Why are Catholics always being

[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.

Okay, fine, i went over that link, well written. But it seems to be a “belief” of Scott Hahn. Perhaps a personal-private revelation, don’t know how he came up with it. But doesn’t exactly fit round pegs into round holes. Assumes a great deal. I"ll stay my theories on this subject, as they abound with the idea of necessary suffering, and sacrifice for LOVE, to which we all beg mercy and hopefully are forgiven. Since we are unworthy save for JESUS’ sacrfice. Which is what it amounts to, we need JESUS, the institution of the EUCHARIST at the LAST SUPPER, the death of the cross, which sanctifies the EUCHARIST, and the EUCHARIST itself.

I tend to see this as the BRIDEGROOM with the BRIDE at the last supper, and then the wedding proposal at the CRUCIFIXION and finally the WEDDING FEAST OF THE LAMB at the EUCHARIST.

Some accused JESUS of being a glutton not to fast, but JESUS said HIS servants would fast when the BRIDEGROOM had gone, and they did.

The pain of the passion and crucifixion are a prefigurement of the joy of the resurrection, in that the first shall be last, and many that are last shall be first. It is a sign of what is to be.

The EUCHARIST is the marriage itself where the CHURCH is built. The EUCHARIST is poured out from the HEART OF JESUS through the wound in HIS SIDE, water for BAPTISM and blood for the EUCHARIST . … that the sheep of HIS flock are fed, and the wound in the side of CHRIST will be filled with the flesh of THE CHURCH, which is built with HIS BLOOD.

• To be honest Scott Hahn is all over the place in the talk, and it assumes evidence that isn’t in the selection of details in the Scripture. The Gospel writers were careful to include necessary details there. - Don’t be a victim of the “historical critical method” it is a good way to look at things sometimes, particularly so we can properly analyze the prophets because they often prophesied about the past, but also too about the MESSIAH and end of days. - I like Scott Hahn and often find him brilliant, but that particular talk while in interesting seems more important to him, and of little consequence in describing these things.

JESUS was going to die, so said HE wouldn’t drink again until HE drank it new in the KINGDOM, is that the KINGDOM that is now, or the KINGDOM which will be after the second coming? Will there be new wine in new wine skins once more? . …

 

[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.

On third thought, the fouth cup being drunk new in HEAVEN, could indicate that the passion is the liturgy that was missing from the passover pasch . … the lamb slain in revelation being the passover lamb which is JESUS . …

However we should take into account:

Genesis 2:22 *And the Lord God built the rib which he took from Adam into a woman: and brought her to Adam.

JESUS had no bone broken in HIS body, but the blood and water from HIS side builds the CHURCH. Adam had this flesh filled up and the woman, his bride made from the bone taken from him. JESUS pours out HIS BLOOD to build the CHURCH and this shall be JESUS’ BRIDE and the flesh that will fill the wound is the flesh of the CHURCH. Thus shortly before the end of days when JESUS returns the daily sacrifice of the mass may not be, but we will have to wait, for JESUS keeping our lamps lit, expectantly? . … that’s of course drawing from the book of Daniel and the parable of the ten virgins . …

 

[Zooey]

You kidding me? this site may be the most anti-bornagain/fundamentalist place on the world wide web (next to envoy any way!)
If you don’t see that its because you’ve not peeled the scales off your eyes!

**[SIGN]**Piffle-poofle! Pshaw!! Pfui!!!****[/SIGN]
Seriously, you have GOT to get the scales off of your eyes, before demanding it of someone else!! This is my favorite place on the 'Net. I meet more wonderful loving, caring Christians at CAF, than on the rest of the internet world combined.
I have been thrown off of, and banned from “Christian” sites all over the www, and I am born again, for Heaven’s sake! (Though not fundie; I acknowledge that). They don’t like me, because I ask for prayers for the safety of the pope when he travels; because I asked for prayer for the assembly when Pope Benedict was being elected; and, when the late Pope JP2, of happy memory, was in his last illness.
And this Catholic Answers site, lets me, faults & all, come & have fellowship, without anyone demanding that I put on an act to be acceptable.
Again, I say: [SIGN]Pfui!!![/SIGN]

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.

Awfully good post, Cat!
May I add, that I think that a lot of the prejudice is a kneejerk reaction to anyone who is serious about Christian faith. Somebody told them once that “Catholics aren’t Christian”, & they are really upset when they meet Catholics who obviously are.
A former pastor of mine, once had a Baptist preacher show up at the parsonage, & announce, “Good evening, I am here to convert you from Methodism to Christianity!”. The guy went away** furious**…because he had found out that the Methodist minister was indeed a Christian…Not happy, mind you; **angry **& muttering to himself…to:shrug: discover a fellow believer.

You just can’t please some people…That is their loss. It truly is.

 

[Teflon93]

Why do other faiths attack Catholics so much?I
Im Baptist myself but I never felt like attacking another faith.

A misinterpretation of Revelation is part of it; but in most cases I think it is simply that Protestant theologians have a need to defend the Reformers’ horrible records and propagandize in defense.

A more practical response is that they don’t attack the Catholic Church, but the hideous strawman they have built on top of Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli’s calumnies.

As a Baptist, it must be similar to when Baptists get referred to as “snake handlers” by other Protestants (a common put-down of Baptists here in the Bible Belt, and another example of useful ignorance often deployed from the pulpit).

There is enough to criticize without lying about the Church, certainly. The good news is that the teaching of the Catholic Church is written down and available to all and anyone wanting to put their misconceptions to the test need only attend Mass to see if we’re all worshipping statues and/or Mary or whatever.

 

[Cat]

I just want to add a little to my post. The BEST apologetic for Catholicism is Catholics themselves, who are living out their faith.

Many of my years as Protestant were spent involved in various pro-life organizations. Many of the movers and shakers in these organizations are Catholic, and I got to know them. Their faith and zeal for the Lord impressed me.

In my family, only one uncle (by marriage) was Catholic. Everyone else was Protestant, either German Reformed, Methodist, Lutheran, or Baptist. But it was the Catholic uncle who was beloved by everyone in the family. Almost everyone else had a “failing.” (e.g., one aunt was married five times, two cousins were perverts, one uncle was a drunk, two uncles and an aunt were “crazy,” grandpa was cruel, MIL was a money-grubber, several cousins were thieves, etc.)

But my Catholic uncle was a saint and no one disputed it. He was welcomedto all our gatherings with open arms. Everyone trusted him. He was straight in his dealings with everyone. He worked hard. He was kind. He was friendly. He was decent (not a perv). He was full of faith and good words about Jesus, yet he NEVER, EVER criticized any of the Protestant churches. In fact, his wife was Lutheran, and he attended church with her every week after attending Mass at his church. After she died, he spent his days visiting nursing homes and playing music (hymns) for the old folks on his tape recorder! And his funeral was packed–half the church with Catholics, the other half with Lutherans from his wife’s church.

When I was debating over whether to become Catholic, one of my concerns was, Will I have to give up all the Protestant things that are good? I looked up and there was my uncle, the Catholic uncle, sitting next to me. He smiled and said, “I did it.” And then he was gone.

So even after his death, he was witnessing for the Lord and for his church, the Catholic Church!

Catholics, live a life of love and faith, and you will bring many souls into the Church. And when it comes to persecution, well, the Bible says that people will be put to shame by your good works.

 

[Church_Militant]

You kidding me? this site may be the most anti-bornagain/fundamentalist place on the world wide web (next to envoy any way!)
If you don’t see that its because you’ve not peeled the scales off your eyes!

Riiiiiiiight…

That’s lamed by the fact that Catholics are indeed born again and being reborn in Christ is preached as part of all Catholic soteriology. If you have not seen that then I suspect it’s because you do not want to.

CAF is not anti-anything but ignorance & misinformation, something that a great many people (both Catholic and non) come in here laden with.

If you find that fundamentalists are discussed more often then you should also be aware that they are (as a group) the most vehemently and vitriolic purveyors of what can reasonably only be called the majority of anti-Catholic rhetoric and propaganda with an expressed intention to proselytize Catholics away from our most holy faith.

As for your comment about peeling the scales from our eyes…

I did (by the super-abundant grace of God!)…that is why I am a Catholic.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Jesusstreet:

Okay, fine, i went over that link, well written. But it seems to be a “belief” of Scott Hahn. Perhaps a personal-private revelation, don’t know how he came up with it.

He came up with it by looking at what the Passover actually involved. I think he actually explains that and you missed it. Obviously Jesus only shared three cups at the Seder. For Him to leave out the fourth cup at the Seder in a Jewish community was odd to say the least.

Jesusstreet:

But doesn’t exactly fit round pegs into round holes. Assumes a great deal.

It assumes nothing. It researches much.

Jesusstreet:

I"ll stay my theories on this subject, as they abound with the idea of necessary suffering, and sacrifice for LOVE, to which we all beg mercy and hopefully are forgiven. Since we are unworthy save for JESUS’ sacrfice. Which is what it amounts to, we need JESUS, the institution of the EUCHARIST at the LAST SUPPER, the death of the cross, which sanctifies the EUCHARIST, and the EUCHARIST itself.

And what part of this contradicts what Hahn has said? Hint: none.

Jesusstreet:

To be honest Scott Hahn is all over the place in the talk, and it assumes evidence that isn’t in the selection of details in the Scripture.

Saying so does not make it so. If you want to persuade us, then give examples of how the parts of his paper are not unified. As for SS, Scott Hahn is Catholic.

Jesusstreet:

The Gospel writers were careful to include necessary details there. - Don’t be a victim of the “historical critical method” it is a good way to look at things sometimes

How is Hahn’s paper only historical criticism?

Jesusstreet:

JESUS was going to die, so said HE wouldn’t drink again until HE drank it new in the KINGDOM, is that the KINGDOM that is now, or the KINGDOM which will be after the second coming? Will there be new wine in new wine skins once more?

So he drank the fourth cup and then gave up the Ghost and went off on His journey to the Kingdom with a brief stopover in the land of the dead.

 

[Jesusstreet]

He came up with it by looking at what the Passover actually involved. I think he actually explains that and you missed it. Obviously Jesus only shared three cups at the Seder. For Him to leave out the fourth cup at the Seder in a Jewish community was odd to say the least.

I didn’t miss anything . . . gotta try to grasp this

It assumes nothing. It researches much.

It assumes . … But makes valid points too.

And what part of this contradicts what Hahn has said? Hint: none.

Oh come off it, I wasn’t contradicting anything there. So what’s the point of saying i wasn’t contradictin anything there? futile point really. We are a bit off topic aren’t we?

Saying so does not make it so. If you want to persuade us, then give examples of how the parts of his paper are not unified. As for SS, Scott Hahn is Catholic.

And refuting doesn’t make it less so. He starts out pretty good but gets a bit side tracked, comes near to the idea of a “wedding feast” on one occassion, then gives some childish senarios . … nanny nanny boo boo . … And then goes on to some apologetics of protestant vs. Catholic which is entirely off topic. This discourse would have been more powerful if he had more fully and forcefully shown how the passion is the liturgy which was omitted with the absence of the fourth cup. (read my third responsorial post . … 1, 2, 3 posts right on topic . . . there’s always symbolism in TRUTH . … when we walk and talk the WORD)

How is Hahn’s paper only historical criticism?

I didn’t say the “fourth cup” was only historical criticism. I was making some comments about historical-critical analysis . … And asking the question, to what extent is the selection of detail by the authors exactly what they meant, and to what extent do we need additional knowledge beyond the Bible. How many CHRISTians, not raised Jewish would even know how the passover meal is conducted? Is it necessary that we know this, or just a pretty academic assertion about the liturgy? We get plenty of history here, back to the first passover which we are more familiar with from the Bible. We could make a lot of theological assertions here as well without assuming too much. But when we go outside the written lines, we are assuming the necessary connection? If we could make some theological assertion here, as to why JESUS woudl do this, and how this is necessary to the liturgy . … For instance that it is nessecary to go back to the cross . …

So he drank the fourth cup and then gave up the Ghost and went off on His journey to the Kingdom with a brief stopover in the land of the dead.

Psalms 51:9 *Thou shalt sprinkle me with hyssop, and I shall be cleansed: thou shalt wash me, and I shall be made whiter than snow.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I didn’t miss anything . . . gotta try to grasp this

I can see that this is not a discussion – just a this for that. So have a good day.

 

[Kazige2007]

One impotant reason is that all other “Christian Faiths” , to put it very simply, I]basically separated themselves fom the Catholic Faith ( i.e. fom one, universal, Christian faith origin so to speak ); the separations were always painful and so hatred and rivalry ware natural consequenses. So unless they are healed of these deep-set wounds, they will always attack Catholics. But we Catholics need to love our “separeted brethren” as Christ commanded us; most of us, in my opinion, also need this “inter-denominational healing” too in order to be trully able to love them.

Laudetur Iesus Christus!

 

[Teflon93]

One impotant reason is that all other “Christian Faiths” , to put it very simply, I]basically

separated themselves fom the Catholic Faith ( i.e. fom one, universal, Christian faith origin so to speak ); the separations were always painful and so hatred and rivalry ware natural consequenses. So unless they are healed of these deep-set wounds, they will always attack Catholics. But we Catholics need to love our “separeted brethren” as Christ commanded us; most of us, in my opinion, also need this “inter-denominational healing” too in order to be trully able to love them.

Laudetur Iesus Christus!

Given how few of current Protestants and Orthodox have ever been Catholics, why must there be any hatred of Catholics at all?

One could certainly understand the heated emotions of today’s heretic, but as we have seen very few of those who hurl the vitriol were there at its formulation.

 

[NotWorthy]

Given how few of current Protestants and Orthodox have ever been Catholics, why must there be any hatred of Catholics at all?

Because a Baptist can feel that a Methodist is right, and his religion is still not wrong.

But if the Catholics are right…

 

[Teflon93]

Because a Baptist can feel that a Methodist is right, and his religion is still not wrong.

But if the Catholics are right…

Well, okay, I’ll concede that one…

 

[Strider]

What I cannot for the life of me understand is why atheists would attack Catholics or any other religion? If it does not matter, why should it matter? Why so much energy, bitterness, and reams of paper and internet airspace devoted to debunking something that doesn’t exist? It would be like establishing international societies and forums and conventions to debunk Bigfoot or Nessie or UFOs.

That’s easy. Not bragging but merely stating the Truth, the Catholic Church is the only world body that holds the moral line, teaching the inherent evil in all kinds of things people of no particular religious conviction like to do or would like to see legalized carte blanche: Sex any time, anywhere with anybody, multiple marriages; birth control, abortions, euthanasia, assisted suicide, self-restraint of any kind.
The problem is that even atheists have consciences and know intuitively that much of the above is not within the moral law.
We keep telling them, so they hate us.

 

[mom2three]

You kidding me? this site may be the most anti-bornagain/fundamentalist place on the world wide web (next to envoy any way!)
If you don’t see that its because you’ve not peeled the scales off your eyes!

Anti-born again? Catholics ARE born again… we’re not against people who are born again!

I don’t see it as being anti-anything… but rather, a place where, even on Catholic turf, we must constantly defend our positions against (mostly) straw man arguments.

We are pro-truth and we are convinced we have the fullness of faith and truth that Christ intended for Christians worldwide and we want everyone to experience that fullness because we are overflowing with God’s grace and love.

We aren’t against anyone! We simply want the lies about Christ’s Church to stop and we’re tired of being told we don’t know what we believe as if we’re all blind. We’re tired of people saying, “Your Church teaches (insert some horrible misconception about the Church here).” And then, when we set the record straight on what the Church really teaches, we’re told in essence, “No it doesn’t. You don’t know what you’re talking about.”

Never, in my entire life, have I been judged as hell-bound more times by “Christians” than when I converted to Catholicism. I can’t recall ever seeing a Catholic tell a non-Catholic Christian that they are hell-bound, on this forum or otherwise.

 

[mom2three]

Why do other faiths attack Catholics so much?I
Im Baptist myself but I never felt like attacking another faith.

It’s from years and years of circulated lies and misconceptions about Catholicism.

Fulton Sheen said it best, “There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church.”

 

[Palladio]

Or, somewhat to echo some previous posts, why are Catholics bashed on this very site?

Why do Protestants (and a few Muslims) bother?

Perhaps they feel threatened by the largest and first Christian Church, which I believe is enjoying a resurgence in a certain kind of Catholic faith: an unyielding one sick of what the culture brings us in the States: Christian (so-called, anyway) sects impossible to distinguish from the town hall or the playboy channel.

I am not sure debating protestants helps them, and I am sure it does not help us.

This site is too complex and large for any one voice to be heard, but I would be for ignoring all challenges, and for ignoring the non-Catholic religion section.

 

[Jesusstreet]

I can see that this is not a discussion – just a this for that. So have a good day.

Can’t take the heat get out of the kitchen.

GOD bless you.

 

[Teflon93]

Can’t take the heat get out of the kitchen.

Well, THAT’s not in the Bible.

 

[Teflon93]

Never, in my entire life, have I been judged as hell-bound more times by “Christians” than when I converted to Catholicism. I can’t recall ever seeing a Catholic tell a non-Catholic Christian that they are hell-bound, on this forum or otherwise.

Of course not, but we surely get accused of doing so nonetheless, and when we do point to the Church’s teaching on ecumenism, get criticized for inconsistency, particularly for the Church’s teaching that the covenant with the Jews has not been abolished and so they may have a role in God’s plan of salvation.

You can see a similar discussion in the Limbo thread, or in the various salvation threads.

It’s not a real hard thing to understand the Catholic point of view: only the Church possesses the fulness of God’s revelation; other communities possess varying quantities of this truth, but not all of it; God’s judgment and mercy along with the actions of those members of those communities will determine their salvation.

We are attacked because we are a prize worth taking, whether by Saladin, by Luther, or by any of the hair-helmeted host out there today.