Why are Catholics always being

[Ani_Ibi]

Mirdath:

Catholicism says ‘this is the natural law, graven by God on the human heart’ and expects Catholic and non-Catholic alike to recognize and follow it.

Wrong. You are grasping at straws and looking for ways to make Catholicism wrong. Why, is beyond me. The Church’s teaching on natural law is, in part, a recognition of certain aspects of morality which are held in common among cultures. It has NOTHING to do with the imposition of the mores of one culture over those of another. NOTHING.

Mirdath:

It does not take into account other methods or explanations for deriving a moral code, or the vastly differing moral codes of various cultures.

This begs the question of whether or not moral codes of various cultures do vastly differ. You have not demonstrated this. You have not even attempted to demonstrate this. So please demonstrate that moral codes differ VASTLY among various cultures. Thank you.

Mirdath:

The oddly-beloved pop philosopher-manque Peter Kreeft calls Kant’s categorical imperative a ‘perfect philosophy for hell’ and names the devout Christian a ‘pillar of unbelief’ – all for having an idea that one can derive a system of morals based on a universal duty to others instead of a divine mandate.

This would be Pope Kreeft speaking always and everywhere on faith and morals? I am wondering if you would be kind enough to bless us with a link to this Apostolic Letter. I have not been able to find it on vatican.va. Thank you.

Mirdath:

Christians in general insist that what they perceive as the moral law, whether naturally present or handed down later by God, is the right perception.

You would have to show us the results of a representative study on these, the statistics, the findings. I notice that you do not do this and so, in the absence of any evidence for your claim, I am forced to conclude that your post is a faulty generalism.

Why you would want to make unsupported generalisms about a faith group is beyond me.

And what on earth do you mean by ‘handed down later by God’? God does not change. Our understanding of faith and morals may grow. But growth is not synonymous with change. Change involves transformation from one nature to another. Growth involves development of existing natures. The actual laws have not changed, are not changing, nor will they ever change.

Your post seems oddly to be no more than a subtle way of tautologizing the same old canard that we encounter here on an hourly basis. That the unchangeable Church has changed. No matter how many times we patiently provide links, quotations, and explanations supporting the idea that Magisterial truth does not change, it is like water off a duck’s back.

Why the impervious resistance to genuine dialogue is beyond me.

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Mirdath:

There’s nothing wrong with believing that; it’s when they tell people who don’t buy into their faith that they still have to follow their perception of the law and are hellbound if they don’t that non-Christians start having serious issues with them and may, perhaps, start kicking back.

Not at all. What is mostly at issue is how much varying points of view rely on reason and reference.

As for being kicked, anti-Catholicism is still the last socially acceptable prejudice. To attempt to preserve this practice by deflecting public notice from its existence won’t work. The record speaks for itself. One only need scroll down the pages of the Catholic League and the Catholic Civil Rights League to see the truth of who is getting kicked, how hard, and how often. And that is before one even picks up a history book. Pick up the history books and watch the light fall on the elephants in the room!

Mirdath:

Speaking for myself

Very good!

Mirdath:

I do not take offense at Christians practicing their beliefs.

You merely misrepresent our beliefs. Thus taking the risk of giving offense.

Mirdath:

But if a Christian is going to try to convince me that I must believe, of course I’m going to question it!

…misrepresent our beliefs like this latter post, for instance. The Catholic Church upholds free choice, probably more than any other religious group – in practice – on the planet. No matter how many times we model the practice of consulting the Catechism, the Councils, the ECFs, the Apostolic Letters and so on, we just keep on hearing these strawmen on an hourly basis.



Waddupwid not listening to what folks have to say about their own faith? That doesn’t seem much like seeking common ground to me. It seems much more like a bid for power by marginalizing 2000 years of Catholic thought. Rewrite history: deny people their future.

Mirdath:

And if that Christian says ‘okay, you don’t believe, but you still have to follow what we say about morality, and we’re going to make it law just to be sure you cooperate’, that I will fight.

Straw-kwondo, I presume? end

 

[puzzleannie]

Bigfoot is Catholic.

I heard that more people believe in Ronald McDonald than believe either in Bigfoot or in any religious figure, but I sincerely hope I am hearing wrong.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Ani Ibi:

Bigfoot is Catholic

mirdath:

Cite please?

alphaomega ministries!

mirdath:

Yes. And some Christians, Catholic and Protestant both, are truly persecuted and martyred. But the level claimed by people like Dobson, Chick, Robertson, Donohue, et al is ridiculous.

Rewrite history: deny people their future. Deny people their future and you have a bid for power by marginalizing 2000 years of Catholic history. What’s the big deal about Catholics anyway? If we are just paper tigers as you have been suggesting, then why the need to marginalize us any further?



Seems a bit contradictory to me.

mirdath:

For comprising 80-some percent of the population of the United States, a lot of Christians have an amazing persecution complex.

Got any stats for Catholics?

mirdath:

Many choose to perceive every real or imagined slight or even mere disagreement as another lion loosed upon them by laughing Romans.

With all due respect, in the absence of any substantive support for your arbitrary dismissal viz the persecution of Catholics, I am forced to view your post as no more than wishful thinking, a grasping at straws hoping that we will just accept it without question. Sorry, but you will have to do better than that.

mirdath:

Now, this doesn’t cover all Christians by a long shot, but it covers a lot of the louder ones.

Who does it cover?

mirdath:

It seems to me these people want to be persecuted and martyred, remembering the eighth beatitude a little too fondly and trying to actively fulfill it.

You can read hearts now. Sheesh, I thought only God could read hearts. That’s me told, eh?

mirdath:

And if they can’t have actual lions any more, then by crikey they’ll make them up!

I must say I believe it is stretching the limits of pacific dialogue a mite thin to suggest that we are making things up, particularly amids the mountains of links, references, lines of reasoning, and explanations which we provide on an hourly basis. Perhaps you can alleviate our confusion by specifying what exactly we have made up?

mirdath:

But where the martyrs fondly remembered and looked up to as role models go humbly and gracefully to their reward in heaven, these people scream of persecution at every opportunity.

Oh wow! I know that when folks descend to the level of using the term ‘these people’ in a sentence, we are in for a world of trouble in terms of generalisms pent up for years and just a-itchin to be loosed on us unsuspecting ‘papists’ – like hungry lions.

roar !

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I heard that more people believe in Ronald McDonald than believe either in Bigfoot or in any religious figure, but I sincerely hope I am hearing wrong.

Bigfoot is Ronald McDonald !

 

[Cat]

VociMike and others, I agree that it is pitiful that some Protestants attack the Catholic Church.

I would say that these attacks occur for the following reasons:

1. The Protestant believes that the Catholic Church is teaching a false doctrine that is sending people away from Jesus. E.g., a lot of Protestants believe that the Catholic Church teaches salvation by works. They learn these untruths from literature or lecture, often presented by ex-Catholics.
2. The Protestant has met up with a Catholic who is a hypocrite and involved in outright sin e.g, living out of wedlock with a lover. This convinces the Protestant that the Catholic Church is not truly a Christian church.
3. The Protestant has met up with a Catholic who is, through ignorance, disgruntlement, or both, spreading untruths about the Catholic Church. The Protestant assumes that since the person is Catholic, they must know the truth about the Catholic Church.

I think the answer is for Catholics to continue to demonstrate Christian love and to try to learn as much as possible about their Church so that they can correct the many misconceptions.

I also think that Catholics need to support the more “modern” Masses that can help create a bridge between Protestantism and Catholism. I’m NOT saying that Catholics all have to attend NO Masses with contemporary music and local language. But at least support it in words, because it truly does help “ease” Protestants into the Catholic Church and help them to see that the Church is a true Christian church.

 

[Mirdath]

Wrong. You are grasping at straws and looking for ways to make Catholicism wrong. Why, is beyond me. The Church’s teaching on natural law is, in part, a recognition of certain aspects of morality which are held in common among cultures. It has NOTHING to do with the imposition of the mores of one culture over those of another. NOTHING.

Certain common aspects, yes, and certain unique – or at least not universally common. While imposing these standards may not be the goal, it is certainly at least an unfortunate side effect of believing those standards universal.

This begs the question of whether or not moral codes of various cultures do vastly differ. You have not demonstrated this. You have not even attempted to demonstrate this. So please demonstrate that moral codes differ VASTLY among various cultures. Thank you.

Female genital mutilation is considered the Moral Thing To Do in some cultures. Others abhor it. Just one example of many.

This would be Pope Kreeft speaking always and everywhere on faith and morals? I am wondering if you would be kind enough to bless us with a link to this Apostolic Letter. I have not been able to find it on vatican.va. Thank you.

Kreeft is, for reasons unknown to me, wildly popular among Catholics. He is often cited in philosophical and theological debates; his works are marked with imprimaturs and nihil obstats; and lay Catholics seem to think he’s the best thing since sliced bread. I offered that as an example of a Catholic thinker, if I may apply the term, attempting to shut down those who would explain things in a different manner – no more.

You would have to show us the results of a representative study on these, the statistics, the findings. I notice that you do not do this and so, in the absence of any evidence for your claim, I am forced to conclude that your post is a faulty generalism.

I cannot cite ‘common sense’? How can a Christian believe, if he does not think that belief right?

And what on earth do you mean by ‘handed down later by God’?

Many Protestant denominations do not hold to the existence of a natural moral law.

As for being kicked, anti-Catholicism is still the last socially acceptable prejudice.

If you would have me show you research and studies to prove that Christians believe they’re right, might I ask for the same courtesy from you on this point?

You merely misrepresent our beliefs. Thus taking the risk of giving offense.

Where have I misrepresented your beliefs?

The Catholic Church upholds free choice, probably more than any other religious group – in practice – on the planet.

Indeed the Church does. I merely said that I would question the ideas placed in front of me by any hypothetical missionary. Am I wrong to do so?

Waddupwid not listening to what folks have to say about their own faith? That doesn’t seem much like seeking common ground to me. It seems much more like a bid for power by marginalizing 2000 years of Catholic thought. Rewrite history: deny people their future.

Are you accusing me of not listening? I have listened, I have considered, and in the end I have found no reason to take it up. I do not have faith. That puts me in error, by your lights; but does it make me evil?

 

[Fidelis]

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

I must have missed it – what part of this says Muslims **WILL **be saved?? The most you can get out of it is that the Muslims have at least a concept of the God of Abraham and that they MAY, through this recognition, find their way to Christ.

Read Romans 1. God uses what little understanding people have of him to lead them to him.

 

[Mirdath]

Rewrite history: deny people their future. Deny people their future and you have a bid for power by marginalizing 2000 years of Catholic history. What’s the big deal about Catholics anyway? If we are just paper tigers as you have been suggesting, then why the need to marginalize us any further?

Am I marginalizing you?

Got any stats for Catholics?

25.4% of the United States population in 2001, according to CUNY.

With all due respect, in the absence of any substantive support for your arbitrary dismissal viz the persecution of Catholics, I am forced to view your post as no more than wishful thinking, a grasping at straws hoping that we will just accept it without question. Sorry, but you will have to do better than that.

I am speaking of a set of Christians in general, not just a set of Catholics. Would you not agree that Jack Chick has a bit of a persecution complex going with regards to that Jesuit supercomputer in the Vatican? Would you not agree that those people who are afraid of the Muslims taking over the world (and I have seen this sentiment expressed on this very forum) are maybe, just maybe, a little bit paranoid?

Who does it cover?

I think I specified that in the second half of the sentence

You can read hearts now. Sheesh, I thought only God could read hearts. That’s me told, eh?

I offer what explanations I can that seem reasonable. Have you a better?

I must say I believe it is stretching the limits of pacific dialogue a mite thin to suggest that we are making things up, particularly amids the mountains of links, references, lines of reasoning, and explanations which we provide on an hourly basis. Perhaps you can alleviate our confusion by specifying what exactly we have made up?

I am not accusing all Christians or all Catholics of this, only those who shout ‘we’re being persecuted!’ when Massachusetts allows gay civil unions or a university installs footbaths in its restrooms or cashiers tell them ‘happy holidays’.

Oh wow! I know that when folks descend to the level of using the term ‘these people’ in a sentence, we are in for a world of trouble in terms of generalisms pent up for years and just a-itchin to be loosed on us unsuspecting ‘papists’ – like hungry lions.

It is a standard grammatically correct way of indicating a group of human beings. Had I intended to insult, I like to think I could have done a lot better than that

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Mirdath:

Certain common aspects, yes, and certain unique – or at least not universally common.

I don’t know what this sentence means. Can you clarify please? Thank you.

Mirdath:

While imposing these standards may not be the goal, it is certainly at least an unfortunate side effect of believing those standards universal.

Again, the exceptions, in this case, do not necessarily negate the rule. The point is that Magisterial teaching is one thing. Disobedience is entirely a different thing. You cannot justly judge the Magisterium by those who disobey Her. Yet you plunge repeatedly into faulty generalisms derived from exceptional specific occurences.

A recognition of natural law is just that: a recognition of natural law. If any part of it can be justly said to be prescriptive it is because it is seen to be commonly held among cultures. Not because one culture imposes it over another culture.

Mirdath:

Female genital mutilation is considered the Moral Thing To Do in some cultures. Others abhor it. Just one example of many.

The exception does not, in this case, negate the rule. Natural law refers to the commonalities held by diverse cultures as to moral sensibilities.

Genital mutiliation btw is a cultural practice not a religious practice.

Mirdath:

Kreeft is, for reasons unknown to me, wildly popular among Catholics. He is often cited in philosophical and theological debates; his works are marked with imprimaturs and nihil obstats; and lay Catholics seem to think he’s the best thing since sliced bread. I offered that as an example of a Catholic thinker, if I may apply the term, attempting to shut down those who would explain things in a different manner – no more.

Quite a bit more actually. If you want to criticize Catholic teaching, then please have the grace to go to the source. Kreeft may be interesting. He may even be correct. But he is not protected against error by the Holy Spirit. Only the Church is in matters of faith and morals. To speak against or for what the Church says in matters of faith and morals, probably the simplest thing to do is to consult the Catechism.

Mirdath:

I cannot cite ‘common sense’? How can a Christian believe, if he does not think that belief right?

No you cannot cite common sense. Why? Because your claim was a generalism. For that generalism to be valid, your premises must all be true, your method repeatable, and your logic sound. You provided us with none of this information. Nor even references to others who might provide us with this information.

A Christian – like any person – is free to believe what he/she wants. However that person cannot justify the belief except by means of reason. Genuine faith cannot be unreasonable. Truth cannot contradict truth.

To that end, God created Eve to be a helpmeet to Adam because it was not good for Adam to be alone. Because we, as human beings are not meant to be alone, our faith must stand the test of reason. Otherwise it could not be communicated to others and we would be alone in this central aspect of our lives.

Mirdath:

Many Protestant denominations do not hold to the existence of a natural moral law.

Which ones and why?

Mirdath:

If you would have me show you research and studies to prove that Christians believe they’re right, might I ask for the same courtesy from you on this point?

Did I not already give you two examples listing instances of anti-Catholicism?

mirdath:

Where have I misrepresented your beliefs?

Here:

mirdath:

But if a Christian is going to try to convince me that I must believe, of course I’m going to question it!

Mirdath:

Indeed the Church does. I merely said that I would question the ideas placed in front of me by any hypothetical missionary. Am I wrong to do so?

Good form in sharing points of view and in collaborating toward commonality is to make distinctions where necessary. Particularly in the context of widely held inaccuracies about the Church, one of which is that the Church forces Her doctrines on the faithful. One favourite among blogsters these days is that the Church disallows private interpretation of the Bible.

Mirdath:

Are you accusing me of not listening? I have listened, I have considered, and in the end I have found no reason to take it up. I do not have faith. That puts me in error, by your lights; but does it make me evil?

Your choice is your choice. No one is taking that way from you. At least the Catholic Church is not taking that away from you. However, if you are going to be setting out your reasons for opposing Catholicism then it is good form to set out what Catholicism actually is. As for being evil, that is for God to judge.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Mirdath:

Am I marginalizing you?

I see in this specific instance you were referring to Jack Chick and the Chick fanboys. As a general rule, when folks make erroneous claims about history or about what the Church actually teaches, then they are attempting to marginalize the Church. You did specify that the Church defends freedom of choice, after I pursued on that point.

Mirdath:

25.4% of the United States population in 2001, according to CUNY.

Thanks for this. So you will see that Catholics are in the minority in the States.

Mirdath:

I am speaking of a set of Christians in general, not just a set of Catholics.

OK.

Mirdath:

Would you not agree that Jack Chick has a bit of a persecution complex going with regards to that Jesuit supercomputer in the Vatican?

I never thought of it as a persecution complex but I – yeah – you have a point. I would say more accurately that he has a complex about persecuting Catholics.

Mirdath:

Would you not agree that those people who are afraid of the Muslims taking over the world (and I have seen this sentiment expressed on this very forum) are maybe, just maybe, a little bit paranoid?

Distinction: Do the teachings of OBL conform to the teachings of Muhammed PBUH? Do the fatwas of OBL not encourage the establishment of a Kaliphate from where world-wide jihad will be waged? Are we paranoid to read what he has written, to measure what he has written with his actions, and to take both very seriously? Particularly in light of terrorist attacks in our own cities?

Mirdath:

I think I specified that in the second half of the sentence

You said “Now, this doesn’t cover all Christians by a long shot, but it covers a lot of the louder ones.” Which denominations or individuals do you mean?

Mirdath:

I offer what explanations I can that seem reasonable. Have you a better?

Christians are forbidden from reading hearts. That is, we may assess behaviour but not motivation. You said, “It seems to me these people want to be persecuted and martyred, remembering the eighth beatitude a little too fondly and trying to actively fulfill it.” Therefore you assessed motivation.

Mirdath:

I am not accusing all Christians or all Catholics of this, only those who shout ‘we’re being persecuted!’ when Massachusetts allows gay civil unions or a university installs footbaths in its restrooms or cashiers tell them ‘happy holidays’.

But this begs the question of them being persecuted in the first place. Just because you do not believe they are being persecuted, does not mean that they are not being persecuted.

Mirdath:

It is a standard grammatically correct way of indicating a group of human beings. Had I intended to insult, I like to think I could have done a lot better than that

It is only standard grammar where the referent is clear. Your use of ‘these people’ lumps together folks who are being persecuted with folks who are merely shouting loudly about being persecuted for no reason at all. This marginalizes folks who have bona fide reasons for claiming persecution.

 

[Mirdath]

I don’t know what this sentence means. Can you clarify please? Thank you.

Some elements of the Church’s ‘natural moral law’ do not reflect universally held mores. Human sacrifice, for instance, is a point on which the ‘natural law’ and the Aztecs disagreed quite vehemently.

A recognition of natural law is just that: a recognition of natural law. If any part of it can be justly said to be prescriptive it is because it is seen to be commonly held among cultures. Not because one culture imposes it over another culture.

And if a particular culture does not recognize it?

Quite a bit more actually. If you want to criticize Catholic teaching, then please have the grace to go to the source. Kreeft may be interesting. He may even be correct. But he is not protected against error by the Holy Spirit. Only the Church is in matters of faith and morals. To speak against or for what the Church says in matters of faith and morals, probably the simplest thing to do is to consult the Catechism.

The Catechism, unfortunately, is silent on the matter of Immanuel Kant. So, if I am to criticize Catholic thought on Kant to illustrate a point, I must go to an accepted Catholic thinker – much as, were I to criticize the ontological argument, I would consult Anselm, or if I were to criticize the philosophy behind the hypostatic union, I would go to Aquinas.

No you cannot cite common sense. Why? Because your claim was a generalism. For that generalism to be valid, your premises must all be true, your method repeatable, and your logic sound. You provided us with none of this information. Nor even references to others who might provide us with this information.

Feel free to disagree with me on the point that a Christian is one who believes it is right to be Christian, but I really do think you’ll just be shooting yourself in the foot.

A Christian – like any person – is free to believe what he/she wants. However that person cannot justify the belief except by means of reason. Genuine faith cannot be unreasonable. Truth cannot contradict truth.

Why must faith be justified by reason? Is not trust in God enough?

I would expect any theist with a shred of intellectual honesty and a modicum of courage to be able to stand up and tell me to my face ‘this is what I believe; disagree all you like, but I believe it and I do not have to prove anything to you about it, because I place my trust in God’.

Which ones and why?

Dr. Stephen Grabill covers it quite nicely in this series. It’s a blog, yes, but he’s got cred: published author and editor of a peer-reviewed journal on moral philosophy, theology, and economics.

Did I not already give you two examples listing instances of anti-Catholicism?

If Bill Donohue says the sky is blue, I look up and check; and the other is also a Catholic organization. Got any independent sources?

Here: (bit about a particular Christian telling me I must believe)

John 14:6: Jesus said to him, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

I suppose if I actively want to go to hell, I don’t have to, but that’s really beside the point, isn’t it?

I am familiar with the idea of baptism of desire. However, as an apostate, how well do you think I could make a case for invincible ignorance?

 

[Mirdath]

Thanks for this. So you will see that Catholics are in the minority in the States.

A very large minority. If one divides up the pie based on individual denomination, there is no majority at all, and Catholics might well make for a plurality.

Distinction: Do the teachings of OBL conform to the teachings of Muhammed PBUH? Do the fatwas of OBL not encourage the establishment of a Kaliphate from where world-wide jihad will be waged? Are we paranoid to read what he has written, to measure what he has written with his actions, and to take both very seriously? Particularly in light of terrorist attacks in our own cities?

bin Laden and his followers are worthy of concern. Islam as a whole – no, not any more than Christianity is something to be concerned about because of the actions and beliefs of Paul Hill.

You said “Now, this doesn’t cover all Christians by a long shot, but it covers a lot of the louder ones.” Which denominations or individuals do you mean?

People like Pat Robertson, Jack Chick, Bill Donohue, James Dobson – the sort of person who takes offense at a cashier wishing them a happy holiday instead of a merry Christmas. The complex transcends denomination, though some have a marked tendency toward it. The Southern Baptists make a good example.

Christians are forbidden from reading hearts. That is, we may assess behaviour but not motivation. You said, “It seems to me these people want to be persecuted and martyred, remembering the eighth beatitude a little too fondly and trying to actively fulfill it.” Therefore you assessed motivation.

I’m not Christian I see the actions, I wonder why people do them, I try to find an explanation. I like to understand things. Do you not wonder why Osama bin Laden acts the way he does, or does he remain only the boogeyman in the closet to you?

It is only standard grammar where the referent is clear. Your use of ‘these people’ lumps together folks who are being persecuted with folks who are merely shouting loudly about being persecuted for no reason at all. This marginalizes folks who have bona fide reasons for claiming persecution.

I said quite clearly in the paragraph before: Many choose to perceive every real or imagined slight or even mere disagreement as another lion loosed upon them by laughing Romans. And then, in the next sentence beginning the bottom paragraph, Now, this doesn’t cover all Christians by a long shot, but it covers a lot of the louder ones. The 'these people’s (there are two) in the next paragraph refer to those and no others, without malice, without an attempt at overgeneralization, only as an indicator. The reference is clear, if lengthy. If you choose to intentionally misread me, I can’t stop you, but I don’t recommend it.

 

[JimG]

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day."330

They do not have Christ - their religion renounces Christ and the gospel saying that Christ never died on the cross and rose…the very center of Christianity. SO…the CCC says that they will be saved without Christ.

The quotation says nothing about Muslim belief, nor was that its intent.

To say that the “plan of salvation includes” those who acknowledge the Creator, says nothing about who will or will not in fact be saved.

God’s plan of salvation “includes” everyone. That doesn’t mean everyone will be saved. The Church also teaches that whoever IS saved, is saved through Jesus by means of his Church.

 

[Jesusstreet]

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day."330

They do not have Christ - their religion renounces Christ and the gospel saying that Christ never died on the cross and rose…the very center of Christianity. SO…the CCC says that they will be saved without Christ.

You’d better hope that Muslims can be saved, because everyone who tries to get to HEAVEN by a way other than JESUS CHRIST is a thief and a robber. That includes protestants who are in denial of the FULNESS OF THE TRUTH. They are ignorant, being taught what they are taught from children. By the example of the good theif we see the acknowledgement of JESUS as LORD, in repentance, we can be saved. In fact, those who are given much to them much is required. Those who know the TRUTH are required to do that which they understand they must do. To those who do not see they cannot see, but once you see the sin remains.

It is TRUE that practicing muslims are fulfilling the role of the anti-christ in the world, denying the FATHER AND THE SON. But Protestants are equally fulfilling a role that it is prescribed in scripture of the apostacy of the divided house. Thus those apostates who are taught falsely and don’t see, but are ignorant of the fullness of the TRUTH, they most of all should be forgiving of the muslims, because they are in the same boat of ignorance trying to get to HEAVEN by a way other than the prescribed way of JESUS’ BLOOD COVENANT which is literally present in the HOLY EUCHARIST . …

A man can have just one bride, and so too JESUS has just ONE BRIDE, not many. there is ONE TRUE VINE not many. there is ONE WAY TO THE FATHER, not many. Anyone who tries to get to HEAVEN by another way, is a theif and a robber.

But the humble adn repentant soul who calls upon the HOLY NAME OF JESUS CHRIST, can be saved. You will recall it was not until JESUS was upon the cross after the trial, and scourging at the pillar, and carrying of the cross, and the entire passion, after being on teh cross for a time, then JESUS’ thirsted. Do you thirst for HEAVEN or expect it? Do you think you deserve HEAVEN, or are you unworthy? will you ask JESUS to remember you because of your sins or do you assume you will go to HEAVEN? which of us are worthy? Aren’t we supposed to work out our salvation in fear and trembling, bringing us closer to GOD through strict obedience to the WILL OF GOD?

I wouldn’t go judging our enemies, but pray for them, because we all will need CHRIST’s mercy. those who have much, much will be required, those who are ignorant can also be saved, in the end we will all need mercy. . .

FORGIVE US OUR SINS OH LORD, AND DO WITH US AS YOU WILL . … Amen.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

…You will recall it was not until JESUS was upon the cross after the trial, and scourging at the pillar, and carrying of the cross, and the entire passion, after being on teh cross for a time, then JESUS’ thirsted…

After being scourged and falling down three times on the Via Dolorosa, Jesus surely thirsted before being nailed to the Cross. However He said He thirsted just before He gave up the Ghost in order to fulfil the Passover promise of deliverance. You will notice that Jesus only shared three of the four Passover cups at the Last Supper. The fourth cup He took on the Cross.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Mirdath:

A very large minority. If one divides up the pie based on individual denomination, there is no majority at all, and Catholics might well make for a plurality.

Catholics have been persecuted in American history for centuries. To say otherwise is to rewrite history and marginalize Catholicism by doing so. No matter how you cut your pie.

Mirdath:

bin Laden and his followers are worthy of concern. Islam as a whole – no, not any more than Christianity is something to be concerned about because of the actions and beliefs of Paul Hill.

I am afraid you missed my distinction between OBL’s teachings and Muhammed’s teachings PBUH.

Mirdath:

People like Pat Robertson, Jack Chick, Bill Donohue, James Dobson – the sort of person who takes offense at a cashier wishing them a happy holiday instead of a merry Christmas. The complex transcends denomination, though some have a marked tendency toward it. The Southern Baptists make a good example.

The Catholic experience has been somewhat more oppressive than not being wished a Merry Christmas. To say otherwise is to rewrite history and marginalize Catholicism by doing so.

Mirdath:

I’m not Christian I see the actions, I wonder why people do them, I try to find an explanation. I like to understand things.

Finding out someone’s motivation by asking them is one thing. Leaping to conclusions about their motivation is a road fraught with error.

Mirdath:

Do you not wonder why Osama bin Laden acts the way he does, or does he remain only the boogeyman in the closet to you?

This is grievously presumptuous, inaccurate, and impolite and presupposes that I have read nothing about OBL’s reasons for doing what he does. He himself has written about his reasons. And I have read what he has written.

Mirdath:

I said quite clearly in the paragraph before: *Many choose to perceive every real or imagined slight or even mere disagreement as another lion loosed upon them by laughing Romans. * And then, in the next sentence beginning the bottom paragraph, Now, this doesn’t cover all Christians by a long shot, but it covers a lot of the louder ones.

I know what you said. I read it. I asked you to specify. Since you will not specify, you concede the point.

Mirdath:

The 'these people’s (there are two) in the next paragraph refer to those and no others, without malice, without an attempt at overgeneralization, only as an indicator. The reference is clear, if lengthy.

The referent is faulty. Not clear. It could mean any number of things. It is only clear to you because you wrote it. Communication takes more than just a speaker.

Mirdath:

If you choose to intentionally misread me, I can’t stop you, but I don’t recommend it.

Your own use of the language is not clear and you decline to clarify. Therefore you should not be surprised if confusion results. Actually after your impolite attempt to wrongly attribute to me an attitude toward OBL, I feel obliged to inform you that I think it not worthwhile to continue this exchange.

 

[Mirdath]

Catholics have been persecuted in American history for centuries. To say otherwise is to rewrite history and marginalize Catholicism by doing so. No matter how you cut your pie.

The Catholic experience has been somewhat more oppressive than not being wished a Merry Christmas. To say otherwise is to rewrite history and marginalize Catholicism by doing so.

We are not talking about history. Or at least I am not; I am talking about modern-day Catholics and Protestants alike who can’t seem to get enough ‘persecution’.

If you want to talk history, that’s a whole different ball of wax that does not involve Bill Donohue and friends at all. They’re trying to ride the coattails of a legacy of actual longsuffering patience.

I know what you said. I read it. I asked you to specify. Since you will not specify, you concede the point.

The referent is faulty. Not clear. It could mean any number of things. It is only clear to you because you wrote it. Communication takes more than just a speaker.

Your own use of the language is not clear and you decline to clarify. Therefore you should not be surprised if confusion results. Actually after your impolite attempt to wrongly attribute to me an attitude toward OBL, I feel obliged to inform you that I think it not worthwhile to continue this exchange.

I did clarify multiple times just in case the point was lost to you, yet it seems my words are invisible when it isn’t convenient for your purposes. Yes, communication does take more than a speaker. It takes a listener, and I fear I do not have one.

 

[Jesusstreet]

After being scourged and falling down three times on the Via Dolorosa, Jesus surely thirsted before being nailed to the Cross. However He said He thirsted just before He gave up the Ghost in order to fulfil the Passover promise of deliverance. You will notice that Jesus only shared three of the four Passover cups at the Last Supper. The fourth cup He took on the Cross.

What’s your point? You say, JESUS must have thristed. Well JESUS certainly was “thirsty” after 40 days in teh desert. But it really doesn’t matter. The selection of detail in the Gospels is deliberate. We could fill in historical or pramatic details for context, but in the context of the written word, JESUS did not “thirst” until he was on the Cross. Further JESUS has said that anyone who would preserve their LIFE shall lose it, and anyone who would lost their LIFE for HIS sake shall find it. Does this mean if you are not a martyr you are dead? That’s not the teaching of the Church, but Purgatory is. Are you Catholic? Sure you are not sola scriptura, because i don’t believe anything of what you suggest is in the Bible.

 

[Jeanette_L]

VociMike and others, I agree that it is pitiful that some Protestants attack the Catholic Church.

I would say that these attacks occur for the following reasons:

1. The Protestant believes that the Catholic Church is teaching a false doctrine that is sending people away from Jesus. E.g., a lot of Protestants believe that the Catholic Church teaches salvation by works. They learn these untruths from literature or lecture, often presented by ex-Catholics.
2. The Protestant has met up with a Catholic who is a hypocrite and involved in outright sin e.g, living out of wedlock with a lover. This convinces the Protestant that the Catholic Church is not truly a Christian church.
3. The Protestant has met up with a Catholic who is, through ignorance, disgruntlement, or both, spreading untruths about the Catholic Church. The Protestant assumes that since the person is Catholic, they must know the truth about the Catholic Church.

I think the answer is for Catholics to continue to demonstrate Christian love and to try to learn as much as possible about their Church so that they can correct the many misconceptions.

I also think that Catholics need to support the more “modern” Masses that can help create a bridge between Protestantism and Catholism. I’m NOT saying that Catholics all have to attend NO Masses with contemporary music and local language. But at least support it in words, because it truly does help “ease” Protestants into the Catholic Church and help them to see that the Church is a true Christian church.

Amen and Amen. The biggest hurdle for Protestants understanding Catholicism is the lives lived out by Catholics, not all Catholics, but let’s be realistic about the state of the average Catholic in our culture . Catholic lives lived out in ignorance, lived out in apathy, lived out in sin, are a scandal and a stumbling block.

But here’s the good news - the Holy Spirit is not sleeping! He is at work, leading Protestants home in spite of the odds! And if there are Catholics out there who don’t and *won’t *love their faith, *won’t *love their Church, then move over, because we’re coming home and will fill that slot for you, to be the witness to the Truth if you won’t do it! :extrahappy:

And there’s nothing more frightening to a Protestant than to see another one change sides with fire in their soul and a zeal for the Truth. Because you can’t fight a fire that’s been put their by the Holy Spirit and win! Not gonna happen. :nope: