Yuck–Moczar really should know better. Right here she herself is doing what she doesn’t like done to her own religious affiliation. The “underground” theory she describes is not held by “most Protestants”.The most thoroughgoing and persistent religious historical lie seems to be the oddly unhistorical view that most Protestants take of pre-Reformation history. They posit an early Christian community of believers with a very loose ecclesiastical organization and no fixed hierarchical structure, only a couple of sacraments, and a few doctrines that fit whatever sect they belonged to. this happy situation lasted, in their minds, until the Emperor Constantine stopped the persecutions and legitimized Christianity. Constantine supposedly reshaped the structure and doctrines of the Church by meddling in ecclesiastical affairs, and this Church-State coziness changed Roman Christianity into what became the bad Catholic Church we have today.–while the true believers went underground in order to practice their pure and simple faith, only emerging into the daylight with the dawn of the Reformation.
I fully expect non-Catholics to disagree with what Dr. Moczar writes. Par for the course. Perhaps you can purchase her book, and see for yourself what she has researched.Yuck–Moczar really should know better. Right here she herself is doing what she doesn’t like done to her own religious affiliation. The “underground” theory she describes is not held by “most Protestants”.
It’s discouraging when people who represent themselves as correcting falsehoods and misrepresentations in the name of truth, such as Moczar, can’t refrain from telling falsehoods themselves.
Perhaps people are going to be slow to spend money to buy a book that seems to consist of stereotypes and cheap shots?I fully expect non-Catholics to disagree with what Dr. Moczar writes. Par for the course. Perhaps you can purchase her book, and see for yourself what she has researched.
So you want me to prove that what Dr. Moczar states is true? No thanks. If someone is interested, they can start a thread. I don’t think that I can prove what she has said to the satisfaction of the non-Catholics here.Perhaps people are going to be slow to spend money to buy a book that seems to consist of stereotypes and cheap shots?
Perhaps you could respond to the substantive point instead of saying, “of course you disagree since you are non-Catholic”?
Edwin
No…it’s that I don’t like lies and myths told about anyone or any group, period, regardless of who they are.I suspect that what bothers non-Catholics is that she’s willing to address the lies and myths about the Catholic Church as told by Protestants and others.
You suspect wrongly, and irrationally. You presented a statement from her that misrepresents many, perhaps most, Protestants.So you want me to prove that what Dr. Moczar states is true? No thanks. If someone is interested, they can start a thread. I don’t think that I can prove what she has said to the satisfaction of the non-Catholics here.
I don’t see that what she has written is a stereotype or cheap shot. I suspect that what bothers non-Catholics is that she’s willing to address the lies and myths about the Catholic Church as told by Protestants and others.
True, I’m not dealing with it, and don’t plan on doing so. Please feel free to defend what you see as the Protestant position on the subject. Perhaps others will be happy to join in. No problem.You suspect wrongly, and irrationally. You presented a statement from her that misrepresents many, perhaps most, Protestants.
You are not dealing with that.
When a bunch of Protestants say, “we don’t believe that, and most of the Protestants we know don’t believe that,” you need to take that seriously, just as you would want Protestants to take you seriously when you say “no, I don’t worship Mary and I don’t believe that the priest sacrifices Jesus over and over again.”
Edwin
It’s not about being “careful,” but about being willing to listen to what Protestants say. There’s no harm done by your posting those quotes–perhaps it has brought some clarity. Just treat what Protestants say about themselves with the same respect you wish Protestants would show you when you explain what you believe.True, I’m not dealing with it, and don’t plan on doing so. Please feel free to defend what you see as the Protestant position on the subject. Perhaps others will be happy to join in. No problem.
I see now that it was not a good idea to post the quotes. I’ll have to be more careful in the future.
How has what I’ve written not been respectful to what Protestants have said?It’s not about being “careful,” but about being willing to listen to what Protestants say. There’s no harm done by your posting those quotes–perhaps it has brought some clarity. Just treat what Protestants say about themselves with the same respect you wish Protestants would show you when you explain what you believe.
Edwin
Thank you, spina.I have to say that I think that Denise 1957 has been most respectful of what Protestants say, as I have not seen her be disrespectful to anyone on this thread and her posts so far have been good. In the time I have been on CAF and reading threads I am interested in, while there has been those who get riled up over whatever is being discussed, Not agreeing with what is posted is her right and she does it I think with dignity.
It isn’t right for you to accuse this person of publishing and spreading offensive misrepresentations and apologetic screeds. It is akin to calumny.Catholics object, and rightly so, when the Catholic faith is unfairly misrepresented by others. The way to combat these misrepresentations is for Catholics to continue to explain and clarify what they believe. Generally speaking I think Catholic apologists do a pretty good job at explaining the faith.
A poor way to combat misrepresentations is to publish and spread equally offensive misrepresentations and stereotypes about one’s perceived “enemies.” This is what Diane Moczar does generally speaking, for a living–she appears on radio and TV shows, pushes her books and bashes “Protestants” (or what they are in her mind I guess.) Even by the way she uses the term “Protestant” in these short quotes, it’s immediately clear that she doesn’t have any idea what she’s talking about. This is a good example of how not to go about promoting the Catholic faith–by publishing and promoting apologetical screeds.
Catholic apologists would do best to stick to explaining the Catholic faith. When they delve into other areas (what non-Catholics believe, church history, history of the Bible, etc.) things tend to fall apart and they do the Catholic faith no favors.
You are correct Dave.Catholics object, and rightly so, when the Catholic faith is unfairly misrepresented by others. The way to combat these misrepresentations is for Catholics to continue to explain and clarify what they believe. Generally speaking I think Catholic apologists do a pretty good job at explaining the faith.
A poor way to combat misrepresentations is to publish and spread equally offensive misrepresentations and stereotypes about one’s perceived “enemies.”
Now you are falling for the very same thing you just said above and bundled all Catholic apologists that when they delve into other areas, they tend to fall apart… Especially in regards to Church history and the history of the Bible. After all we have been using it since it was received by us.Catholic apologists would do best to stick to explaining the Catholic faith. When they delve into other areas (what non-Catholics believe, church history, history of the Bible, etc.) things tend to fall apart and they do the Catholic faith no favors.
Hi DEnise1957: I agree in that since there are so many different Protestant denominations each seemingly having their own beliefs as to what the Bible says and means that one can not lump them altogether into one bundle. Also, like you I do not expect anyone to accept what I post if they do not agree with it as their right. I respect what they have to say without having to agree with it. I hope that it is the same with them.Thank you, spina.
I’m thinking now that maybe what Contarini was trying to say is that I must be respectful and agree with a Protestant when he or she states that something is believed or not believed by all Protestants. But I disagree, if that’s what he was trying to say. I can respectfully agree that a Protestant has a right to a particular view, but I’m not compelled to agree with it, even if most Protestants themselves on this forum agree with it. Given that there are thousands of different Protestant denoms, I don’t see how anyone here can claim to represent what they all believe.
It would be nice if all Protestants and even Catholics respectfully agreed with everything I write, but I don’t expect that at all. It wouldn’t really be a debate if we all agreed with what everyone writes. I had not intended, by posting those quotes, to start a discussion about what Protestants believe regarding the early Church. I see now that it is a sensitive subject.
And no one is doing that. But the quote you posted spoke about Protestants in general. Dr. Moczar claimed to be speaking of Protestants as a whole, when in fact the narrative she described is neither that of the Protestant Reformers nor of most educated Protestants today.Thank you, spina.
I’m thinking now that maybe what Contarini was trying to say is that I must be respectful and agree with a Protestant when he or she states that something is believed or not believed by all Protestants. But I disagree, if that’s what he was trying to say. I can respectfully agree that a Protestant has a right to a particular view, but I’m not compelled to agree with it, even if most Protestants themselves on this forum agree with it. Given that there are thousands of different Protestant denoms, I don’t see how anyone here can claim to represent what they all believe. .
If I said that Loraine Bottner published offensive misrepresentations and apologetic screeds against the Catholic faith would that be calumny as well? A statement is calumny only if it’s untrue.It isn’t right for you to accuse this person of publishing and spreading offensive misrepresentations and apologetic screeds. It is akin to calumny.
How is what I’ve written, or what Dr. Moczar has written, an attempt to swoop on poorly catechized Protestants before they have a chance to learn their own tradition? The book which I was referencing was written for Catholics. Maybe she got the part about what most Protestants believe on the subject of the early Church wrong, but I’m not assuming that based on what a few Protestants here write. You haven’t convinced me that you’re right on the subject. Many Catholics are aware that there are lies and myths that Protestants have maintained and promote regarding Catholicism. That was the point that I was trying to make, even though I did so in a poor manner.Anti-Catholic Protestants frequently swoop on poorly catechized Catholics and proselytize them before they have a chance to learn the strengths of their own tradition. This is a methodology which Catholics would do well not to imitate, however effective it may be from a pragmatic, numerical point of view.
Edwin
This is a very true statement. But the point is that the reverse is also unfortunately true and even happens quite a lot here on this forum.Many Catholics are aware that there are lies and myths that Protestants have maintained and promote regarding Catholicism.
I’m not the only Catholic here to reference Dr. Moczar’s books. Such as:This is a very true statement. But the point is that the reverse is also unfortunately true and even happens quite a lot here on this forum.
Fighting lies and myths using other lies and myths doesn’t help anyone. Time to quit with the lies and myths, I would say. Or as Gandhi supposedly said, “An eye for an eye leaves everyone half blind.” We would all do better to stick to objective sources and not appeal to people who have some huge axe to grind either way.