Why do Catholics play the role of victim so much?

[Namesake]

That’s my point…if the RCC didn’t do this to him, then please tell us who did this to him?

There is a direct correlation between the people within an organization and the organization itself…they are one and the same.

The RCC apologized and acknowledged their mistake in their treatment of Galileo. He was badly mistreated by the RCC.

 

[onetimeposter]

The RCC apologized and acknowledged their mistake in their treatment of Galileo. He was badly mistreated by the RCC.

So, then why do people still claim that the Catholic Church is incapable of making mistakes?

 

[Namesake]

So, then why do people still claim that the Catholic Church is incapable of making mistakes?

Got me. Sometimes they will trot out the “no true Scotsman” fallacy.

 

[estesbob]

So, then why do people still claim that the Catholic Church is incapable of making mistakes?

No one does-what is stated is that the Church is infallible in matters of faith and morals. Havng disposed of that strawman can we move on?

 

[ibkc]

Mocking the Pope was illegal?

If you’re done retroactively applying post-modern political sentiments to people and events of 500 years ago, maybe you’d care to bother to read what really happened. I give you a synopsis from Wikipedia:Pope Urban VIII personally asked Galileo to give arguments for and against heliocentrism in the book, and to be careful not to advocate heliocentrism. He made another request, that his own views on the matter be included in Galileo’s book. Only the latter of those requests was fulfilled by Galileo. Whether unknowingly or deliberate, Simplicius, the defender of the Aristotelian Geocentric view in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was often caught in his own errors and sometimes came across as a fool. This fact made Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems appear as an advocacy book; an attack on Aristotelian geocentrism and defense of the Copernican theory. To add insult to injury, Galileo put the words of Pope Urban VIII into the mouth of Simplicius. Most historians agree Galileo did not act out of malice and felt blindsided by the reaction to his book.[89] However, the Pope did not take the suspected public ridicule lightly, nor the blatant bias. Galileo had alienated one of his biggest and most powerful supporters, the Pope, and was called to Rome to defend his writings.

In other words, the Pope was defending him and trying to help him, and Galileo completely spit in his face.

 

[estesbob]

If you’re done retroactively applying post-modern political sentiments to people and events of 500 years ago, maybe you’d care to bother to read what really happened. I give you a synopsis from Wikipedia:**Pope Urban VIII personally **asked Galileo to give arguments for and against heliocentrism in the book, and to be careful not to advocate heliocentrism. He made another request, that his own views on the matter be included in Galileo’s book. Only the latter of those requests was fulfilled by Galileo. Whether unknowingly or deliberate, Simplicius, the defender of the Aristotelian Geocentric view in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was often caught in his own errors and sometimes came across as a fool. This fact made Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems appear as an advocacy book; an attack on Aristotelian geocentrism and defense of the Copernican theory. To add insult to injury, Galileo put the words of Pope Urban VIII into the mouth of Simplicius. Most historians agree Galileo did not act out of malice and felt blindsided by the reaction to his book.[89] However, the Pope did not take the suspected public ridicule lightly, nor the blatant bias. Galileo had alienated one of his biggest and most powerful supporters, the Pope, and was called to Rome to defend his writings.

In other words, the Pope was defending him and trying to help him, and Galileo completely spit in his face.

Agreed It is very easy to come to false conclusions when pulling out of context quotes from a trial held 500 years ago. i suspect that 500 years from now there will be people claiming that the 20th century court syetem in America was biased towards acquiting blacks and use the OJ Trial to bolster ther argument.

 

[Strummer]

Anamchara has already pointed out the falacy of your premise so I do not need to elaborate.

OK, as you suggested, I reviewed your posts and in post #162 you wrote, “Protestants and non-catholics refer to repent and believe in Jesus, as if it were a one time event to become Christian.” Now, tell me how you were “unfairly dubbed” for claiming all Protestants ascribe to OSAS? If, in fact, you recognize that there are some major mainline Protestants that do NOT hold to OSAS, I suggest you explicitly state that now and end this confusion. Alternatively, you can step up and admit that your anti-Protestant bigotry has tainted your perceptions and you have unfairly broadbrushed Methodists, Lutherans and perhaps some others.

Ah, but on the contrary, I was clarifying what Catholics practice, to the OP, so as not to confuse one’s assumption of Catholics who play the role of victim so much, With the ministry of reconciliation, to which I have no clue (what Catholic is being represented here) because of the general statement made to all Catholics of playing victim. So yes We as Catholics take on mortifications for the sake of others.

I did not get the impression that the motivation for the OP’s question was the Sacrament of Reconcilliation. Hardly. Rather it was the behavior of SOME Catholics to seek out and even revel in “suffering”. They seem so desparate to prove their sanctity that they are all to eager to claim persecution at the pettiest slight. Now, do not get me wrong. I am not saying anti-Catholic sentiment does not exist. Just that some folks actually go looking for it to play martyr and still others see it in places where it is not.

Is this is trick question?, or is this an oxymoron statement above? Protestantism: if I can generalize here, All have one thing in common, they Protest the One Holy, Catholic,Apostolic Church.

Yes, all Protestants share a historical schism with the Catholic Church. But this does not mean they all hold the same tenets of faith across the board. Now, you claim that it was not your “intent to distinguish the different Protestant belief’s, only that the ministry of reconciliation that they do not subscribe too [sic]” and while I will take you at your word here I would also say that you seem to be completely missing the OP’s point in order to make a different point of your own.

 

[estesbob]

Yes, all Protestants share a historical schism with the Catholic Church. But this does not mean they all hold the same tenets of faith across the board. .

Which is of course their fatal flaw. They are not only in schism with the Church they are in schism with themselves. All using the same Scripture, all claiming be led by the same spirt but often comng up with different answers. and thus chaos-the fruits of the “reformation”

 

[Swan]

No one does-what is stated is that the Church is infallible in matters of faith and morals. Havng disposed of that strawman can we move on?

How is their treatment of this man not a moral issue? Same thing with the witch burnings and the Medieval inquisition against “heretics”. Where does morality start if not with our treatment of our fellow man?

 

[estesbob]

How is their treatment of this man not a moral issue? Same thing with the witch burnings and the Medieval inquisition against “heretics”. Where does morality start if not with our treatment of our fellow man?

The fatc that , in the 2,000 year History of the Church there were abuses does not negate the Church’s authority in matters of faith and Morals. You make the usual mistake of confusing inflallible with impecable…

 

[onetimeposter]

The fatc that , in the 2,000 year History of the Church there were abuses does not negate the Church’s authority in matters of faith and Morals. You make the usual mistake of confusing inflallible with impecable…

Of course the Church can make mistakes in morals and faith…the decisions are all made by fallible men, who are influenced by their culture, education, nurturing and their ingrained biases.

Why does everyone forget that?

 

[ibkc]

witch burnings

Oh man, another old saw.

While witch trials are attested to in the Middle Ages, they remained relatively rare until after the time of the Reformation, c. 1550, at which point the number of witch trials and executions absolutely skyrocketed. This period of the mid 1500’s lasted for approximately a hundred years and it is called the “witch craze”. The highest concentration of executions for witchcraft occurred in Germany (highest estimated death toll around 26,000). Switzerland, Austria, Bohemia, Scotland, Poland and France follow in the number of executions, with available records pointing to death tolls in the 1,000 to 5,000 range. With the possible exception some of the executions in Poland, there is nothing to suggest that the Catholic Church was involved in the European witch craze. They were nearly all the result of secular investigations and trials, and the highest concentrations of them occurred in Protestant populations.

Read all about it here (Google cache link, since the site appears to be down.)

Medieval inquisition against “heretics”

You mean the crusade against the Albigensians? Thank God for that. I cannot imagine how anyone can read what those folks taught in-depth and not think that they wielded a significant threat to the fabric of medieval European society.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Of course the Church can make mistakes in morals and faith…the decisions are all made by fallible men, who are influenced by their culture, education, nurturing and their ingrained biases.

Why does everyone forget that?

Because. . .it isn’t true?

Because the Catholic Church is not just a ‘group of fallible men’ but is the Bride of Christ, in union with Christ, and guided by the Holy Spirit?

You really think that Jesus founded a Church, which He said would prevail against the gates of Hell, left us the Paraclete who would guide us to all truth, and then. . . .just left?

It doesn’t make sense.

Either Jesus left us not only a Church, not only Scripture and Sacred Tradition, not only the Paraclete to guide us to all truth --and the authority to authentically teach, without error, His teachings. . .

Or He lied. He lied, and He left us to wallow in our mistakes, left those ‘gates of hell’ wide open, the Spirit didn’t help, and we are the most pitiful of beings because, if Christ lied, he was not God and we are most pitifully deceived.

Sorry. I don’t buy it. I believe in Christ. I believe what He said. I believe that He didn’t leave us alone. I believe that He made sure that we would NOT be twisting and turning His words and falling into error as the years went by. I believe Him when He said the gates of hell would not prevail.

I believe in His Church and His teachings. . . HIS teachings, which being of God, are perfect and true, and that what the Church teaches are still His teachings. . .which the Holy Spirit has guided us to, which do not contradict His known words in Scripture but only confirm them.

 

[onetimeposter]

I believe in His Church and His teachings…

And I believe that men make mistakes, even the ordained leadership of the Roman Catholic Church.

I also believe that this idea that the Church is infallible in faith and morals…is a very dangerous idea indeed.

Why does the Church have a monopoly on infallibility in areas of faith and morals?

 

[estesbob]

Of course the Church can make mistakes in morals and faith…the decisions are all made by fallible men, who are influenced by their culture, education, nurturing and their ingrained biases.

Why does everyone forget that?

Because it is not true for matters of faith and morals. it is exactly becuase the Church does not bend to current culture that makes it such a bastion of truth.

 

[estesbob]

And I believe that men make mistakes, even the ordained leadership of the Roman Catholic Church.

You are entitled to your opinion but why should we accept your opinion over that of a Church with 2,000 years of consistent teachings and traditions? What makes you wiser than all who went before us?

I also believe that this idea that the Church is infallible in faith and morals…is a very dangerous idea indeed.

The dangerous idea is that truth is subjective .

Why does the Church have a monopoly on infallibility in areas of faith and morals?

Becuase Christ gave it to them.

 

[onetimeposter]

consistent teachings and traditions? What makes you wiser than all who went before us?

**The leadership of the Church changed things, re-directed things, tinkered with things, so it wasn’t really that consistent. You make it sound like the Church has had the same practices for two thousand years and it hasn’t…not by a long shot.

A lot of the practices of the Church were made up over time…such as private confession to a priest, celibate priests, purgatory, Mary being sinless etc…**

The dangerous idea is that truth is subjective .

What is truth? **The Roman Catholic Church does not have a monopoly on truth.

The Laity have it drilled in their heads that their is no salvation without their Church…and does that keep them coming back?

Yes.**

Becuase Christ gave it to them.

Them, meaning those employed as ordained ministers, Bishops, Cardinals and the Pope…but no one else?

 

[Namesake]

Because it is not true for matters of faith and morals. it is exactly becuase the Church does not bend to current culture that makes it such a bastion of truth.

The RCC has bent to current culture. The RCC issued an apology for what it did to Galileo. The RCC admitted wrong doing and came round to current scientific culture if you will, albeit kicking and screaming all the way. The RCC was essentially forced to move along out of the dark ages because it was well proven wrong as could be. At least in that instance (and I dare say there are many more like it now) the RCC was anachronistic. Anachronism isn’t a good position for leading people.

 

[estesbob]

Them, meaning those employed as ordained ministers, Bishops, Cardinals and the Pope…but no one else?

No-to the Church. The Church stands on three pillarrs-

Scripture
Tradition
The teachings of the Magestrium

The ordained and all those who went before them make up the Magestrium They can not teach anything that either cotradicts . or is not supported by the other two.

 

[estesbob]

The RCC has bent to current culture. The RCC issued an apology for what it did to Galileo. The RCC admitted wrong doing and came round to current scientific culture if you will, albeit kicking and screaming all the way. The RCC was essentially forced to move along out of the dark ages because it was well proven wrong as could be. At least in that instance (and I dare say there are many more like it now) the RCC was anachronistic. Anachronism isn’t a good position for leading people.

I am sorry but that is nonsense . They have not chaged their teachings on faith and morals. They have acknwledged they mistreated Galelio-nothing more, nothing less.