Why does virtually every non-Catholic religion target Catholics for conversion?

[Peter_J]

I thought this was about all non-Catholic religion?

My interpretation is that the person who started this thread considers Catholicism and Protestantism to be 2 different religions; hence the use of the phrase “non-Catholic religion” in the title.

 

[dzheremi]

Hmm. I didn’t read it that way. If that’s the point of this thread, I disagree.

 

[Peter_J]

I wouldn’t necessarily conclude that that is the point of the thread. Perhaps Truth just assumed that the rest of us also consider Protestantism to be a different religion from Catholicism.

 

[dzheremi]

Indeed. Hence the “if”.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Spirit:

Can a denomination be called Christian if it does not believe that Jesus Christ died for one’s sins? My response is no.

Therefore, at a minimum, in order to be a Christian one must believe Jesus Christ is God (only God can save) and in sin. If one does not believe in sin then one cannot believe that Jesus God saved him/her from sin. If an entire denomination does not believe in both Jesus and sin, it cannot be Christian.

In any case, it is not my call to judge whether some other denomination is Christian according to my rules. If they call themselves Christian, then I leave it to God. That doesn’t mean I adhere to their beliefs in any way.

My point is that you put yourself in an untenable position by on one hand complaining that some groups don’t think you are Christian and then turning around and claiming you don’t believe some are Christian. They apparently have some standard you don’t agree with and vice versa. Your logic is simply wildly flawed.

I continue to wonder why some find this so important that they must make these kinds of statements. If your faith works for you, why in the world are you bothering to interfer in someone else’s faith life? Is this not precisely what you complain about being done to you?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The post you are responding to was not my first in this thread. I have read every page.

My apologies but your post seemed off the mark, as if you had missed most of what had been said.

I thought this was about all non-Catholic religion? Maybe I’ve misunderstood this thread, then. In an earlier reply, I talked about both Protestants and non-Christians. If this thread seems unfairly focused on Protestants, maybe that’s because Protestants are more likely than others to target Catholics specifically. I don’t think that this is an unfair generalization.

It’s not unfair when compared to Buddhism or Hinduism. There are very few adherents to those faiths here. Most of the posters have been Protestants, and it is unfair to lump all Protestants together. Most denominations don’t care at all about Catholics one way or the other. They are interested in their own faith community period. You assume interest in the RCC that simply doesn’t exist for most Protestant denominations.

It’s neither dishonest nor absurd. Are you seriously suggesting that because we disagree with others who claim that we are not Christian we can’t then claim that others are not Christian? Do you even know why Catholics claim that certain Protestant groups are not Christian, or do you think that we just like passing judgment on others?

It seems you lose the argument by doing so. You have nothing to complain about when you are doing the same thing. Your standards for doing so are not relevant, no more than others who claim Catholics are not Christian are. Both behaviors are simply wrong.

I don’t think MOST Catholics (outside CAF certainly) have any interest whatsover in judging anyone. Here that is a bit of another story, where we are told constantly that you are directed to “admonish the sinner” and some take that responsibility with relish it seems.

I don’t think it takes any sort of “superior knowledge” to find what is wrong with the groups that the Catholic Church deems to be non-Christian. Usually it is right there in their own literature, whether it is an incorrect and highly unorthodox view of the Trinity (Mormons), denial of Christ’s divinity (certain non-Trinitarians), or some other point.

Again, you are using standards you define to determine who is Christian and who is not. Mormons certainly think they are Christian and I think God is perhaps the better judge in the matter. Your opinion is not needed, nor is it appropriate, in my opinion.

No it isn’t. It’s monotheism. What are you doing in defending your statements against my post but saying that I am wrong and you are right? Am I going to say that you’re the pot calling the kettle black? No. In fact, I’d much rather you disagree with me when you feel I am in error. A brother cannot stand by ineffectually as his sibling heads into danger, can he?

Again, you are making a determination based on your church’s teaching that someone else is in error. That is rather presumptuous. I am making no claims about whether you are right or wrong. I am saying that reasonable minds can differ and thus you have no greater claim to truth than another interpreting the same scripture. You are no different than any human who reads, studies and follows the doctrine that they find most agreeable to their own mind. That does not confer rightness, only belief.

Hmmm…I wonder what all those councils in the early Church were about, then.

My remarks were about apologetics as it has developed here. A statement of what we believe and why is most appropriate. Twisting every issue until Catholics are on top as the best, is counterproductive, as some Catholics here point out when a few of the more rabid people attempt to prove that Rome is the sole reason for civilization. Apologetics should begin with actual facts, not manufacturing and twisting information to somehow prove what is not proveable. It has led to revisionism of the worst kind. That is counterproductive to the goal I would presume of being listened to with some modicum of respect.

The Vatican over the centuries has indeed commanded much respect for its reasoning and thoughtful words. It is in danger of losing it through the efforts of well meaning but rather fanatical persons who have lost sight of reason in my opinion. My opinions, happily for you, mean little.

This makes absolutely no sense. The “ultra orthodox” are those who make the Church what it is. Those who are willing to stand up and say that some things are right and some things are not and that’s just that.

Yes I see that you believe that, and if indeed it becomes your church, it will have a small barely audible voice in the future. That I would find a tragedy indeed. No one doubts you thinjk you are right.

I think you are wrong here. We absolutely must be willing and ready to do this for the sake of defending the faith. We ought not to delight in it, we ought not to take pride in it, we ought not to feel that we are better than anyone else because of it, and we ought not to make a sport of it, but by the same token we absolutely should not ever shy away from it. When Mormons or Muslims or JW or whoever else come knocking at my door wanting to share a common word with me, you better believe I want to be ready for them. In the spirit of truth and love, not the sort of triumphalism that is often (sadly justifiably) attributed to Catholics.

Then we differ. I don’t think the faith needs defending. It stands on its own and can withstand the test of any who claim she is wrong. If she cannot, she is not truth at all. The sad thing is that you miss the opportunity to see other views and take unto yourself the truth that they too offer. They may not have much truth from your point of view, but God expresses in many ways, through every venue, and you are missing the opportunity to gain insights you hadn’t thought of. No doubt you find that horrifying.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

This wasn’t addressed to me, but what the hey …

I object when people say that I’m not a Christian; and, conversely, I would expect any self-proclaimed Christian to object if I say that he/she is not a Christian. So what’s wrong with that?

P.S. On the other hand, I have known Christians – Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike – who will basically start jumping up and down and yelling, and other such childish behavior, if anyone suggests that they aren’t Christian. That’s a whole other matter.

My point Peter is that if you object to anyone claiming you are not Christian, why would you want to turn around and do the same thing to another? It makes your objections false and well, crybabyish, to coin a new word! LOL…It’s kinda like turn the other cheek. Does someone calling you a name make you that? Of course not.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

My interpretation is that the person who started this thread considers Catholicism and Protestantism to be 2 different religions; hence the use of the phrase “non-Catholic religion” in the title.

Whatever a person’s religion is if it isn’t in union with the Pope it is non-Catholic. Nobody is saying non-Christian necessarily, but definitely non-catholic.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

In any case, it is not my call to judge whether some other denomination is Christian according to my rules. If they call themselves Christian, then I leave it to God. That doesn’t mean I adhere to their beliefs in any way.

My point is that you put yourself in an untenable position by on one hand complaining that some groups don’t think you are Christian and then turning around and claiming you don’t believe some are Christian. They apparently have some standard you don’t agree with and vice versa. Your logic is simply wildly flawed.

I continue to wonder why some find this so important that they must make these kinds of statements. If your faith works for you, why in the world are you bothering to interfer in someone else’s faith life? Is this not precisely what you complain about being done to you?

Spirit:

You tire me. I’m putting you on ignore now.

 

[stthomas]

Whatever a person’s religion is if it isn’t in union with the Pope it is non-Catholic. Nobody is saying non-Christian necessarily, but definitely non-catholic.

Amen Marsha, and I might add, very Blessed to be Catholic…former Evangelical

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Spirit:

You tire me. I’m putting you on ignore now.

A good way to give up when you lack an argument. Blessings to you this Easter.

 

[Peter_J]

Spirit:

You tire me. I’m putting you on ignore now.

I find him a little tiresome too. Not quite ready to give up on this conversation, though.

A good way to give up when you lack an argument. Blessings to you this Easter.

The sad truth is, if you’re going to participate on an internet forum like this, you need to use your Ignore Button pretty liberally.

 

[Peter_J]

My point Peter is that if you object to anyone claiming you are not Christian, why would you want to turn around and do the same thing to another?

So if I understand you right, I need to choose between either

• never objecting to anyone saying that I’m not a Christian, or
• never saying that anyone else isn’t a Christian (if they call themselves Christian)
  ?

So I guess I also need to choose between either

• never objecting to anyone saying that I’m not a American, or
• never saying that anyone else isn’t an American (if they call themselves American)
  ?

 

[Peter_J]

In any case, it is not my call to judge whether some other denomination is Christian according to my rules. If they call themselves Christian, then I leave it to God. That doesn’t mean I adhere to their beliefs in any way.

Makes ecumenism pretty tough, doesn’t it? I mean, then we can’t even say “We have a lot in common: we’re both Christians.”

“We have a lot in common: we both claim the name ‘Christian’” kinda falls flat, don’t you think?

(Of course, perhaps ecumenism just isn’t important to you.)

 

[dzheremi]

My apologies but your post seemed off the mark, as if you had missed most of what had been said.

It’s not unfair when compared to Buddhism or Hinduism. There are very few adherents to those faiths here. Most of the posters have been Protestants, and it is unfair to lump all Protestants together. Most denominations don’t care at all about Catholics one way or the other. They are interested in their own faith community period. You assume interest in the RCC that simply doesn’t exist for most Protestant denominations.

It seems you lose the argument by doing so. You have nothing to complain about when you are doing the same thing. Your standards for doing so are not relevant, no more than others who claim Catholics are not Christian are. Both behaviors are simply wrong.

I don’t think MOST Catholics (outside CAF certainly) have any interest whatsover in judging anyone. Here that is a bit of another story, where we are told constantly that you are directed to “admonish the sinner” and some take that responsibility with relish it seems.

Again, you are using standards you define to determine who is Christian and who is not. Mormons certainly think they are Christian and I think God is perhaps the better judge in the matter. Your opinion is not needed, nor is it appropriate, in my opinion.

Again, you are making a determination based on your church’s teaching that someone else is in error. That is rather presumptuous. I am making no claims about whether you are right or wrong. I am saying that reasonable minds can differ and thus you have no greater claim to truth than another interpreting the same scripture. You are no different than any human who reads, studies and follows the doctrine that they find most agreeable to their own mind. That does not confer rightness, only belief.

My remarks were about apologetics as it has developed here. A statement of what we believe and why is most appropriate. Twisting every issue until Catholics are on top as the best, is counterproductive, as some Catholics here point out when a few of the more rabid people attempt to prove that Rome is the sole reason for civilization. Apologetics should begin with actual facts, not manufacturing and twisting information to somehow prove what is not proveable. It has led to revisionism of the worst kind. That is counterproductive to the goal I would presume of being listened to with some modicum of respect.

The Vatican over the centuries has indeed commanded much respect for its reasoning and thoughtful words. It is in danger of losing it through the efforts of well meaning but rather fanatical persons who have lost sight of reason in my opinion. My opinions, happily for you, mean little.

Yes I see that you believe that, and if indeed it becomes your church, it will have a small barely audible voice in the future. That I would find a tragedy indeed. No one doubts you thinjk you are right.

Then we differ. I don’t think the faith needs defending. It stands on its own and can withstand the test of any who claim she is wrong. If she cannot, she is not truth at all. The sad thing is that you miss the opportunity to see other views and take unto yourself the truth that they too offer. They may not have much truth from your point of view, but God expresses in many ways, through every venue, and you are missing the opportunity to gain insights you hadn’t thought of. No doubt you find that horrifying.

Complain all you want about the horribly judgmental Catholics here. Because you apparently have no standard by which to evaluate any beliefs, we can only conclude that the term “Christian” doesn’t mean much of anything to you, outside of whatever it is the person you are talking to at the time defines it to be. That is pathetic. All I can say is THANK GOD that the early Church councils which defined Christian orthodoxy were not full of people unwilling or unable to pronounce certain doctrines heretical or anathema! Certainly the answer to “too much judgment” (which is as much purely your opinion as the horribly judgmental attitude you think I exhibit is mine; the difference? I am not pretending as though I am just being open minded!) is not a complete reversion into “anything goes” sort of fluffy pow-wows with heretics. That is my only point.

 

[SD_Catholic]

Then we differ. I don’t think the faith needs defending. It stands on its own and can withstand the test of any who claim she is wrong. If she cannot, she is not truth at all…

What in the world have you been doing on CAF then???

Plus I find it quite ironic that you say you are concerned with the direction the CC is headed and yet remain Episcopalian… but you probably weren’t refering to the moral teachings of the CC.

SD

 

[SpiritMeadow]

What in the world have you been doing on CAF then???

Plus I find it quite ironic that you say you are concerned with the direction the CC is headed and yet remain Episcopalian… but you probably weren’t refering to the moral teachings of the CC.

SD

I’m not sure what you mean by your question. I’m here like many other people attempting to talk about real issues and dispelling where I can false beliefs about any denomination I have information about. I have always respected a good deal about the RCC, although I will freely tell you where I disagree with her as well. But I have no interest in bashing her just for the sake of it.

I don’t know why you find it ironic that I care about what happens to the RCC? Many non-RC’s do. I left the RCC because I cannot follow a good many of her teachings. I have no clue why you think that my concerns are exempt from the moral teachings? Your post is simply confusing.

In general I find apologetics to have been distorted here. I view apologetics as simply mustering the evidence to explain the church’s position on various issues of faith and practice. Much as Dominic went around the country teaching priests the whys and wherefores of their faith so that they could answer at least accurately what the Church really taught and why against the forces of other claims.

Here, it has devolved into sometimes rather fantastical claims about the Church, and there is zero willingness to admit that in any time or place and for any reason on any issue the church simply was wrong. It is as if all of history is being rewritten to make the RCC some perfect mistake proof institution. Some here seem to think that without the RCC civilization itself would never have occurred much less progressed. To say that the Church had a strong hand in the world that worked much good is one thing, to suggest that everyone and everything else played but a minor role is, well, so wrong as to ruin any credibility the church has.

I don’t say the Church does this. She has been willing to admit her mistakes and ask forgiveness for wrongs done, albeit sometimes rather late, but there are followers who apparently think this was wrong to have done, and argue that no apology was ever warranted. That hurts the Church in my opinion, and is where she seems to be heading now, following a very fundamentalist type attitude. I greatly admire those who protest this within the church and work to change these attitudes.

As I said, I’m not sure exactly what you were meaning. If this helps, that is good, if not, explain a bit more deeply.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I find him a little tiresome too. Not quite ready to give up on this conversation, though.

The sad truth is, if you’re going to participate on an internet forum like this, you need to use your Ignore Button pretty liberally.

I’m quite sad to hear you say this Peter. I thought we had a rather pleasant understanding and respected one another. I guess that is not the case. I don’t use the ignore button myself. Even though various people do irritate me from time to time, I assume that even those I disagree with might have something of value to teach me from time to time. To each his own

And I’m a she.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

So if I understand you right, I need to choose between either

• never objecting to anyone saying that I’m not a Christian, or
• never saying that anyone else isn’t a Christian (if they call themselves Christian)
  ?

So I guess I also need to choose between either

• never objecting to anyone saying that I’m not a American, or
• never saying that anyone else isn’t an American (if they call themselves American)
  ?

The comparison doesn’t work.

If you agree that some people claim you are not Christian, you must agree that their standard for determining this is subjective in some sense. Since objectively you would claim that you are. But when you claim that someone else is not Christian, to them your standard is also subjective. It has to because they believe they are.

I guess all REASONABLE people might agree on an objective standard, and then you might be on firmer ground. But of course then we have to agree on what is reasonable don’t we.

It simply comes down to the fact that if you wish to proclaim that this or that person or denomination is not Christian by the standards you define, they you have little to object to when others, using their own standards, proclaim you aren’t Christian.

Being an American is not subjective. One either is or isn’t. It’s a perfectly legal question subject to an objective standard all must adher to defined by law.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Makes ecumenism pretty tough, doesn’t it? I mean, then we can’t even say “We have a lot in common: we’re both Christians.”

“We have a lot in common: we both claim the name ‘Christian’” kinda falls flat, don’t you think?

(Of course, perhaps ecumenism just isn’t important to you.)

If ecumenism is directed toward unity within one church, then what we call ourselves is immaterial. What we believe is all that counts, and if we don’t believe in the same basics or don’t even agree on the basics, then ecumenism is out the window. Agreeing that we are all Christians by some universal standard doesn’t get us very far toward that goal. Most ecumenism as you well know bogs down in the less serious of purgatory, the proper place of Mary, infallibility, heirarchy, etc, rather than issues of Hell, salvation, divinity, trinity. Those can relatively easily be discerned.

If ecumenism is directed toward working together toward common societal ills, that it matters not one whit whether a person calls themselves Christian and is so by my standards. If they are about the business of healing the sick, feeding the hungry, etc, then he is my compatriot in the work we need to do.

Ecumenism as toward the issue of unity? That has less and less interest to me as time goes on. I think we are pretty much threads in a tapestry of the “Church” universal. And I’m beginning to think more and more we all have important pieces of truth to bring to a table. We are barking up the wrong tree perhaps in insisting on all this perfect agreement on practice and liturgy. I’m not sure, it’s still an area I think about a lot. As with many many other things. LOL.