Why do other Christians "hate" Catholics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 28562
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I have to say, though, I see where you’re coming from. I too share a frustration with some Protestant groups and their haughty triumphantalism. My blood boils when I read about missionary groups from the First Antioch Baptist Love in Jesus Christ Amen Church go to Greece to preach Christianity to the Natives, disregarding our own ancient Church as like some off-branch of satanism and as if Greeks have never heard the Bible before. I just want to scream out “Hey newsflash, buddy: it was my Church that compiled the Bible. Some of our bishops have vestments older than your ‘Church’—don’t play this game.” Likewise, I’m Facebook friends with an Anglican/Episcopalian who rejoiced at England’s decision to allow female bishops and joked that the Catholic Church is 500 years behind, “as always.” I wanted to say something here as well, but I didn’t, because what good would it do? All we can do is pray for them, and for ourselves.
:D:rotfl: You have just described my pet peeve! When I hear about “missionaries” going to the Philippines or South America I really have to just walk away before I hurt someone. Don’t you just love it when when these little Christian missionaries go to countries that have been Christian for centuries? They go to the safe countries. Let’s see them go preach the gospel to Muslims or Hindus. Oh, no! They go to the easy countries, the ones who’s soil has already been watered with the blood of the martyrs and plowed with the bones of the saints. They just swoop in and collect the easy harvest. I’m sure Our Lord is pleased with them. Not!
 
My first post on the topic was an analogy.
Right, in fact I assumed that when I first read it.

Similarly, when e.g. Lucy Van Pelt calls someone a “blockhead” I assume that it isn’t a literal commentary on the shape of his/her head.
 
I should have given you this one too, from the same source:
m.youtube.com/watch?v=0Nx8QqiADyw
(even though it’s been posted here before :o).
Saw it . Not sure how long liberal churches remain “lutheran” .But be careful for we all live in glass houses somewhat . The video reminded me of a Catholic Church that did much from the satire. Needless to say the church finally was cut off from dioceses.
 
I don’t pretend to know your intent, but I’m sorry to say that to me this sounds like a bit of a loaded question. There are hateful people in every religion regardless of its tenets. People are capable of hate. We choose to hate; even Catholics choose to hate sometimes when they choose sin over God’s will. It’s a sad thing.

If I may, sometimes I get the feeling that Catholics online get the feeling that anyone that disagrees with their theology hates the Catholic Church. That is most definitely not the case. If anything, to me it seems like a case of some people having a thing skin. I disagree with the Catholic Church and side with own Church ten times out of ten when it comes to inter-Church debates but that doesn’t make me some sort of fire-breathing Catholicophobe. Far from it, in fact. If anything in my own life experiences, it’s been Catholics who have been rude and judgemental more so than my own kind. But I’m at least old enough to realize that my narrow life-experiences do not translate to bigger trends. Maybe if other people realized that, we wouldn’t need to have this discussion about other groups.

I have to say, though, I see where you’re coming from. I too share a frustration with some Protestant groups and their haughty triumphantalism. My blood boils when I read about missionary groups from the First Antioch Baptist Love in Jesus Christ Amen Church go to Greece to preach Christianity to the Natives, disregarding our own ancient Church as like some off-branch of satanism and as if Greeks have never heard the Bible before. I just want to scream out “Hey newsflash, buddy: it was my Church that compiled the Bible. Some of our bishops have vestments older than your ‘Church’—don’t play this game.” Likewise, I’m Facebook friends with an Anglican/Episcopalian who rejoiced at England’s decision to allow female bishops and joked that the Catholic Church is 500 years behind, “as always.” I wanted to say something here as well, but I didn’t, because what good would it do? All we can do is pray for them, and for ourselves.
You just messed up a post #98 I had where I said or questioned if the Orthodox go around saying they gave us the bible as Catholics do…Anyways I am reminded that sectarianism is just that, and it serves it’s purpose to a point . The challenge is to remain “fresh”, or to be continually renewed in the Spirit, to remain in His anointing as Revelations and the 7 churches suggest . Reminds of the same challenge the Israelites had in OT. They had their times of dryness, of religiosity bankrupt of Spirit ( yet when pointed out they would insist that they were “sons ofAbraham” and followers of Moses). They had times where tradition helped and where it hurt. They also had times of revival. It also reminds me of Job, where age should teach wisdom (but did not) but it was the young Elihu who did. Therefore, as the saying goes, "what have you done for me lately’’, may apply. To me that is what evangelicanism is, remaining fresh, of having to have a personal experience with the Word of Life and of new life with that encounter. Sometimes “church” and it’s traditions can be a substitute for that encounter. The challenge is for all churches. Pentecotsalism had a boom at beginning of 20 the century . Churches that emerged from that traditionalized also somewhat… Sorry you are offended that missionaries got to Greece. How about this, some missionaries are coming here to America from Africa, on fire for the Lord. Also my country of ancestry in Europe is quite dead spiritually speaking, and even what they had (lot of “church and tradition” ) is disappearing fast. As the Lord said , "hold on fast to what you have , lest you lose that also ". Today is today. May we remain fresh and alive in Him, for this never changes. May we not be stuck in methodology.
 
:D:rotfl: You have just described my pet peeve! When I hear about “missionaries” going to the Philippines or South America I really have to just walk away before I hurt someone. Don’t you just love it when when these little Christian missionaries go to countries that have been Christian for centuries? They go to the safe countries. Let’s see them go preach the gospel to Muslims or Hindus. Oh, no! They go to the easy countries, the ones who’s soil has already been watered with the blood of the martyrs and plowed with the bones of the saints. They just swoop in and collect the easy harvest. I’m sure Our Lord is pleased with them. Not!
Actually there are many Christian missionaries working to evangelize Hindus and Muslims.
 
…as far as their fashion of intercommunion being more narrow and “parochial”, that would be sad if you are correct.
A certain number of Catholic “apologists” (polemicists) like to attack the Orthodox for not allowing intercommunion. Quite frankly, this Catholic finds that such attacks get pretty old pretty quickly.
 
Nope.

Neither are a good option.
I would rather someone be on fire for Christ as an evangelical or baptist then a lazy, and moribund Lutheran. That’s because Christ is the most important not a denomination.
 
I would rather someone be on fire for Christ as an evangelical or baptist then a lazy, and moribund Lutheran. That’s because Christ is the most important not a denomination.
Truth is the most important thing.

Because without Truth one can be worshipping an idol–someone they think is Christ but actually isn’t.

Such as those in the Iglesia Ni Cristo cult.

They are “on fire”, but, sadly, in want of some Truth.

Not to mention there are some other “on fire” folks who are eating grass because they have interpreted the Bible outside the lens of the Tradition which gave them this Bible, and now are doing this.



So being “on fire” ought not be the criterion we use to determine whether it’s a good thing or not.
 
Truth is the most important thing.

Because without Truth one can be worshipping an idol–someone they think is Christ but actually isn’t.

Such as those in the Iglesia Ni Cristo cult.

They are “on fire”, but, sadly, in want of some Truth.

Not to mention there are some other “on fire” folks who are eating grass because they have interpreted the Bible outside the lens of the Tradition which gave them this Bible, and now are doing this.

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/95/f0/42/95f042f4b50b4558e4e3df9d8d49b741.jpg

So being “on fire” ought not be the criterion we use to determine whether it’s a good thing or not.
Indeed. That’s why I didn’t mention any false cults.

Or like those folks that crucify themselves in the Philippines.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_in_the_Philippines#/image/File:Trio_on_crosses.jpg
 
Originally Posted by House Harkonnen View Post
False. Or a half truth at best. The earliest manuscripts of all the books in the NT were written by AD 95. Within 60 or so years of Christ.
No. That is when they were compiled. They were written much earlier than that. Catholic historians acknowledge that.

You misunderstand me. There are no NT manuscripts that are complete that date earlier than about 350 AD. There are small fragments of some books of the NT that date to 150 AD, no earlier. Anything earlier than that does not exist. There is no “original” NT manuscript that dates to the first century. Those disappeared long ago. No one knows what they looked like, or exactly what they said. All we have are copies of copies of copies.

I’m not talking about the original writings by the apostles, or their disciples. Those would date to the first century, IF we had them. We don’t have them. All we have are copies transcribed centuries later by fallible people. So if your argument is that the writings of the early church fathers are too late to be believed, then you must realize that our New Testament falls into that same category. We have no idea what the original NT said. It might have said that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and had a litter of kids for all we know. We assume it was transcribed correctly, but without the originals, we can never know for sure. THAT’S WHY THE TRADITION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS SO IMPORTANT. (I’m not yelling ) The Tradition tells us that the NT was transcribed correctly. The Church vouches for it, you might say.

The ECFS say all sorts of things that were false. They were fallible men just like everyone else. But no, even Catholic scholars know that Peter didn’t “found” the church in Rome.

Sometimes some of them did say heretical things, just like some “historians” do today. But many of them were also scholars who told the truth as it was handed down to them.

What would you consider credible evidence? Would some Catholic historians suffice?

I would like to hear what Catholic historians have to say, as long as they are in good standing with the Church. The early church fathers hold a lot of weight because they were much closer in time (and geography) to the beginnings of Christianity than modern historians. And because they lived during persecutions, they were really fanatical about maintaining tradition and orthodoxy. Nowadays, anyone with an internet connection can claim to be an historian. Take me, for example. Peace!
Thanks for explaining this so thoroughly!
 
Even though they are low hanging fruit? Wouldn’t they be better off with a zealous evangelical faith than with a moribund and dreary Catholic one?
Unfortunately I don’t know if I could find this again (perhaps you’ve read it before or something similar?) but I remember reading a commentary from an Eastern Orthodox hierarch on why he disapproved of proselytism of even e.g. Russians who are only nominally/hardly Orthodox.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top