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

[SpiritMeadow]

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.

I don’t complain about the horrible judgment of “Catholics here.” I complain that SOME here are judgmental when they then claim others are being judgmental about them.

It is unfair and rather crass to claim I have no standards. I said simply that I don’t have to the need to tell others that their standard of Christianity is deficient. I can ignore their faith, and want no part of it, without having to express that to them. It’s not pathetic as you so rudely suggest, it is being civil and respectful of the beliefs of others,no matter how much I might disagree. (Note we are not talking about religious fanaticism such as Islamic, Jewish and Christians who take up arms and cause physical harm to get their point across. That I thoroughly condemn).

A clearer understand of Church history suggests that there were dozens of different teachings going on throughout the realm. There were several forms of gnosticism for instance. Not all the ECF were always directly on the same page either. Over time, enough power coalesced in some hands that allowed them to prevail by numbers over others, then they got to write what was orthodox.

I admit that I am speaking my opinions. I always do that. I don’t speak for my Church but in a few instances. And I don’t think I have called your behavior horribly judgmental. Again, you paint too broadly. I don’t understand your reference to “pretence of open-mindedness”. Are you suggesting my is? On what basis?

I never suggested “anything goes” . But I would agree, neither I nor my church I don’t believe has much need to throw the word heretic at everything we disagree with.

 

[Peter_J]

I guess all REASONABLE people might agree on an objective standard, and then you might be on firmer ground.

I don’t see that at all. That would mean that if two people disagree with each other about who’s Christian and who isn’t, then at least one of them must be unreasonable.

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.

So you have indicated before, but you haven’t provided any kind of argument to substantiate that assertion.

I’m quite sad to hear you say this Peter. I thought we had a rather pleasant understanding and respected one another.

Don’t we respect one another?

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

Yes, to each his own … but if you don’t “ignore” anyone, does that mean that a Catholic poster who is just here to “bash” Protestants would receive just as much of your attention as those of us who [at least try to] engage Protestants in earnest and charitable dialogue? “Hardly complimentary your highness.”

And I’m a she.

I’m sorry. (Well, I’m not sorry that you’re a ‘she’, but I’m sorry that I didn’t know or forgot.)

 

[Peter_J]

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.

Sounds like you’re pretty conflicted … you’re not much interested in “ecumenism as toward the issue of unity” (which is, btw, usually what people mean when they say “ecumenism”) and yet you say that “we all have important pieces of truth to bring to a table” (emphasis added).

The following quotation may be helpful. It’s from an interview with Reverend Dr. Roald Flemestad of the Nordic Catholic Church (a small group that entered into full communion with the Polish National Catholic Church (PNCC) about a decade ago):

Does the Nordic Catholic Church entertain the “branch theory” of the Church that has been embraced by certain high-church Anglicans?

RF: Well, if the “branch theory” means that all denominations are really equal but, by chance, historically different expressions of the same faith, then I do not accept it. Historically, there is but One Church, Catholic and Apostolic. Realizing that Christ did not leave behind a religious philosophy or a set of ideas that could comfort the soul, but that he sent out Twelve Apostles as the foundation of his Church, we could not in our predicament isolate ourselves from that historical mission and let ourselves be satisfied with some sort of pseudo-ecclesial arrangement as some sort of pet project.

Thus, we could resort to neither a nostalgic project of creating a “continuing church” based upon an idealized Lutheran past, nor an ahistorical utopianism in the form of some sort of new ecumenical arrangement for dissatisfied high-church Protestants. We had to look for a church! We had to find a given historical church institution that had the catholicity we needed and would show the pastoral generosity to support us as a group.

That said, there’s an Orthodox saying, “We know where the Church is, but not where it isn’t.” There are people of true faith that can be examples for us all in Protestant churches—I’m not for a minute doubting that—and if their lives are such, it must be the work of the Holy Spirit. So even if I am critical of the branch theory, I wouldn’t say that the “charismatic overflow” of the Holy Spirit does not exist in places other than the historic apostolic churches.

P.S. I also wonder … perhaps it’s not so much that you have a problem with ecumenism in principle, but more that you’ve seen a lot of cases of “ecumenism” being abused – like some people using it as an opportunity to manipulate or outright bully others?

 

[fbl9]

II never suggested “anything goes” . But I would agree, neither I nor my church I don’t believe has much need to throw the word heretic at everything we disagree with.

and is it because you know possibly that your church does not have any authority to say so?
To me by the rawest definition of the word heretic, means one who once knew the truth of the church yet rejects this in favor of his own chosing.

 

[SD_Catholic]

I’m not sure what you mean by your question.

You said a faith doesn’t need to be defended if it’s true… That makes no sense… Of course truth will still be truth but without defense of it there would be no place for the faithful to find it, especially near the beginning… To think Christianity would be even close to what it is today without the CC defending it for all those years is being blind to the facts of history.

Sure you can be concerned about the CC, but that’s kinda like picking at slivers when you contain the beam.

SD

 

[LutheranDK]

Just wondering. I know that most non-Catholic Churches like to brag that they have lots of “ex-Catholics” in their ranks. But it seems to me that Catholics are everybody’s primary/favorite group to target for attack and conversion.

My guess is the dominating position that the RCC has held for centuries in Europe (and the massive influence it has had on Western Civilization as a result), combined with the claims of the RCC being provocative enough to merit that kind of response.

Furthermore, one could also ask: Why does the RCC target all other religions and denominations for conversion?
The answer: Because it believes it has the Truth.

The same answer applies to your question.

In Him

LDK

 

[Dauphin]

The Catholic Church is the biggest, and Catholic education and spiritual formation is in a state of complete chaos, and has been for decades. Satan would be a fool not to take advantage of such a state of affairs. An entire generation has been lost to modernism and error. In their ignorance, they’re easy pickings.

The Church threw open the windows after Vatican II, and the vultures flew right in.

 

[SD_Catholic]

The Catholic Church is the biggest, and Catholic education and spiritual formation is in a state of complete chaos, and has been for decades. Satan would be a fool not to take advantage of such a state of affairs. An entire generation has been lost to modernism and error. In their ignorance, they’re easy pickings.

The Church threw open the windows after Vatican II, and the vultures flew right in.

I actually think that Catholic education is on the rebound, but perhpas it’s a localized situation, but regardless satan is sure to want to focus on the CC.

SD

 

[Peter_J]

The Catholic Church is the biggest, and Catholic education and spiritual formation is in a state of complete chaos, and has been for decades.

But gradually getting better, at least in the last 50 years or so, I would say.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I don’t see that at all. That would mean that if two people disagree with each other about who’s Christian and who isn’t, then at least one of them must be unreasonable.

How so? Both might be unreasonable, or both reasonable but have somewhat different standards, each reasonable by its own parameters.

So you have indicated before, but you haven’t provided any kind of argument to substantiate that assertion.

That is the argument, that it is simply illogical to do exactly to another what you object to being done to you. Unless of course, you assume some how that your standards are correct and another’s are incorrect. But you see of course that they would say the same of you. I just don’t see the purpose of going around interferring in somebody else’s life like this just to point out that you don’t think they are Christian.

Don’t we respect one another?

It seems you don’t me, given that you tell another poster “I find him tiresome too.” as if I am not able to read this. It sounds more of making sure you are shored up with your side, not being too kind to the Episcopalian. I am not however losing sleep over it, so no matter.

Yes, to each his own … but if you don’t “ignore” anyone, does that mean that a Catholic poster who is just here to “bash” Protestants would receive just as much of your attention as those of us who [at least try to] engage Protestants in earnest and charitable dialogue? “Hardly complimentary your highness.”

I don’t answer many posters on here, because I find what they say not worth replying to. I see no need to put them on ignore, and it makes understanding people who do respond to them difficult since I haven’t much idea what they are replying to but what they choose to quote. Is there a reason for the “hardly complimentary your highness?” I just don’t see what it is so necessary to be snotty just to prove your Catholic cred or something.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Sounds like you’re pretty conflicted … you’re not much interested in “ecumenism as toward the issue of unity” (which is, btw, usually what people mean when they say “ecumenism”) and yet you say that “we all have important pieces of truth to bring to a table” (emphasis added).

I find that from what I hear, there are inroads being made between many faith communities toward finding agreement on individual issues, but I don’t see much happening on the big issues. Recently my priest suggested to me that perhaps that is how it is meant to be–we each bring something special to the fullness of Christianity, and that might be lost if we compromise enough to find perfect commonality. Rather we should perhaps relish our special gifts which in total represent Gods people. Of course this can be expanded into the non-Christian arena as well, and even more clearly enlarges the gifts and insights brought to the table.

In any event, it gave me much food for thought, and that’s always a good thing.

P.S. I also wonder … perhaps it’s not so much that you have a problem with ecumenism in principle, but more that you’ve seen a lot of cases of “ecumenism” being abused – like some people using it as an opportunity to manipulate or outright bully others?

I can’t think of a single incident that I could point to of this. Those times I’ve been involved in joint ventures across denominations have been fruitful learning times and I think quite enriching for all parties. Those that are trying to hammer out doctrinal agreement face a much harder task than those of us who skip that and get directly at how we can address common issues of helping our communities. We find we can work with just about anybody when we can see a common need that requires addressing.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

and is it because you know possibly that your church does not have any authority to say so?
To me by the rawest definition of the word heretic, means one who once knew the truth of the church yet rejects this in favor of his own chosing.

I can fathom no basis on which to conclude that we “don’t have any authority to say so” beyond the fact that as far as I know we don’t choose to grant any leadership that kind authority. We do of course determine claims wherein a split occurs within a parish and both sides claim the right to the church and its property.

Your definition of heretic is imcomplete. "one who once knew the truth, (as I have decided to believe) of the church, yet rejects this in favor of his own chosing (which I don’t believe is the truth.). You see it is always what you believe is truth, not necessarily what is truth. The heretic believes just as fervently that they are in possession of the truth.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

You said a faith doesn’t need to be defended if it’s true… That makes no sense… Of course truth will still be truth but without defense of it there would be no place for the faithful to find it, especially near the beginning… To think Christianity would be even close to what it is today without the CC defending it for all those years is being blind to the facts of history.

Sure you can be concerned about the CC, but that’s kinda like picking at slivers when you contain the beam.

SD

I was not speaking historically. I think Dominic did well to teach the faith thus giving the clergy the answers to those that claimed other doctrines. And a continuation of providing clear honest explanations of doctrine is still valuable to those who ask. But what goes on here, actually perverts the very concept of apologetics into something quite different. It amounts in some cases, by some people to rewriting history to make Catholicism the winner in every event in history.

Your last statement is well, meaningless. I guess you somehow feel that no nonRoman Catholic can be critical, since they are in such obvious error themselves? Well that is of course your opinion. Whether you agree or not, a large number of Roman Catholics share the same concerns.

 

[SD_Catholic]

Your last statement is well, meaningless. I guess you somehow feel that no nonRoman Catholic can be critical, since they are in such obvious error themselves? Well that is of course your opinion. Whether you agree or not, a large number of Roman Catholics share the same concerns.

Meaningless? I know many non-Catholics that are critical, heck Catholics too… Does that somehow make it right to be critical? I have every right to feel worried about what my children are doing, but I certainly don’t plan on telling other people how to raise their kids if mine are sitting in jail at the age of 14. (disclaimer… mine are not).

Unless you’re considering a move to the CC, you might want to consider starting reform in your own backyard… and yes this is of course my opinion.

SD

 

[SD_Catholic]

I was not speaking historically. I think Dominic did well to teach the faith thus giving the clergy the answers to those that claimed other doctrines. And a continuation of providing clear honest explanations of doctrine is still valuable to those who ask. But what goes on here, actually perverts the very concept of apologetics into something quite different. It amounts in some cases, by some people to rewriting history to make Catholicism the winner in every event in history.

.

Well it’s all about history… and history cannot be rewrote… it is what it is.

I guess I don’t see people doing that but then again I’m Catholic… and when a person sees how the CC has preserved Christianity for so long it’s hard not to feel a little winneristic about it.

SD

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Meaningless? I know many non-Catholics that are critical, heck Catholics too… Does that somehow make it right to be critical? I have every right to feel worried about what my children are doing, but I certainly don’t plan on telling other people how to raise their kids if mine are sitting in jail at the age of 14. (disclaimer… mine are not).

Unless you’re considering a move to the CC, you might want to consider starting reform in your own backyard… and yes this is of course my opinion.

SD

I see nothing wrong in being critical if one is asked one’s opinion as we are often here. I surely have no reason to go around as a matter of course naming my issues with the RCC. I have no clue what your reference is to the kids and jail.

I would hardly consider a move to the RCC since I left it because of my differences with it. I certainly wouldn’t disagree that my church has its issues, all do. You simply assumed I was critical of the RCC. Mostly I am not, as an fair reading of my posts would show. I think highly of her for many things. On some things, when asked, I will more assuredly say that I am not, and explain why if asked.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Well it’s all about history… and history cannot be rewrote… it is what it is.

I guess I don’t see people doing that but then again I’m Catholic… and when a person sees how the CC has preserved Christianity for so long it’s hard not to feel a little winneristic about it.

SD

LOL…History is indeed what it is, but of course revisionists try to rewrite it daily. There are some here, you may have missed who claim that the RCC saved untold hundreds of thousands of Jews, almost to the exclusion of anyone else, and also that they essentially saved civilization during the dark ages. While they certainly had valuable (name removed by moderator)ut in both areas, they nowhere were the sole nor even major saving agents in either.

You see the RCC as preserving Christianity, and of course we see that all Christian faiths have together done so. This need to be the winner seems to pervade the minds of a minority of RC’s and sadly their message is not listened to because of their zeal. It begins to look occassionally like fanaticism, and worship of an institution. There are few here that are that over the top, but there are some. They are counterproductive in every respect.

No doubt everyone should feel proud of their faith tradition, or they should find one they can feel proud of, but there are limits. Moving beyond them, simply means you lose your validity as a voice.

 

[Peter_J]

I’m sorry but this is just too ridiculous. According to your “logic”, SpiritMeadow, if someone claims that I’m a criminal, and if I object to that claim, then I can never claim that anyone else is a criminal.

 

[SD_Catholic]

I see nothing wrong in being critical if one is asked one’s opinion as we are often here. I surely have no reason to go around as a matter of course naming my issues with the RCC. I have no clue what your reference is to the kids and jail.

.

It seems to me your comment about being concerned about the direction of the CC came without being asked, but hey that was 4000 posts ago so maybe someone did ask how you felt about it?

As for the kids in jail it wasn’t anything too mind boggling, just another splinter to beam comparison.

SD

 

[SD_Catholic]

LOL…History is indeed what it is, but of course revisionists try to rewrite it daily. There are some here, you may have missed who claim that the RCC saved untold hundreds of thousands of Jews, almost to the exclusion of anyone else, and also that they essentially saved civilization during the dark ages. While they certainly had valuable (name removed by moderator)ut in both areas, they nowhere were the sole nor even major saving agents in either.

You see the RCC as preserving Christianity, and of course we see that all Christian faiths have together done so. This need to be the winner seems to pervade the minds of a minority of RC’s and sadly their message is not listened to because of their zeal. It begins to look occassionally like fanaticism, and worship of an institution. There are few here that are that over the top, but there are some. They are counterproductive in every respect.

No doubt everyone should feel proud of their faith tradition, or they should find one they can feel proud of, but there are limits. Moving beyond them, simply means you lose your validity as a voice.

You’re right… the CC did all the hard work for the first 1500 years and the rest pitched in for the last 500, 400, 300, 200, 100, or since yesterday…

I’m lost on the last part, but perhaps it points out the problem… “find one they can feel proud of”… if that’s the basis for finding Truth… well then:shrug:

SD