Why do Catholics play the role of victim so much?

[elvisman]

Persecuted?

By an anonomous poster over the internet? :bigyikes:

Persecution is somebody in a position of power denying a group out of power basic human rights because of their faith.

Move to Saudi Arabia, Iraq, or China and you might understand what persecution is.

Persecution is not an anonomous poster over the internet saying nasty things about you and your faith. From my following these forums I have seen both Catholics and Protestants get banned by the moderators for saying nasty things over the internet about the other. However, none of these posters are “persecuting” the other side.

Besides, SIA has been here over six months and has 400 posts or so. I assume that the moderators do not think SIA is that much of a bad citizen here.

This post is exhibit “A” in “playing the victim” around here. Sheesh. Get over it.

Merriam webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary defines “Persecute” as follows:

**1 : to harass or punish in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; specifically : to cause to suffer because of belief
2 : to annoy with persistent or urgent approaches (as attacks, pleas, or importunities) : PESTER

Ask yourself why you came to this forum in the first place if you’re not Catholic. How did you hear of it? From fellow anti-Catholics?
Some of you - not all - came to persecute.

 

[elvisman]

Well I found the web site by those who posted here.

So a couple of questions on this group. Are they sedevacantist? Are they some other religion other than Catholic? Have its leaders been excommunicated? Has anyone that is a leader (Cardinal or Pope) condemned this group?

Or is this the opinion of one Catholic versus the opinions of other Catholic?

From my point of view from watching these threads, the state of Protestants is a debated issue within Catholicism with both sides citing the Magisterium to support their position. I have learned some of the right questions to ask, but this issue still seems to me as one where Catholics disagree with Catholics over what their own Magisterium teaches.

Hey I have no doubt they are not “mainstream” Catholics. I have no doubt they represent a minority voice within Catholicism. But, unless I have evidence to the contrary, they do seem to be Catholic.

At any rate, I am not going to claim that the “Tradition in Action” folks (be they Catholic or something else) “hate” Protestants and “persecute” Protestants. I will leave those words to the gay rights groups to abuse when they speak about Christians.

Mozart -
As the Early Church Fathers overwhelmingly proclaimed, to be truly Catholic you must be communion with the Pope to be in communion with the Church.

As for your comments about Tradition in Action or other Sedevacantist groups, either you’re playing Devil’s Advocate here or you simply haven’t done your homework in regards to Jesus and his Holy Catholic Church.

 

[mozart-250]

you may not understand what i am refering to as persecution.
i am not talking about people here being rude to each other. i am talking about real persecution.
i never heard a priest saying nothing against any protestant or other religious people. but i have heard pastors and other clergy and people calling the CC many things but good. i saw them making funny of catholics during their services and etc…

Well I am not sure that is persecution either…

Although these actions are in poor taste and…well wrong…in the end who (real people please) is being harmed here? I guess I just don’t get the use of the word “persecution” when no real people are being harmed.

But that’s me. I would prefer to use the word persecution in regards to what is happening to Christians in Iraq. But anyway…

I was specifically responding to a post that accused SIA of “persecuting” Catholics. I would hope that we could agree that disagreeing with each other (even vigorously) is not “persecuting”. But if you disagree and consider this persecuting, I would hope that we could agree that Catholics and Protestants here are equally guilty of “persecuting” each other.

 

[mozart-250]

Merriam webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary defines “Persecute” as follows:

1 : to harass or punish in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; specifically : to cause to suffer *because of belief
*2 : to annoy with persistent or urgent approaches (as attacks, pleas, or importunities) : PESTER

Ask yourself why you came to this forum in the first place if you’re not Catholic. How did you hear of it? From fellow anti-Catholics?
Some of you - not all - came to persecute.

So anybody that is being “pestered” is being “persecuted”? Interesting.

That is not normally what I (and I think most people) would consider persecution. I think most folks would only consider (1) to be persecution (which can not be done over the internet).

But (since it is hard to argue with the dictionary), if you want to consider (2) to be persecution…then (according to the metric of banned posters), Catholics are similarly guilty of persecution of Protestants (pot…kettle anybody). And SIA is not even banned; so I can’t see where he is guilty of “persecution” under any metric.

 

[mozart-250]

**Mozart **-
As the Early Church Fathers overwhelmingly proclaimed, to be truly Catholic you must be communion with the Pope to be in communion with the Church.

As for your comments about Tradition in Action or other Sedevacantist groups, either you’re playing Devil’s Advocate here or you simply haven’t done your homework in regards to Jesus and his Holy Catholic Church.

I would agree that “Tradition in Action” is not Catholic if they are Sedevacantist (unless you want to say JW are Protestant). However, I have seen nothing on their website claiming that the current popes are antipopes and that the papacy is currently vacant. Of course I could have missed something.

 

[PHX_Paul]

If you really are the one true church that Christ founded, then why do you give a hoot what anyone else thinks of you? It amazes me the extent some of you will go to play the victim’s role.

I don’t really give a “hoot” what anyone else thinks of " me". Whose playing the " victim"??? Are these questions the result of a History Channel program???


Paul

 

[wisdomseeker]

Well I am not sure that is persecution either…

Although these actions are in poor taste and…well wrong…in the end who (real people please) is being harmed here? I guess I just don’t get the use of the word “persecution” when no real people are being harmed.

But that’s me. I would prefer to use the word persecution in regards to what is happening to Christians in Iraq. But anyway…

I was specifically responding to a post that accused SIA of “persecuting” Catholics. I would hope that we could agree that disagreeing with each other (even vigorously) is not “persecuting”. But if you disagree and consider this persecuting, I would hope that we could agree that Catholics and Protestants here are equally guilty of “persecuting” each other.

it is all persecution. either way.

 

[marietta]

Tantum ergo:

This is a “fer ‘em or agin’ 'em” forum. One either does the “atta boy!” thing or engages is acrimonious debate. What these members have attempted to get me to accept is that “narrow is the way”, and unless I tiptoe around on the eggshells of Catholicism I will never see the face of God.

Too narrow for me. I do not condemn anyone for living this way. I simply choose not to.

marietta

 

[JRKH]

Right now I’m sitting here chuckling.

SIA has done it again.

He started this thread with a bold statement with no examples or other evidence on 5 July and hasn’t been back since.

So any clarification we asked for has not been answered yet He has generated 5+ pages of “controversy”.

Now that’s funny (at least to me )

Peace
James

 

[elvisman]

So anybody that is being “pestered” is being “persecuted”? Interesting.

That is not normally what I (and I think most people) would consider persecution. I think most folks would only consider (1) to be persecution (which can not be done over the internet).

But (since it is hard to argue with the dictionary), if you want to consider (2) to be persecution…then (according to the metric of banned posters), Catholics are similarly guilty of persecution of Protestants (pot…kettle anybody). And SIA is not even banned; so I can’t see where he is guilty of “persecution” under any metric.

Most baiters (trolls, hit & run attackers, etc) on this forum are non-Catholics. that is to say, they make a provocative statement - such as SIA did - and run. They don’t answer the rebuttals, the simply stir the pot and run. This is persecution as well as childish behavior.

Why these types of baiters (a few come to mind) haven’t been banned or disciplined is beyond me. I can only assume that the mods are very busy reading the thousands of posts on this forum.

You are correct, however, that persecutors come from the Catholic side as well.

 

[elvisman]

I would agree that “Tradition in Action” is not Catholic if they are Sedevacantist (unless you want to say JW are Protestant). However, I have seen nothing on their website claiming that the current popes are antipopes and that the papacy is currently vacant. Of course I could have missed something.

There are those who claim to be Catholic that aren’t in communion with the holy Father, yet aren’t sedevacantists. This may include “Tradition in Action”. If you are disobedient to the Holy See and not in communion, you are not a true Catholic.

Sede Vacante literally means “the chair is empty”. These are people who believe that the chair of Peter is empty, i.e., the Papacy is vacant.

 

[mozart-250]

There are those who claim to be Catholic that aren’t in communion with the holy Father, yet aren’t sedevacantists. This may include “Tradition in Action”. If you are disobedient to the Holy See and not in communion, you are not a true Catholic.

Just curious…

If “Tradition in Action” is not sedevacantist and has not been excommunicated or otherwise disciplined by the Catholic church (meaning they still can and do take the Eucharist in the Catholic church) then they are still Catholic. If not, what are they?

These are the questions in my mind…not what other Catholics think about them (doesn’t that boil down to your “private interpretation” anyway).

Now they may be “bad Catholic” for sure. But it is not up to me to say that. And I really don’t think it is up to you to say that either.

 

[elvisman]

Just curious…

If “Tradition in Action” is not sedevacantist and has not been excommunicated or otherwise disciplined by the Catholic church (meaning they still can and do take the Eucharist in the Catholic church) then they are still Catholic. If not, what are they?

These are the questions in my mind…not what other Catholics think about them (doesn’t that boil down to your “private interpretation” anyway).

Now they may be “bad Catholic” for sure. But it is not up to me to say that. And I really don’t think it is up to you to say that either.

First of all, members of Tradition in Action or other radical traditionalist groups would not receive communion in anything other than the pre-1962 Tridentine mass because many of them consider the current liturgy to be heretical.

As for whether or not they are being dealt with by Rome, that seems to be an ongoing process. Whereas some of the churches that claim to be Catholic have valid Apostolic succession, some don’t. Some are in schism and most, if not all, are guilty of spiritual pride.

 

[kalt]

It is no doubt to you…and to be honest it is no doubt to me.

But from what I have read here there is quite a bit of doubt and debate amongst Catholics. And those who disagree will cite previous quotes of your Magisterium to substantiate their perspective.

Anyway, I have sort of lost track on how this relates to the thread.

LOL, me too.

But I have to say again, that there is no doubt about where the CC stands. Anyone who doubts it, or says that it’s something it isn’t, is ignorant of the facts.

I suppose an individual can doubt just about anything. But this one point really isn’t up for debate. Non-Catholic Christians are Christian. The Church relates to them as fellow Christians, from the Vatican to the local parishes.

One can doubt that gravity is a fact, but the apple’s gonna hit them in the head nonetheless.

 

[mozart-250]

First of all, members of Tradition in Action or other radical traditionalist groups would not receive communion in anything other than the pre-1962 Tridentine mass because many of them consider the current liturgy to be heretical.

As for whether or not they are being dealt with by Rome, that seems to be an ongoing process. Whereas some of the churches that claim to be Catholic have valid Apostolic succession, some don’t. Some are in schism and most, if not all, are guilty of spiritual pride.

I was asking specifically about “Tradition in Action” not any other radical traditionalist group.

Since nobody has shown that (1) they can not receive the eucharist, or (2) do not have apostolic succession, or (3) are otherwise disciplined by the catholic church such that they can not receive the eucharist in any variant of the Catholic mass, I have no other option but to consider them Catholic.

Yes, you believe they are guilty of spiritual pride and other assorted sins (but how you know that sort of befuddles me). Yes if your pope Benedictus were to chime in here, he would probably say that they are wrong (that is my best guess anyway). And yes they may be and probably are bad (although it is not up to either you or myself to say so) Catholics (Catholics for free choice might be a valid comparison).

But…

They still are Catholic.

 

[elvisman]

I was asking specifically about “Tradition in Action” not any other radical traditionalist group.

Since nobody has shown that (1) they can not receive the eucharist, or (2) do not have apostolic succession, or (3) are otherwise disciplined by the catholic church such that they can not receive the eucharist in any variant of the Catholic mass, I have no other option but to consider them Catholic.

Yes, you believe they are guilty of spiritual pride and other assorted sins (but how you know that sort of befuddles me). Yes if your pope Benedictus were to chime in here, he would probably say that they are wrong (that is my best guess anyway). And yes they may be and probably are bad (although it is not up to either you or myself to say so) Catholics (Catholics for free choice might be a valid comparison).

But…

They still are Catholic.

These people are renegades.

---

I don’t know why my belief that they are guilty of spiritual pride befuddles you. Your own signature line should explain it:
"You shall know them by their fruits."

Are they "bad"? I never said they were. I merely said that they were guilty of spiritual pride because of their defiance of the Magesterium.

**Your point about them receiving communion in the Catholic church is moot because they receives largely from schismatic priests. ****Atila Sinke Guimarães, a leader in the movement is a sedevacantist and would never attend a mass whose priests were in communion with Rome. **

---

---

 

[LilyM]

I hear a lot of Catholics talking like this.

You have to get a good definition of “theory”. In science, “theory” doesn’t mean merely “guess” or “idea”.

It’s a mystery to me why so many Catholics have a problem with evolution. Catholicism and evolution fact aren’t at odds.

I’m not suggesting that scientific theories are equatable to mere guesses or ideas, and I have no problem with evolution all (naturally theistic evolution though) and in my experience know few Catholics (although of course there are some) who do.

Certainly incredibly few compared to some other Christian denominations -which may explain it, there are a lot of converts on here from other denominations who may’ve brought literal creationism with them.

I’m just pointing out that scientific theories aren’t absolutes. I’m not talking just about evolution or gravity, which are old and well established, but other theories about, for example, whether coffee or eggs are good or bad for your health (about which scientific opinion varies widely).

In the end scientific theories are the best possible explanations we can currently give of how natural phenomena work based on the data available and the rigour of the study we do. And that any scientific theory can be changed or abandoned entirely as scientists come along with better explanations or more trustworthy data to take place of the current ones.

 

[hawkeye]

If you really are the one true church that Christ founded, then why do you give a hoot what anyone else thinks of you? It amazes me the extent some of you will go to play the victim’s role.

I personally don’t play the victim, but if people attack, I defend.

And the last accepted prejudice in this world is against the Catholic Church, you can be accepted as anything I suppose, as long as it isn’t Catholic.

And why do many denominations feel they need to attack us, if they’re so sure of what they believe in then why don’t they get on with it.

In almost my 40 plus years attending Mass I have never heard a Priest run down other faiths.

I’d say the reason many attack the CC is because it plays to those that are willing and duped into believing a self professed teacher.

If they didn’t attack the Catholic Church I expect they wouldn’t survive very long, and the job pays well.

So they should be at least this grateful, because without preaching negativity I’d say many of them would go out of business.

Because if everyone agreed, then we’d all be one, now that wouldn’t do, would it ?

So excuse us for having an inferiority complex, and no I don’t give a hoot !

 

[Robert_in_SD]

If you really are the one true church that Christ founded, then why do you give a hoot what anyone else thinks of you? It amazes me the extent some of you will go to play the victim’s role.

I think your perception is colored by your own bias. Why is it that you think Catholics play the role of victim? Give me a concrete example, please.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[MagicKirk]

There was a guy at work who made the same allegation as the OP.

The gist of it was that Catholics take needless offense at things in the media. He suggested that it all evens out it the end (I disagreed) and Catholics take them too seriously. He said that when someone that says something outlandish, non-Catholics take it at face value and discount what was said (again I disagreed).