You’re throwing some apples in with the oranges we’ve been discussing here. The glee-filled, pride of an Episcopalian “winning one for her team”, is hardly in the same league as the hate-filled behaviors you described earlier.
This would be a reasonable explanation if she’d ever mentioned Catholics before our conversion. This is a woman with a history for taking rather direct jabs at anyone who doesn’t accept her more enlightened, intellectual version of Christianity (that is, the version that throws off all restraint, doesn’t rely upon the inspired scriptures, and is more interested in adhering to the moral standards of secular liberalism than those of inspired Christianity). In other words, this woman threw in her comment about Catholic priests because my wife and I were present - there was no other reasonable explanation.
Hmm, you seem to be once again applying the template of your personal experience as the defining standard of the validity and/or strength of the convictions of others. While I understand the ease with which any of us could fall into that same trap, surely you can recognize the hubris of such thinking.
No, I’ve done no such thing. Your reaction to our very real experiences with less than kind Protestants across the spectrum is, “so what, it doesn’t happen in California. And if it happens to you, the people who do it are idiots.”
What’s the use in explaining positive experiences with Protestants if: 1) they’re vanishingly rare, and 2) they don’t offer any assistance to those dealing with more hostile or poorly-informed Protestants?
Uncomfortable with nebulous, intangible thoughts, are you? Perhaps, theology is not the discipline you should be exploring just now. And what’s with introduction of politicized terms like “conservative” and “liberal”? I’ve often seen on this board those who seem so attached to their particular politics that they then twist their theology around to fit that. I do not have sufficient evidence or knowledge of you personally to know if this is true for you in this case or not.
While it’s true that ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ are primarily political terms, they’ve also been used rather extensively to describe religious perspectives.
And, can you make a single comment without asserting your intellectual, spiritual and experiential superiority over the unwashed masses? In the previous paragraph you suggested that I was acting out of hubris. I suggest you look in the mirror to find someone who better fits that description.
I’m perfectly comfortable with ‘nebulous, intangible’ thoughts. The Trinity is rather nebulous. So is the communion of saints, transubstantiation, and a good number of other Catholic teachings. However, there are some teachings that are quite firm and easily understood - like our Church’s teachings on sexuality and the all-male ordained ministry. Mainstream Protestants have largely thrown off all restraint in these areas - witness, for example, this
celebration of the United Methodist Church’s California-Nevada Conference regarding the same-sex so-called marriage situation in California, complete with rites for blessings of these unions. Thus, I believe it’s fair to say that they’ve taken extreme liberties with revealed truth - that is, they’ve acted in a manner that’s in significant contrast to Christian revelation (yes - I’d even characterize it as theologically liberal).
BTW, there’s another group with VERY firm convictions who disdain “squishy, muddled, liberal elitism” with who you have at least that much in common called “The Taliban”. Personally, I prefer deep, complex thinkers along the lines of the Jesuits.
This may be the single most astonishing sentence I’ve ever seen on these forums. Would you characterize Pope Benedict XVI, Pope John Paul II, Pope St. Pius X, Francis Cardinal Arinze, Blessed Theresa of Calcutta, Archbishop Raymond Burke, Fr. Mitch Pacwa (one of your deep, complex Jesuits), Fr. Vincent Serpa, and the Catholic Answers apologetics staff as Taliban-esque? That’s what ‘progressives’ think of people who submit to each and everyone of the Church’s teachings?
How about some examples of “deep, complex” thinking you like from those Jesuits? And I prefer “deep, complex” thinking, too… I just like it to be in strict adherence to revealed Truth, rather than the latest trends of secular academia.
Have you had absolutely NO positive (or rather non-negative) experiences with any Protestant ever? If your words were the only data available to education me about Protestants, I would deem them to be a rather hateful group with no redeem qualities whatsoever (Other than their commitment to their faith).
Oh, I’m sure I’ve had nice experiences with Protestants - but not after they found out I’d become Catholic. With ‘mainstream’ Protestants, I’ve been met with either indifference or something akin to the thoughts of Katharine Jefforts Schori, presiding bishop of The Episcopal Church, who said that she was raised Catholic but tired of having to check her brains at the door so the old men in the Vatican could think for her. Sure, they have several redeeming qualities - among them, their care and concern for the less fortunate is highly commendable.
OK, here you are SERIOUSLY misrepresenting my words. I never denied you had such experiences. Rather I pointed out the distinct possibility that such experiences are more common in certain geographic regions and amongst certain demographics. Pointing out that such things are rather rare in California does not in any way deny that they happen out in your neck of the woods but rather that such behaviors are not as ubiquitous as you would seem to have us believe.
I didn’t say they were ubiquitous - I just shared my experiences. Since I’m clearly not the only person who’s had negative experiences with non-Catholics (especially after my conversion), it’s apparently less rare than you think it is. And it’s my firm opinion that Catholics need to be prepared to handle any opportunities for apologetics and evangelization that arise from such encounters (with all due charity - something that, in agreement with you and anamchara, I find all too often lacking amongst some of my more zealous convert brothers and sisters).
While I stand by may claim that such behaviors arise out of ignorance, I fully admit that “inbreeding” was a tad over the line but I liked the alliteration and the connotations, although caricatures, suited my intent. But it was more than a little tacky and I withdraw “inbreeding".
Ignorance on its own is not insulting. It merely implies a lack of knowledge. Inbreeding coupled with ignorance makes it a rather nasty caricature. I’m thankful you retracted it, by the way. But, you still seem to like holding onto this caricature, and I wonder what intent it suited, other than the intent to insult, demean, mock and belittle.
Yes, many “mega churches” in my area are pastored by college-educated men, however, the pastor at my former step-brother’s AoG church was ordained after just six months of “education in ministry”. While I still hold Mainline Protestant churches in high regard, this has made me leery of the “non-denoms”.
Except, AoG is not a non-denom, and you’ve just blasted your prejudice against non-denoms in the first sentence by acknowledging that a good many of them are pastored by well-educated and highly literate men. So I suggest that you’re over-generalizing your negative experience with the AoG step-brother (and I agree that the pastor sounds woefully under-qualified for the ministry) and using that as a cudgel against all theologically-conservative Protestants.
Such was not my intent at this time. However, considering how much you seem to enjoy policing your fellow Catholics who post insulting epithets about Protestants, you’ll have plenty to keep you busy on this board. Look for keywords “mirror worship”, “wishy-washy”, and “happy-clappy”.
I’m totally with you, and I seek to avoid such language, as it lowers the discourse and makes it even more difficult to engage in apologetics, evangelization and ecumenism.
