Why do people hate us SOOOO much?

[JoeyWarren]

I would be surprised if there is a reply.

yepper

as for

Re: Why do people hate us SOOOO much?

The answer is simple.

“WE ARE IT ON A STICK”

When the Catholic Church speaks, the World Listens.

The hatred stems from Jealousy!

 

[TheApologist]

I think we should look at all the bad things they have on their site and then try and refute it and then put it into an open letter and send it!

AND:
I think the “through no fault of their own” thing only works if the person has a true desire for Christ…or at least for true righteousness which would constitute baptism by desire.

 

[Carlus_Magnus]

I ask the same thing. But, there is willful ignorance (what you see here) vs ignorance (remote in this day and age)

Not saying everyone is “smart” just saying that the message is not impossible to those open to it who are repentant of their sinful nature and open to Christ.

Too bad OSAS makes such an impact on those who want to do little or nothing- perserverance is not a goal. Knowing Christ, other than a buddy not a goal, And mostly to be- off the hook. No more nonsense Of using Logic and reason. And no sense/understanding of history too helps.

One can choose to be ignorant. I was told it was a sin to be ignorant of Christ.

Many ideas have crept in during the centuries, which, were taught as Catholic belief, but which were not, but were in reality, seeds of the devil to subvert the Church and uproot it as Pope Pius IX put it, by their deceit.
These things were happening centuries before VII.

By this I refer to the ignorance issue. First off I will point out that this is not found in scripture, indeed, the opposite is found, that those who are living in darkness removed from the gospel are lost.

Second, I will point out that it is nowhere found in dogmatic concilliar or papal documents of the Church.

Third I will point out that this idea attempts to negate one or more defined dogmas of the Church.

1. it assumes that no one is born in original sin.
2. it assumes that confession is not necessary for the remission of sins contracted.
3. it assumes that Baptism is not necessary for the remission of original sin.
4. it makes the apostolic mission to convert all nations a futile thing.
5. it assumes that all persons are by default in a state of grace, until they are otherwise aware, which negates other teachings not layed out in this post.
6. it is under the assumption that original sin is not enough to separate one from the almighty.

Thus we see that this notion is not compatible with other teachings of the Church, therfore, we are under no obligation to accept this notion.
On the Contrary, we are given the order to consider as anathema anyone who teaches the opposite of the doctrines which this position contradicts.
Thus, is this issue feasible?

 

[Carlus_Magnus]

ya know this doesnt help, didnt your mom tell you if you have nothing nice to say . . . .

Its hard to take your statement that catholics are hated when you return it back sigh

Its a independant church which does not have accountability to the Baptists as a whole.

I live surrounded by Protestants, so much so that I have to travel over fifty miles just find one Catholic. I grew up a Protestant, the son of a Baptist minster, so I have attended many many Protestant Churches. In all of the years that I was Protestant, I don’t remember one of them who was even neutral regarding Catholics, there was at all times present an unapologetically anti-Catholic atmoshere present in these Churches and the people who attended them. Later, when I apostasized from the Baptist Church, I went on a search trying to find the one denomination closest to the scripture, in doing so I encountered a lot of different denonimations and I attended lots of different Churches in those denominations, and in all of them, I never found one Protestant who did not have an anti-Catholic attitude, so, is what I have stated not so?
When I first encountered the internet, and became more exposed to more diverse Protestants and did much discussion and debate with them, still, I never met one who was pro-Catholic.
Again, is what I have stated not a fact?

I never really stated that I hate Protestants, my relatives are all Protestant, does that mean that I hate them?
If I point out the errors of Protestantism, is that being hateful?
No, it is not. If I point out the anti-Catholicism of Protestants, is that hateful?

 

[mgrobertson79]

I live surrounded by Protestants, so much so that I have to travel over fifty miles just find one Catholic. I grew up a Protestant, the son of a Baptist minster, so I have attended many many Protestant Churches. In all of the years that I was Protestant, I don’t remember one of them who was even neutral regarding Catholics, there was at all times present an unapologetically anti-Catholic atmoshere present in these Churches and the people who attended them. Later, when I apostasized from the Baptist Church, I went on a search trying to find the one denomination closest to the scripture, in doing so I encountered a lot of different denonimations and I attended lots of different Churches in those denominations, and in all of them, I never found one Protestant who did not have an anti-Catholic attitude, so, is what I have stated not so?
When I first encountered the internet, and became more exposed to more diverse Protestants and did much discussion and debate with them, still, I never met one who was pro-Catholic.
Again, is what I have stated not a fact?

I never really stated that I hate Protestants, my relatives are all Protestant, does that mean that I hate them?
If I point out the errors of Protestantism, is that being hateful?
No, it is not. If I point out the anti-Catholicism of Protestants, is that hateful?

My grandfather is a southern baptist minister(Who was baptized and raised Catholic). I grew up in a small community east of Charlotte, NC. We never heard much at all about the Church. I don’t believe I knew anything at all until I started listening to EWTN on shortwave radio that I learned about the Church and began to question my own beliefs and the validity thereof. I put it off for some time and in 2005 finally entered into full communion with the Catholic Church. Since then I have fallen in love with our Blessed Mother and her Divine Son more so than any protestant could dream of. I wish everyone would follow the example of the late Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, servant of God, and make regular Holy Hours of Reparation to the Sacred Heart for all the sins and insults heaped upon our Blessed Lord, his Church and his Blessed Mother.

 

[ukdal1]

…man, I didnt really think this would become that much of a discussion!!! :whacky:

 

[theAuthor]

I don’t know how much of it is hate-driven. Passionate protestants may actually see the RCC as teaching false doctrine, as it is understood by them.

eg Praying for intercession through Our Lady. Now a sincere protestant will want to have no other God before God, as explicitly stated in the First Commandment. Now lets look at the Memorare of St Bernard.

1. It is addressed to Mary, not God. So the sincere protestant feel as though he is being unfaithful to God, addressing a prayer to someone other than God.

Remember, O most gracious Virgin Mary, that never was it known that anyone who fled to thy protection, implored thy help, or sought thine intercession was left unaided.
Inspired by this confidence, I fly unto* thee**, O Virgin of virgins, my mother; to thee do I come, before thee I stand, sinful and sorrowful. O Mother of the Word Incarnate, despise not my petitions, but in thy mercy hear and answer me.

Amen.*

Now official teaching is that we pray to the Saints for intercession on our behalf, and yet a prayer like this makes it seem very much like one is indeed praying to Mary. Of the first three things asked, only one is intercession. The prayer seems addressed to Mary as having power of her own, deifying her. It is clear how a protestant reading that prayer could gain that impression isn’t it? It seems reasonable to me. However, as a Catholic, I would trust the Church, look up St Bernard and see why he wrote it and what he meant.

The RCC requires study to understand, and is a much more complex faith than that of many sola scriptura churches. Many things are not what they sound like “The infallibility of the Pope” does not mean the Pope is perfect, even though that is what the term literally means. Immaculate Conception that Jesus was born with Mary not knowing man, but that Mary was born free of original sin. It is easy to see why non-Catholics may misunderstand things when looking into them on a surface level.

 

[TheApologist]

Many ideas have crept in during the centuries, which, were taught as Catholic belief, but which were not, but were in reality, seeds of the devil to subvert the Church and uproot it as Pope Pius IX put it, by their deceit.
These things were happening centuries before VII.

By this I refer to the ignorance issue. First off I will point out that this is not found in scripture, indeed, the opposite is found, that those who are living in darkness removed from the gospel are lost.

Second, I will point out that it is nowhere found in dogmatic concilliar or papal documents of the Church.

So the Catechism of the Catholic Church, endorsed by John Paul II, has no authenicity? No it’s not infallible, but you can’t simply throw this out:

Catechims of the Catholic Church:

“Outside the Church there is no salvation”

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”

Third I will point out that this idea attempts to negate one or more defined dogmas of the Church.

1. it assumes that no one is born in original sin.

It doesn’t it implies that those who seek God will have baptism by desire which has been taught as possible by the Church.

1. it assumes that confession is not necessary for the remission of sins contracted.

So those who cannot reach confession…in the case of those in countries where Catholicism is banned and there are no priests? Are they also banned from heaven due to their country?

1. it assumes that Baptism is not necessary for the remission of original sin.

No it doesn’t. Baptism by desire is still baptism.

1. it makes the apostolic mission to convert all nations a futile thing.

No it doesn’t. Remember…here we’re talking about innocent ignorance…those who “through no fault of their own” don’t know Christ. This doesn’t imply that we shouldn’t convert all nations. It just means that if we somehow cannot convert all nations, those who honestly seek Christ without knowing the Truth can still receive eternal salvation.

1. it assumes that all persons are by default in a state of grace, until they are otherwise aware, which negates other teachings not layed out in this post.

Not by default…by desire(through baptism).

1. it is under the assumption that original sin is not enough to separate one from the almighty.

Nope…original sin is enough to separate God from people. But baptism by desire destroys this original sin.

Thus we see that this notion is not compatible with other teachings of the Church, therfore, we are under no obligation to accept this notion.
On the Contrary, we are given the order to consider as anathema anyone who teaches the opposite of the doctrines which this position contradicts.
Thus, is this issue feasible?

Thus we see this is perfectly in line with Church teaching and, in fact, taught by the Church. We are, in fact, since this is a teaching of the Church, somewhat obligated to believe it. This is in perfectly fine communion with other teachings.

 

[mgrobertson79]

I don’t know how much of it is hate-driven. Passionate protestants may actually see the RCC as teaching false doctrine, as it is understood by them.

eg Praying for intercession through Our Lady. Now a sincere protestant will want to have no other God before God, as explicitly stated in the First Commandment. Now lets look at the Memorare of St Bernard.

1. It is addressed to Mary, not God. So the sincere protestant feel as though he is being unfaithful to God, addressing a prayer to someone other than God.

Remember, O most gracious Virgin Mary, that never was it known that anyone who fled to thy protection, implored thy help, or sought thine intercession was left unaided.
Inspired by this confidence, I fly unto** thee**, O Virgin of virgins, my mother; to thee do I come, before thee I stand, sinful and sorrowful. O Mother of the Word Incarnate, despise not my petitions, but in thy mercy hear and answer me.

Amen.

Now official teaching is that we pray to the Saints for intercession on our behalf, and yet a prayer like this makes it seem very much like one is indeed praying to Mary. Of the first three things asked, only one is intercession. The prayer seems addressed to Mary as having power of her own, deifying her. It is clear how a protestant reading that prayer could gain that impression isn’t it? It seems reasonable to me. However, as a Catholic, I would trust the Church, look up St Bernard and see why he wrote it and what he meant.

The RCC requires study to understand, and is a much more complex faith than that of many sola scriptura churches. Many things are not what they sound like “The infallibility of the Pope” does not mean the Pope is perfect, even though that is what the term literally means. Immaculate Conception that Jesus was born with Mary not knowing man, but that Mary was born free of original sin. It is easy to see why non-Catholics may misunderstand things when looking into them on a surface level.

We do pray to our Blessed Mother and the Saints. Prayer is not equal to worship and no one[in the Catholic Church] puts anyone on the same level as God. This is what protestants do not understand and when it is explained to them most refuse to listen. By hardening their hearts they reject our Blessed Lord and his Church.

 

[TheApologist]

The RCC requires study to understand, and is a much more complex faith than that of many sola scriptura churches. Many things are not what they sound like “The infallibility of the Pope” does not mean the Pope is perfect, even though that is what the term literally means. Immaculate Conception that Jesus was born with Mary not knowing man, but that Mary was born free of original sin. It is easy to see why non-Catholics may misunderstand things when looking into them on a surface level.

Honestly, infallibility means free of error. Impeccability means free of sin. Free of sin is perfection. Free of error is (as Colbert would say) “truthiness.”

 

[JoeyWarren]

David said: However, as a Catholic, I would trust the Church, look up St Bernard and see why he wrote it and what he meant.

But then again, the writings of the Saints are not Dogma or Doctrine. The typical anti-catholic is not even interested in looking up St Bernard and read his works in full nor any saint for that matter. It get these little slices of stuff from other anti-catholics and the seed of evil spreads like weeds in a poor neighborhood…

 

[theAuthor]

We do pray to our Blessed Mother and the Saints. Prayer is not equal to worship and no one[in the Catholic Church] puts anyone on the same level as God. This is what protestants do not understand and when it is explained to them most refuse to listen. By hardening their hearts they reject our Blessed Lord and his Church.

I agree. My point is that many do this sincerely, trying to have no other Gods before God. They question the focus of such devotion. In some cases of extreme Marianism, it has crossed the line into idolatory. If someone is thinking of and praying to Mary all the time, when do they have time to worship or think of Jesus? Same with prayer aids with kneelers before them and the commandment re:graven images. I am simply making excuses for my separated brethren. You can see how this might seem to go against that commandment, surely.

The RCC is transmitted trans-generationally very well, but is difficult to convert to. Catholics have a lot of explaining to do.
TheApologist just nicely split a hair there for me. Well done, honestly. I’d never drawn the distinction. The problem is that I am not alone, many of our separated brethren don’t have the vocab to make such distinctions either.

 

[christcnection1]

Some of these so called “Baptists” are equal opportunity haters. They will demonize anything that does not align perfectly to their perspective.

Most Baptists, and other Non-Catholic Christians do not see things this way. Do not be discouraged. The Lord knows His own.

 

[theAuthor]

But then again, the writings of the Saints are not Dogma or Doctrine. The typical anti-catholic is not even interested in looking up St Bernard and read his works in full nor any saint for that matter. It get these little slices of stuff from other anti-catholics and the seed of evil spreads like weeds in a poor neighborhood…

A great way to get non-Caths to open up beyond sola scriptura is to ask them where the Bible comes from. Ask them who decided what books would be in it? When did they decide this? Do they know of the books that were rejected? Have they read them? As a former sola scriptura believer, this opened my mind like a can of sardines. Sola Scriptura believer IMHO seem to just think the Bible came pre-packaged and never give it a moment’s thought (honestly).

 

[TheApologist]

Catholics have a lot of explaining to do.

Uhhh…such as what(if you want any explaining…either PM me or start a post about a particular topic).

TheApologist just nicely split a hair there for me. Well done, honestly. I’d never drawn the distinction. The problem is that I am not alone, many of our separated brethren don’t have the vocab to make such distinctions either.

Does splitting a hair mean describing the difference between two terms? As Catholics, we see really weird meanings attached to similar words. Words such as faith and Virgin Birth can mean something completely different in the mouth of a Catholic than in the mouth of a fundamentalist or such. I think we just need to clarify our words when we begin talking about something.

 

[Carlus_Magnus]

There are cetain standards or principals that all the sacraments must meet, and what is applicable in this standard to one, is to them all.
I cannot be married by desire, I cannot be ordained by desire, I cannot be confirmed by desire, I cannot get unction by desire, so why would I get baptism by desire?

This is the standard: “All these sacraments are made up of three elements: namely, things as the matter, words as the form, and the person of the minister who confers the sacrament with the intention of doing what the church does. If any of these is lacking, the sacrament is not effected.”

Let us assume it happens in our sleep. Does the fact I did not know that I had died, does this mean that I still live? Would I still live because I did not know that I had died? No, the same logic applies to the sacraments.

Ok, let us assume desire is necessary to confect a sacrament.
Let us say I want to be married. First of all I would need a woman, can I simply desire her existence and thereby conjure her into existence?
Intent is there, let us assume I have a priest and a vow book, we now have form and the intent and the minister, but still lacking the matter, would I therefore be married?
Let us assume I desire children, do they now exist because I desire them?

 

[TheApologist]

There are cetain standards or principals that all the sacraments must meet, and what is applicable in this standard to one, is to them all.
I cannot be married by desire, I cannot be ordained by desire, I cannot be confirmed by desire, I cannot get unction by desire, so why would I get baptism by desire?

This is the standard: “All these sacraments are made up of three elements: namely, things as the matter, words as the form, and the person of the minister who confers the sacrament with the intention of doing what the church does. If any of these is lacking, the sacrament is not effected.”

Let us assume it happens in our sleep. Does the fact I did not know that I had died, does this mean that I still live? Would I still live because I did not know that I had died? No, the same logic applies to the sacraments.

Ok, let us assume desire is necessary to confect a sacrament.
Let us say I want to be married. First of all I would need a woman, can I simply desire her existence and thereby conjure her into existence?
Intent is there, let us assume I have a priest and a vow book, we now have form and the intent and the minister, but still lacking the matter, would I therefore be married?
Let us assume I desire children, do they now exist because I desire them?

No, this is solely for baptism. An extraordinary trait. If you do not believe that baptism by desire exists, then you aren’t Catholic…

For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament"(CCC 1259).

 

[Ani_Ibi]

davidarlette:

I agree. My point is that many do this sincerely, trying to have no other Gods before God. They question the focus of such devotion.

But questions have answers. The folks about whom we are talking are not asking genuine questions. They are asking rhetorical questions which means that their minds are already made up and that they are not interested in finding any new information; only in reforcing what they already believe.
davidarlette:

In some cases of extreme Marianism, it has crossed the line into idolatory.

Of course. Just like some Catholics commit murder, or adultery, or any other violation of the Commandments. But this does not mean that the Church Herself teaches that murder, adultery, and other violations of the Commandments are licit. The Church does not allow Mary-worship.
davidarlette:

The RCC is transmitted trans-generationally very well, but is difficult to convert to. Catholics have a lot of explaining to do.

Yes it is difficult to convert into. It is even more difficult to stay in. Nobody said it would be easy. Ever wonder why RCIA is at least a year? At least! While for many Protestant denominations the altar call does it.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Carlus Magnus:

There are cetain standards or principals that all the sacraments must meet, and what is applicable in this standard to one, is to them all.
I cannot be married by desire, I cannot be ordained by desire, I cannot be confirmed by desire, I cannot get unction by desire, so why would I get baptism by desire?

This is what you say about Baptism of Desire. What does the Church say about Baptism of Desire?

 

[JoeyWarren]

Originally Posted by davidarlette
In some cases of extreme Marianism, it has crossed the line into idolatory.

Catholics worship Mary
No We don’t
Yes you do
No We don’t
Yes you do…etc.

That accusation can be easily flattened.

Catholics love Mary as a human being, as a mother. They feel quite free to “call her blessed” (Luke 1.48) with a “loud voice,” (Luke 1.41), just as the Holy Spirit instructed (same passage).

For those who say Mary is dead and can’t hear it, I have some words straight from the mouth of Jesus–“God is God of the Living, NOT of the Dead.”

If Moses and Elijah put in an appearance on Mount Tabor and chatted with Jesus about his ministry (as Scripture records), then I’d highly posit that these men were “in the know” through God’s power and not “dead.” Moreover, if the martyrs beneath the altar in the book of Revelation (6:9-11) are appealing to God about things going on across the earth and asking God when he was going to take action, then I’d highly posit that they are NOT dead, either.

Really: to “worship” Mary would require that the intellect makes a firm decision to believe that Mary is Divine or that she created the world. Even the most uneducated catholic, I believe, does not make that kind of intellectual decision. Thus, Mary cannot be worshipped unless a person claims, with full intellect, that she is divine. Case closed.

Otherwise, Mary is loved and appreciated with the same sort of devotion one renders to one’s own beloved mother, for example. Jesus doesn’t get “jealous” or “green with envy” when we “love” our own mothers. There’s no passage in Scripture that forbids us to “love” his own Mother, who was explicitly given to christians as their own mother, as well.

Protestants often make the grave mistake of treating Mary as if she were a mere “vessel” – which is the same thing as saying she was a Petrie Dish that God used and threw away. They also often make the mistake of believing that God “woke-up” one day, yawned, decided it was time to “send his Son to earth,” and then started looking, at random, for the proper “gal” to serve as a temporary incubator.

It is written that God knows each of us from the very moment of conception…“from the womb”…and that God has a plan and mission for each of us and prepares us according to our free will and cooperation with his grace.

God didn’t just “pick” Mary out of some Galileean “line-up.” She was destined, prepared, and graced to be the MOTHER of the Divine Word. Not a temporary “holding-tank.” She gave human nature to the utter, omnipotent “DIVINE,” according to her free will, faith, and cooperation–even to the point of possibly losing her own life, her husband, and her entire world.

Mary’s faith was the ‘contact point’ for the greatest event that ever happened in this universe or any other, the greatest miracle in that thing we humans call “time”-- the Divine becomes part of matter, part of the material “existence.” It gives me the shivers simply to think about the astonishing, mind-blowing reality of it. And Protestant literalists so often toss Mary aside the way they foolishly think that God “tossed her aside” after demanding temporary use of her reproductive organs.

She raised him. Educated him. Nursed him. Shared her own faith with him. LIVED with Jesus for 30 years as mother first in faith, and THEN in flesh. Her grace (given lavishly by God: Luke 1.28) and her free response to that saving grace, made it possible for all of humanity (and creation) to be redeemed by Jesus. It was the greatest “collaborative effort” that could ever possibly be effected or even imagined, through all ages, all times, all places, all possibilities.

Also, if Protestants want to bully Catholics for having sacred artwork, then they had best be prepared to throw their Bibles into the garbage cans. Why? Because every single letter, on every single page, in every single Bible in the world, is an IMAGE. It’s created “material” of ink, made by human beings. Every letter. Do these letter-images convey truth and inspiration? Yes. Just as sacred art does. Protestants should also be ready to throw-out all of their family photo-albums and cherished “films.” All are images.

But some Protestants have a valid point about excessive displays of “reverence” paid by Catholics to statues, pictures, et al. I would personally prefer to see sacred Christian art “considered” rather than “fussed-over.” Statuary and icons may be cherished and revered as material things representing and conveying truths that inspire and teach us, or lift our minds to the Divine (just as the ink letter-IMAGES of scripture do), but I find no point in dressing statues in gowns or jewels and grovelling before them. Christian art can be properly revered without such excess.