Wowbagger the Inifinitely Prolonged, from the third book of his brilliant Hitchhiker cycle. Wowbagger was accidentally made immortal, you see, and after a few million years he became so bored and bitter that he decided to insult every single being in the entire universe… in alphabetical order.

Douglas Adams is one of my favorite authors. Interesting trivia fact: he was also a passionate advocate for atheism during his life. He was a protege and close friend to Richard Dawkins and a constant, vigorous, clever enemy of religion.

I think we can both agree that atheism, at least, is a force for evil in the world. Atheism turns people away from the love of God, the saving grace of Christ, and even the hope of salvation. It’s responsible for profound human calamities and tremendous sufferings. If we mean anything at all when we say that we are Christians, at least we must mean that atheism is false and evil. Atheism is an enemy that, as Christians, we must absolutely oppose.

Nonetheless, I think the world of Douglas Adams. I’ve read everything by him, including his published letters and his pro-atheism tracts. I love his stuff, and I hope to meet him someday in heaven. I pray that he recognized the truth of the Catholic Faith and sought solace in it, either immediately before or immediately after his untimely death (from a heart attack, in 2003).

I can say the same of a lot atheists, in fact – Linus Torvalds, Dave Barry, Isaac Asimov, Joss Whedon, many others. They’re fantastic, brilliant people. Atheism is, in fact, the professed faith of well over 5% of the American people. It’s the professed faith of well over 25% of my friends.

Yet I do hate atheism. I believe it is a destroyer of souls and a tool of the devil. I pray for the conversion of all atheists to Christianity. I must. I believe that salvation is in Jesus Christ, and I want all men to encounter the Truth, follow the Way, and find new Life.

Are you saying that you don’t pray for the conversion of atheists? In that case, in what sense are you a Christian? Are you so indifferent to the suffering of your fellow humans that you don’t want them to know and embrace the truth?

Or are you saying that you actually hate and despise all atheists? As you write, “Don’t start with this ‘we hate the sin but not the sinner’… That doesn’t cut it.” If my belief that Protestantism is evil means that I hate Washington and Lincoln and Dr. Martin Luther King, then, logically, your (presumed) belief that atheism is evil must mean that you hate all the individual atheists the world over.

The way I see it, you have painted yourself into a corner here. If what I have said is “religious bigotry,” then not only is the entire Catholic Church a bigoted institution, but the simple decision to believe that something is true and insist on it to the world is an act of bigotry!

Hating the sin and loving the sinner is quite plainly the only possible course to take if we are going to go on believing in objective right and wrong at all. And it is, of course, under this rubric that I am able to adore the writings, thinking, leadership, manner, and legal principles of President Lincoln (I own a well-worn copy of his speeches, and have written much about him elsewhere) while scorning his failure to carry his theological principles to their natural end and embrace the Church. (Incidentally, Lincoln’s Second Inaugural address is very possibly the most thrilling, subtle theological address ever given in the English language.) And it’s under the rubric of hate sin/love sinner that I am able to gather a great many Protestant friends around me. Their Protestantism is my enemy, but their spirits are my brethren and their Christianity my close ally – especially when it comes time to do battle with atheism!

I actually respect Jack Chick in a certain, perverse kind of way, because he is at least committed to what he believes and teaches it with a passion. I mock him because what he teaches is silly, and relies on a total rejection of observable facts. I mock him, that is, not because of the strength of his belief or the volume with which he preaches it, but because what he believes is wrong. In Chick’s case, unfortunately “ignorant” is the precisely correct word, given Chick’s manifold and well-documented failures in the fields of history, scriptural exegesis, history, cultural awareness (especially regarding D&D and Rock ‘n’ Roll), history, theology, and history.

Now, I don’t think I know all that much, and I’m sure I know much less than I think I do, but I think that everything I’ve written on the subject of Protestantism, in regards to history, scripture, theology, and the rest, is at the very least highly defensible as true. Very few people would call me “ignorant.” But, then, no one’s ever called me a bigot or “ill-informed” before, so I guess it’s a day of firsts. (I’m curious, by the way, about precisely which respects I am ill-informed. I certainly make mistakes fairly often, but you don’t seem to mention any actual factual errors I made in my post.)

{CONTINUED}

 

[Wowbagger]

My point is that there’s nothing “narrow” or “crude” about insisting you’re right and your opponents are wrong. Either the Catholic Church is the sole way of salvation (which we have maintained from the beginning; see CCC 846), or it is not. We can’t both be right, and if you care about the salvation of my soul you’re going to fight just as hard to turn me into a Protestant as I am going to fight for your conversion to Catholicism. That’s not “extreme fundamentalism”; that’s the law of non-contradiction. Protestantism and Catholicism cannot both be right. This means that, even though they can work together on certain issues, like social justice and supporting religious liberty, in the final analysis we are enemies and must try to destroy one another using the weapons of conversion and evangelization.

A true spirit of ecumenism is not a papering-over of differences between religious groups and agreeing to “follow the golden rule” and “approve of Jesus’s moral teaching and maybe his divinity” and such lowest-common-denominator nonsense. True ecumenism recognizes that our differences matter, that souls hang in the balance and that one of our institutions – either the Catholic Church or the Reformation Protestantism – is the true Body of Christ… and the other survives by the power of Satan. The question is not, “What do we agree on?” The question is “Which one of us is in the power of the devil?”

Once we have acknowledged that crucial question, we can begin to answer it, through dialogue, in a true spirit of charity and humility and patience. But if both sides do not recognize how incredibly important these things are – along with all the related issues, like worship and marriages and children and even church buildings – then we are abandoning the command of Christ to preach His Gospel to all nations and surrendering to the indifferent sleep of Hell.

Unfortunately, Father McBrien has never understood this, and seems to be trying to forge a new religion, a religion with no doctrines, convictions, beliefs, or, in the end, faith. Pope Benedict XVI, however, has really grasped it, as you can see from his dialogues with Islam, the Lefbrevists, the Orthodox Church, and most especially his work with the Anglican Communion. He does not ignore the differences; he accentuates them. Then he starts trying to talk those differences through, and in this way he has made more converts than Father McBrien has ever dreamed.

I do hope that makes sense. Even if you remain a Protestant for now, I do hope you’ll at least stop calling me and Blessed Pope Pius IX a pair of bigots now.

 

[Roy5]

Wowbagger

A couple quick points.

Sorry that I didn’t get your name correct. Apparently I am not the first to make that mistake.

1. You are, in my mind, a religious bigot of the most notorious type, and I have found very few of those among Catholics or Protestants today. I rather assume that, if you could, you would go along with St. Thomas Aquinas who advocating turning over ‘heretics’ to the civil authority to be executed. Such intolerance can lead to such consequences.
2. I leave it up to God to judge among religions. Frankly, I believe that none of us know very much ultimately. When we enter eternity, I will not be surprised when God informs us that we all were wrong. With a billion gallaxies, how can we pretend to know very much?
3. Your variety of Catholicism and fundamentalist Protestantism share much in common. They are sure that they alone have the full truth and that the rest of Christianity is not only wrong but evil. Such foolish arrogance. You are fortunate that God is merciful and likely has a sense of humor, too. He must be laughing at those mortals who claim to be zealous advocates of the truth and defenders of his against 'evil; faiths like Protestantism.
4. I am not sympathetic to atheism, and have a brother subscribes to that view. He has lost his wife and two of his four children, so I understand his anger. If there is a God, where was he when he was so desperately needed? I’m sure God will be compassionate. Actually, my brother behaves far more like a Christian than those Christians who promote prejudice against other faiths and colors. In my mind, those are not real Christians, but - as said already - I will leave all judgments up to God.
5. My main point is that the Church should have room for a variety of opinions, I know this doesn’t set well with many Catholics or Protestants, but that’s where I am. I believe Christ taught this, too. We all can quote verses that support our viewpoint. Christ opposed a narrow, parochial, exclusivist religion that dominated the landscape when he walked the earth.
6. I have a mixed religious heritage - Catholic and Protestant. When I read the sort of bigotry you promote I am pushed away from Catholicism and not toward it. However, I believe you echo a small minority opinion. That is my prayer and my hope. Your style of bitterness led to severe persecution of Lollards, Waldenians, Hussites, Albigensians and many other groups before the Reformation.
7. I am not a particular admirer of the views of Luther or Calvin, brilliant Catholics though they were until they were excommunicated. I don’t adulate human beings, but only God. We all fall short. Theology is interesting but also has been at the root of so much prejudice and persecution.
8. I will keep you in my prayers, hoping that your cruel and myopic perspective will change and that you will be more open to true ecumenism which is mutual respect among Christians of different affiliations.

 

[Dylpickleh8]

When I was a child a neighbor lady told me that all the Catholics had guns in their basements and were waiting for a signal from the pope to take over the world:shrug:

What?!?!?!?!
I don’t have a basement or a Gun!!!

I’m a Bad Catholic!

:bighanky:

 

[utunumsint]

To quote the famous Inigo Montoya, “You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

A bigot is someone who is intolerant of another person’s views. But I think wowwhateverhisnameis is trying to say is that one can believe another is in error, and yet still be tolerant of them. I didn’t hear Wow advocate the wholesale extermination of Jews, Muslims, and protestants.

What do you think of Ratzinger and his war on the Tyranny of Relativism?

God bless,
Ut

 

[jmcrae]

What?!?!?!?!
I don’t have a basement or a Gun!!!

I’m a Bad Catholic!

:bighanky:

Yeah, me too - I live in an upstairs apartment, and they don’t let us keep guns, around here.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

That the Jesuits are made out to be some underground religious organization of Roman-collar assassins.

Seriously, me and my siblings have attended Jesuit-run schools for most of our lives and none of us have been taught as much as learning how to sneak up on someone, much less assassinate them.

I mean, when do I get my first gun kata lesson? Why’s my little sister a cosplaying fan girl and not the Filipino version of Hit Girl?

 

[Wowbagger]

I will not respond to everything you have written, Roy5, because your charges of bigotry, which I could earlier ascribe to a misunderstanding of my position, are now lurching rapidly towards willful slander. You deliberately ignored a large portion of what I wrote and carefully evaded the rest with commonplace sophistries, all so you could maintain that pernicious label against me. I believe you must be either far more careful about your language, or you must spend some time in prayerful meditation on Matthew 7:3 regarding “the plank in your own eye.”

That being said – and meant, fully – I am not angry at you. I do heartily thank you for your prayers. God knows I could use them. And if I am “cruel and myopic,” I certainly hope that the scales will fall from my eyes presently. I have already extended the same prayers on your behalf. Indeed, I appreciate that you are in a difficult position. It is very difficult to reject one’s own religious upbringing, especially because doing so creates a division between oneself and one’s parents. Those of us who love our families, as you seem to do, hate to disagree with our parents, and will forgive much in order to maintain a good relationship with them. With that in mind, we can see difficulties arising out of your religious upbringing, which – as you have mentioned several times, with some insistence – consisted of a “mixed Catholic/Protestant heritage.”

The problem is that the very most charitable thing I can say about that phrase is that it is utterly absurd nonsense. Catholicism and Protestantism are not similar substances that you can mix like flour and sugar to make a tasty plate of cookies. Catholicism and Protestantism are matter and anti-matter. They are defined by opposition to one another. It’s right there in the name “Protestantism.” What are they Protesting? Catholic doctrine! If you accept the core doctrines that distinguish Catholicism from Protestantism, you reject Protestantism. If you reject those same doctrines, then you reject Catholicism. Among those “core doctrines” are the infallibility of the Magisterium, the transubstantiation of the Eucharist, the apostolic succession from Christ, the doctrine of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, and the authority of the Pope. You cannot hold these doctrines to be both true and not true simultaneously, any more than you can square a circle. That’s like saying that you are both for women’s suffrage and against it, for the Brady Gun Law and against it. Then you are not doing religion; you are only doing a fine impression of John Kerry.

It seems that you do, in fact, reject all of the above Catholic doctrines in favor of Protestant ones. That is all well and good, but then you are not “of mixed Catholic/Protestant heritage.” You are, in fact, a professed Protestant. This is a perfectly acceptable starting point, but please do not pretend to a Catholic faith that you explicitly reject. You might enjoy certain aesthetic parts of Catholicism, might approve of some of our theologians (just as many Catholics approve of C.S. Lewis), and you might even be able to label yourself a sympathizer (although, since you have insisted that our official doctrine is biogted, I cannot see how), but in no sense are you a Catholic believer. Whatever your heritage is, your present belief is entirely unmixed.

Now, it seems for a moment in your latest reply that you grasp the problem. You have no good answer to my question about atheism, and so you had to come up with a way to talk around the problem entirely. This you managed, with a very peculiar answer. I don’t love block quotes in the middle of a post, but I think it is worth quoting in its entirety.

I asked:

Wowbagger:

Yet I do hate atheism. I believe it is a destroyer of souls and a tool of the devil. I pray for the conversion of all atheists to Christianity. I must. I believe that salvation is in Jesus Christ, and I want all men to encounter the Truth, follow the Way, and find new Life. Are you saying that you don’t pray for the conversion of atheists? In that case, in what sense are you a Christian? Are you so indifferent to the suffering of your fellow humans that you don’t want them to know and embrace the truth? Or are you saying that you actually hate and despise all atheists? As you write, “Don’t start with this ‘we hate the sin but not the sinner’… That doesn’t cut it.”

Your strange reply:

Roy5:

I am not sympathetic to atheism, and have a brother [who] subscribes to that view. He has lost his wife and two of his four children, so I understand his anger. If there is a God, where was he when he was so desperately needed? I’m sure God will be compassionate. Actually, my brother behaves far more like a Christian than those Christians who promote prejudice against other faiths and colors. In my mind, those are not real Christians, but - as said already - I will leave all judgments up to God.

“I am not sympathetic to atheism,” you say. This is an evasion. You have argued earlier that it no one can be both an enemy of atheism and a friend of atheists. Your flawed logic and your expansive definition of bigotry have left you with two choices: either you do not oppose atheism, holding it to be a belief system that is at least as valid as Christianity (in which case you are no Christian) or you hate all atheists as people (in which case you are a monster). You escape the dilemma, not by rejecting it and embracing the true doctrine, which I have espoused, of “love the sinner, hate the sin,” but with an evasive non-answer about “sympathy.”

{CONTINUED}

 

[Wowbagger]

Strangely, even your non-answer is clearly a falsehood. You have great sympathy for atheism, as you make clear in your very next sentence, about your brother’s tragedies and his anger about them. You even go on and ask where God was in all this, as if you considered His apparent absence as decent evidence of his non-existence. Now, it is not at all a problem to have sympathy for atheism. I certainly do, because I myself nearly became one in my youth. I understand why atheists are atheists, and I feel pity for them and sympathy for their doctrines. It is a problem, however, to claim that you don’t sympathize with atheism when you actually do. Are you simply being careless with your language, or do you genuinely not see the inherent opposition between Christianity and atheism?

Then, bizarrely you turn around and say, “I’m sure God will be compassionate” to atheists. Please don’t take this personally, but your vacillation here becomes dizzying. If you expect God to be compassionate with atheists, to show mercy on them after death for their atheism, then you are admitting that atheism is something for God to be compassionate about. If atheism is not evil and hateful, then saying “God will be compassionate to atheists” is like saying, “God will be compassionate to redheads,” which is deranged. Once it is admitted that atheism is evil and hateful, which you seem to do here, then you have conceded my whole argument: it is both legitimate and necessary to hate opposing belief systems while loving their adherents.

Unfortunately, right here on the verge of making a breakthrough from self-contradiction into understanding, you seem to sense the danger to your argument, and you run away – terribly fast. You do this with tiresome ad hominems. First, you imply, for the umpteenth time, that I am a bigot and also not a Christian. Then, in a pantomime of charity, you leave that judgement to God. Such violent personal attacks are not characteristic of those who are confident in their opinions. Moreover, your suggestion that someone who does not believe in Christ “behaves far more like a Christian” than someone who does believe in Christ leaves one to wonder whether, on your view, Christianity means anything more than a vague sentiment that people ought to be nice to one another for a change.

Thus you are left, sadly, in a very difficult and logically impossible position. You have rejected the profession of truth and the insistence of conviction as ipso facto bigotries. You believe in some doctrines of Christianity, yet marry them to the incompatible tenets of relativism. You assume the existence of God, but reject any metaphysical stance that allows you to profess it. And so it is no surprise that you conclude (in #2) that no religion or belief system has any close relationship to the truth. You instead join Father McBrien’s project of “forg[ing] a new religion, a religion with no doctrines, convictions, beliefs, or, in the end, faith.” That may be your belief system, but I assure you that it is not Christianity. Nor is it compatible with fundamental logic, nor philosophical realism. And it makes the Catholic Church, which boldly proclaims, with the voice of Christ, that it teaches the One Truth, an eternal bigot.

I understand where you are coming from, Roy5. I am no expert at couching my words in gentleness, but please believe me when I say that I am animated in this thread by prayerful charity, a deep desire to illuminate and elucidate, and, I hope, as little as humanly possible by my own un-Christian pride. I sympathize with your circumstances, fatally flawed though your conclusions are.

That covers the main argument. I do want to cover one other side point. You wrote:

Roy5:

I believe Christ taught this, too. We all can quote verses that support our viewpoint. Christ opposed a narrow, parochial, exclusivist religion that dominated the landscape when he walked the earth.

Actually, I very much could be wrong, because I don’t know the Gospels as well as I ought, but I think you’re dead wrong about this. Christ proclaimed one and only one Truth – Him – one and only one Way – Him again – and one and only one universal Church. Today, Christians argue about which specific Church that is, but whatever the answer is, it seems very clear that Christ preached an exclusive, narrow religion. I’d be very interested to see which verses you believe support your “pluralist Jesus” interpretation. Please go ahead and quote some verses.

Lastly, in an entirely different vein:
Lost Wanderer:

That the Jesuits are made out to be some underground religious organization of Roman-collar assassins.

No, this one’s actually true. JFK was killed by time-travelling Italian Jesuits working out of the Gregorian Pontifical University because of his role in inspiring the USCCB’s “Faithful Citizenship” document.

I thought everyone knew that.

EDIT: I should also mention that I’m not bugged about the name. Everyone misreads my name, and frankly I’m amused by it nowadays. I mentioned it in my post only as a way to conveniently lead in to my discussion of Douglas Adams and the atheists.

 

[Dylpickleh8]

That the Jesuits are made out to be some underground religious organization of Roman-collar assassins.

Seriously, me and my siblings have attended Jesuit-run schools for most of our lives and none of us have been taught as much as learning how to sneak up on someone, much less assassinate them.
:

Psst…
Don’t tell anyone I said this:
The Jesuits are actually a cover-up for the Franciscans, who are the real assassins.

 

[Roy5]

I don’t know why I’m spending time like this. Certainly I have more important things to do, such as planning a lecture on Dr. King for Tuesday.

A few quick points which are not meant to be definitive. It’s also 10:05 p. m. and I need a good night’s sleep. Went to two churches today, one on Saturday. Long story that would bore you.

1. I am not sympathetic to atheism but certainly am sympathetic to my atheist brother. I find absolutely no contradition in this. Besides, there are various forms of atheism. Soviet atheism, as we know, was militant and malignant, killing priests, burning churches, etc. My editor is an atheist and she would do nothing like that. She has a great intellect and has arrived at her position logically, by her standards. We have argued vigorously. Interestingly, she attends a church because of her belief that church serves important humanitarian and social purposes in society. If people want to believe the doctrines - fine, as far as she is concerns. She believes that Jesus was turned into a god when he came to teach us how to live better lives.
2. It seems to me that my position is clear and it contains no (or possibly minor contradictions). Was it Oliver Wendell Holmes who said something to the effect that consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds - or words to that effect? To begin with, religion is not all a matter of logic and reason. One of the principal reasons I embrace religion is to experience the beauty of the flowers this time of year, and the enormity and mystery of the universe. At times I feel the strong presence of the divine. I am rather sympathetic to mysticism - especially Quaker mysticism, which seems less infected by superstition.
3. So, let me state my position briefly once again. After that I am not interested in debating the subject further. I believe that the human mind can’t really begin to fathom the full realities of this vast world we live in. We need systems to live by, so humankind has developed religions to explain the unexplainable since the beginning. Most early Christians, including the Church Fathers, thought of a three-tier universe. Fine for that era. But now we know this idea was naive. The Catholic Church condemned Galileo and not long again the Vatican recanted. As for Copernicus, I believe I’ve read that he waited to about his death bed to issue his findings out of fear of the church. I can recall the power of the Index, when I would have to get the permission of a priest to get a ‘caged’ book in a Catholic university. Those condemned works included historic classics by everyone from Voltaire to, of course, Luther! Real democratic setup. That seems to have disappeared since Vatican II - thanks to John XXIII.
4. My view is that the Church needs to be truly ‘catholic’ - universal in the sense that it permits more intellectual freedom than it permits today. As I recall - hm! what was his name? - Kung was it, Hans Kung, who was told by the Vatican to no longer express his views? I find this sort of censorship contrary to democratic values. Anyway, if God is truly in charge, and the Catholic church is his divine institution, why do some of these CAF posters seem so intent upon demonizing Protestantism? Shouldn’t they have more faith than that? Besides - incidentally - Protestant initially meant pro-test - testify for, on behalf of. Actually I’m not particularly interested in defending Protestantism, and I denounce any anti-Catholicism that may be promoted by fanatics. Many mainstream Protestants worried about Catholicism because of attitudes like yours. They were concerned that Catholic power would work to eliminate dissent as it once did in parts of the world where it was supreme. Since Vatican II this fear has greatly subsided. My mother’s Protestant family wasn’t anti-Catholic in terms of people, but they did disapprove of what they regarded as Catholicism’s insistence that it alone was the only legitimate Christian faith.
5. Yes, Christ is quoted as saying that ‘no one cometh unto the Father but by me’. Now, to me he meant that he would be the ultimate judge. Since Christ is filled with compassion I’m sure he won’t hold a grudge against Protestants, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc., because of their religion. Remember when he was asked by a lawyer (as I recall): how can I inherit eternal life? His reply included nothing about doctrine, church connection, etc. Instead he said love God and one another. When the lawyer asked for an illustration, he gave the parable of the Good Samaritan. The Samaritans were despised by the Jews, followed a different religion, had married non-Jews, etc. This tells me that Jesus isn’t that interested in our theology but in our faith in him and our conduct toward one another.

That’s all I have time for. I suspect that you will want to quibble some more, but I’m not interested. I am for a ‘big tent’ Christianity where different viewpoints are respected. I am against a tight system of doctrine that takes away substantially from our freedom of inquiry and of thought. It can be stifling. I side with priests and scholars like Fr. McBrien of Notre Dame who had a tremendous column this weekend on the danger that Catholicism is alienating millions of its communicants because it is going down a path that insists more and more on conformity.

God bless people of every creed, color and country. May religion grow into a bridge and no longer a barrier.

 

[Ne_OrangeKnight]

The Catholic Church condemned Galileo and not long again the Vatican recanted.

Uh, that’s not true? The Church condemned Galileo’s insistence that heliocentrism, that the sun is the center of the universe with Earth revolving around it, be taught as an official dogma of the Church. The Church, obviously, refused to do this and eventually insisted that he not publicly teach the theory. Pope John Paul apologized in that the situation was handled excessively. I wouldn’t really call it “recanting.”

Real democratic setup.

The Church isn’t a democracy; it never has been, it never will be, and it has never so much as claimed the title. Truth doesn’t depend due to a majority vote. Neither does God.

Anyway, if God is truly in charge, and the Catholic church is his divine institution, why do some of these CAF posters seem so intent upon demonizing Protestantism? Shouldn’t they have more faith than that? Besides - incidentally - Protestant initially meant pro-test - testify for, on behalf of.

That objection doesn’t follow logically at all. If the Catholic Church really is God’s one true Church, then it is absolutely right to decry those who actively teach against it. As for having “more faith than that,” I don’t even know what that’s supposed to mean. Accepting Protestant viewpoints would require a good deal less faith in the Church.

And, for the record, Protestant initially meant “protest-ant” - one who protests. Your definition is from the original meaning of “protest,” which deals with the Latin roots, not entirely relevant in 16th century Germany.

Since Christ is filled with compassion I’m sure he won’t hold a grudge against Protestants, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc., because of their religion. …] This tells me that Jesus isn’t that interested in our theology but in our faith in him and our conduct toward one another.

Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, and all other non-Christians DON’T have faith in Jesus. Mere benevolent conduct towards others isn’t enough to merit paradise. The Bible is very explicit that we can’t merely work our way into Heaven. Not to mention that the views that you express here are unheard of in the 1.5 millennia of Christianity.

That’s all I have time for. I suspect that you will want to quibble some more, but I’m not interested. I am for a ‘big tent’ Christianity where different viewpoints are respected. I am against a tight system of doctrine that takes away substantially from our freedom of inquiry and of thought.

So, where does the line get drawn? How far may one take this idea of “different viewpoints”? The authority of the Church? The nature of the sacraments? The divinity of Christ? The existence of Heaven and Hell?

And then, of course, why should the line be drawn there? How do you know?

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

 

[Wowbagger]

I don’t know why I’m spending time like this. Certainly I have more important things to do.

I hope it’s for the same reason that I am: because whatever else I would rather be doing (and, trust me, there is a world of stuff I would rather be doing, from playing Mass Effect to watching paint dry), this matters. I suspect that, somehow, God wants me to be present for this conversation, either as a teacher or a pupil. Maybe both. I need to be here for that. (However, I do sympathize with the need for sleep. I wish I did more of that. )

Since it’s very clear, however, that you do not wish to continue this conversation, I will make a few mild points and leave you to your thoughts.

I am not sympathetic to atheism but certainly am sympathetic to my atheist brother. I find absolutely no contradition in this.

A few posts ago, you told me that my enmity towards Protestantism somehow made me the enemy of all Protestants, including the great Presidents Washington and Lincoln. You wrote, “And don’t start with this ‘we hate the sin but not the sinner…’ That doesn’t cut it.” I am glad that you finally understand why that position was so silly, and have abandoned it in favor of my position: we can be the enemies of a belief system without being the enemies of its adherents.

In fact, it seems to me that right here you come to fully agree with me about the very principle which, earlier, led you to call me a bigot. I think that settles our argument. I will go on with a few more observations, but they are ancillary. (I am also, incidentally, very grateful that you refrained from calling me or anyone else a bigot in this last post. )

Remember when Christ was asked by a lawyer (as I recall): how can I inherit eternal life? His reply included nothing about doctrine, church connection, etc. Instead he said love God and one another.

This is inaccurate. In fact, Jesus himself said nothing about loving God or one’s neighbor. Jesus answered simply: “What is written in the Law?” This, of course, referred to nothing more nor less than core doctrine connected to a particular church. It was the lawyer who found in the Law the commandments of love – which, Christ, of course, affirmed. He then went on to answer the question “Who is my neighbor?” with the story of the Samaritan.

He then spends a large part of the Gospel telling His disciples to go out and convert all nations, including the Samaritans, so that they might be saved. This is not pocket change; correct religious belief is serious business for the Messiah!

But, based on your other statements in this post, I suspect that the actual text of the Gospels is not going to deter you from your vision of Jesus Christ. Adding the qualifier “is quoted as saying” when you run into a difficult saying is a neat trick but hardly a new one.

You speak at length about the progressive accumulation of knowledge, your love of flowers in the morning, the horrors of “superstition” and “naivete,” the unfathomable depths of the universe, “democratic reform” and “big tent” religion (never denying that you intend to abolish doctrine and reduce religion to mass popular sentiment). The kicker is your misinformed accusations about what the Church did to Galileo, which were particularly ironic) in the context of this thread. Given all this, I suspect – I hope I’m wrong – but I suspect that you consider the tale of Christ’s divinity, death, and resurrection as “naive” as the belief in the three-tier universe. You consider Him a great moral teacher, but not a God whose words are to be taken with the utmost seriousness. Indeed, what other conclusion can we draw from your statement, “We need systems to live by, so humankind has developed religions to explain the unexplainable”? And in that case, we don’t really have a Catholic/Protestant problem, do we? That’d make you a Deist, even an Agnostic – not a Christian.

Perhaps I am wrong, and you actually wear your John 3:16 shirt to work and shout the Bible from street corners. Honestly, I hope so. Deism would place you even further from saving grace than Protestantism. In either case, however, you have my prayers.

Those condemned works included historic classics by everyone from Voltaire to… Luther! … That seems to have disappeared since Vatican II - thanks to John XXIII.

Well, point one, the banning of Voltaire was a mercy for generations past; they were spared his insufferable ahistoric prattle. That aside, it’s worth noting that the Index was not shut down by the Council or by Pope John. It was finally shuttered by Pope Paul VI, the same hardcore orthodox chap who reaffirmed the ban on contraception in Humane Vitae. Perhaps you should study more church history before lionizing Pope John again. He wasn’t quite the crusading progressive you seem to think he was.

My mother’s Protestant family… disapprove[d] of… Catholicism’s insistence that it alone was the only legitimate Christian faith.

Of course they did. They’re Protestants. The non-exclusivity of salvation through the Catholic Church is a core Protestant doctrine. Asking the Catholic Church to espouse Protestant doctrine is not ecumenism, Roy5. It’s a way of calling the Catholic Church an enemy and trying to destroy it with conversion and evangelization. Pretty much exactly my attitude toward Protestantism.

I think we agree more than you would like to think.

I suspect that you will want to quibble some more

Me? Quibble? Perish the thought.

God bless people of every creed, color and country. May religion grow into a bridge and no longer a barrier.

To the first sentence: Amen! To the second sentence, I only ask: what can that possibly mean?

Kindly,
W.

 

[utunumsint]

Psst…
Don’t tell anyone I said this:
The Jesuits are actually a cover-up for the Franciscans, who are the real assassins.

Come on! Everybody knows the Catholic assasins are Opus Dei albino monks!

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Psst…
Don’t tell anyone I said this:
The Jesuits are actually a cover-up for the Franciscans, who are the real assassins.

Oooh… so that’s why they have such large robes. :whacky:
Anyone else want more kool-aid?