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

[SpiritMeadow]

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.

It will continue to be ridiculous to you as long as you try to compare it with situations that it cannot be compared with. I repeat for at least the third time. ANYONE’S conclusion that another is not a Christian is based on some SUBJECTIVE standard of what constitutes a Christian. Your example is not appropriate. One has either been convicted of a crime or one has not. That is the definition of a criminal and is based on an objective standard: IE, being convicted of a crime under a state or federal law.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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

I guess I never got an answer as to what the splinter and beam was referring to, thus I don’t get the kids in jail reference either.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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

I would call your first sentence your pride (some might say arrogance) regarding your faith tradition. I said nothing whatsoever about truth, but certainly one would not take pride in an institution they felt had not truth would they?

 

[CWBetts]

I would call your first sentence your pride (some might say arrogance) regarding your faith tradition. I said nothing whatsoever about truth, but certainly one would not take pride in an institution they felt had not truth would they?

I think whar SD is getting at is if not the Catholic Church, where was the deposit of Truth before the 16th century?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I think whar SD is getting at is if not the Catholic Church, where was the deposit of Truth before the 16th century?

Oh, well that might be something else again. I’m not sure exactly what is meant by the term “deposit of truth.” Is it an actual physical thing, or a concept? What of the split regarding the EO and other groups that broke from Rome before the Reformation? Do these have any deposit of faith?

I’m not being trite. I often find that we assume we understand something because we hear of it often, yet when we actually try to define it, we are at a loss. I truly am not sure what the phrase means to you. Can you enlighten me?

Additionally, and again it is important it seems to me. Truth is subjective to the person. We are talking about the truth as defined by your church correct? No doubt other faiths within Christendom might define some things differently?

 

[SD_Catholic]

I would call your first sentence your pride (some might say arrogance) regarding your faith tradition. I said nothing whatsoever about truth, but certainly one would not take pride in an institution they felt had not truth would they?

Why… is my first sentence somehow faulty? (Please show me my error) Who else helped uphold the Christian faith during those years besides the Orthodox after year 1000? (I’m in no way personally arrogant, but very “proud” of the CC)

Why would someone just search for a tradition they could be proud of… I guess we must abandon Paul as a good Apostle since his tradition was filled with “bad times”… A rosy tradition in no way ensures that it bears all Truth… I would not say that I’m proud of all the Catholics in history, but I certainly won’t abandon the faith over some of the short comings of it’s members over the last 2000 years… I guess my main objective would be to first search for the Truth and then take whatever traditions/history (small"t") came along with it.

SD

 

[SD_Catholic]

I guess I never got an answer as to what the splinter and beam was referring to, thus I don’t get the kids in jail reference either.

Sorry, it comes from Matt 7:3-5… it might make sense now

SD

 

[CWBetts]

Oh, well that might be something else again. I’m not sure exactly what is meant by the term “deposit of truth.” Is it an actual physical thing, or a concept? What of the split regarding the EO and other groups that broke from Rome before the Reformation? Do these have any deposit of faith?

I’m not being trite. I often find that we assume we understand something because we hear of it often, yet when we actually try to define it, we are at a loss. I truly am not sure what the phrase means to you. Can you enlighten me?

Additionally, and again it is important it seems to me. Truth is subjective to the person. We are talking about the truth as defined by your church correct? No doubt other faiths within Christendom might define some things differently?

What I mean by the “Deposit of Truth” is the simple fact that the Catholic Church was the Church founded by Christ. The name “Catholic” was in common use by the early 2nd century (as evidenced by St. Ignatius of Antioch). The Episcopal Church did not exsist until after the American Revolution, when it split from the Anglican Church over politics. The Anglican Church, in turn, did not exist until 1630, when Henry VIII split from Rome for olitical reasons (I think i found a trend ) So i am simply asking, if the Anglican/Episcopelian Church has the fullness of Truth, where could the Truth be found prior to 1630? This is important given the promises Christ gives to the Apotles in Mt. 16:18 and 28:20. There were splinter groups prior to the reformation that died out, but Catholicism survived. If the Reformed Churches have the fulness of Truth, where was the Truth to be found prior to the Reformation? With regards to Truth defined by Catholicism, there is only one Truth: the Gospel of Jesus Christ! It is this Truth that has been preached by the Catholic Church for 2000 years! So again I challenge: If the Catholic Church is not the deposit of Truth, where could it be found before the Reformation? To suggest that the Truth was missing for 1600 years is to suggest that Jesus was less that faithful in regards to his promises. That cannot possibly be true. I think explanation on your part is in order.

 

[Peter_J]

It will continue to be ridiculous to you as long as you try to compare it with situations that it cannot be compared with. I repeat for at least the third time. ANYONE’S conclusion that another is not a Christian is based on some SUBJECTIVE standard of what constitutes a Christian. Your example is not appropriate. One has either been convicted of a crime or one has not. That is the definition of a criminal and is based on an objective standard: IE, being convicted of a crime under a state or federal law.

Suit yourself. As far as I’m concerned, anyone who tells me that I can’t say that anyone else isn’t a Christian, and/or that I can’t object when other say that I’m not a Christian, is nothing but a bully.

It’s really sad though, because I’ve been following the other conversations you’re in on this thread, and you made some good points.

Best wishes,
Peter.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Why… is my first sentence somehow faulty? (Please show me my error) Who else helped uphold the Christian faith during those years besides the Orthodox after year 1000? (I’m in no way personally arrogant, but very “proud” of the CC)

Why would someone just search for a tradition they could be proud of… I guess we must abandon Paul as a good Apostle since his tradition was filled with “bad times”… A rosy tradition in no way ensures that it bears all Truth… I would not say that I’m proud of all the Catholics in history, but I certainly won’t abandon the faith over some of the short comings of it’s members over the last 2000 years… I guess my main objective would be to first search for the Truth and then take whatever traditions/history (small"t") came along with it.

SD

Well it seems you seen some error in your 1500 year point, since you have now backed up another 500 years, remembering that the EO may have “upheld” Christian faith a bit too. How about all those other Christians that were suppressed? Did they do nothing to uphold their version of Christianity?

It seems you don’t read my posts. I suggested that being proud of one’s tradition denotes a certain conclusion that it contains truth. I have no clue what Paul has to do with this. There was no suggestion that “rosy” had anything to do with being proud of one’s tradition. I agree with you that one’s main objective is to find a tradition that seems to contain the truth. That then makes one proud correct? Tradition is again, something you bring to this, that I never mentioned. Like I said, you don’t seem either to read, or perhaps not actually understand what I am saying, since your responses seem to make little sense in terms of relevance. I shall attempt to speak more plainly to be better understood.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Sorry, it comes from Matt 7:3-5… it might make sense now

SD

ROFL…your citation is utterly unnecessary. I am well aware of where to find the story in the bible. The point is you made reference to it in ragards to myself, yet have failed to explain in what manner I am so charged.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

What I mean by the “Deposit of Truth” is the simple fact that the Catholic Church was the Church founded by Christ. The name “Catholic” was in common use by the early 2nd century (as evidenced by St. Ignatius of Antioch). The Episcopal Church did not exsist until after the American Revolution, when it split from the Anglican Church over politics. The Anglican Church, in turn, did not exist until 1630, when Henry VIII split from Rome for olitical reasons (I think i found a trend ) So i am simply asking, if the Anglican/Episcopelian Church has the fullness of Truth, where could the Truth be found prior to 1630? This is important given the promises Christ gives to the Apotles in Mt. 16:18 and 28:20. There were splinter groups prior to the reformation that died out, but Catholicism survived. If the Reformed Churches have the fulness of Truth, where was the Truth to be found prior to the Reformation? With regards to Truth defined by Catholicism, there is only one Truth: the Gospel of Jesus Christ! It is this Truth that has been preached by the Catholic Church for 2000 years! So again I challenge: If the Catholic Church is not the deposit of Truth, where could it be found before the Reformation? To suggest that the Truth was missing for 1600 years is to suggest that Jesus was less that faithful in regards to his promises. That cannot possibly be true. I think explanation on your part is in order.

Now I am confused. You are saying that “deposit of truth” means the Church that Christ started?

Of course you realize that I disagree with your opinion that the RCC is the “church Christ started” since the evidence does not bear that out in my opinion. I agree that at some point, all power of the various churches throughout the realm coalesced in the hands of Rome who then suppressed all teachings that were different, but that didn’t occur arguably until there was an agreed upon canon and final obedience to Rome as supreme.

I take it you are not referring to writings but merely the concept of “truth?” If the second, then of course it resided anywhere and everywhere that Christians gathered to worship Christ as the Son of God.

NO doubt the RCC makes this claim of itself, but if it is not defined systematically in written form, it is not easy to substantiate that no one else was in possession of “truth”.

I think I am getting that you define Truth as that which is preached by your church as such. Of course, other denominations read scripture, and examine the works of theologians and such, including the apostles, ECF etc and also define and then preach truth. There is actually no way to define that one is necessarily more correct than any other. In fact, no doubt you are aware that it is because others find the RCC’s interpretations faulty that they re-examined these issues and came to different conclusions.

In conclusion if you are only going to claim that the “deposit of the faith” is the RCC, then of course you set up an argument that is easily defeated. I purposely changed it to faith rather than truth, since in fact, I believe that is the true claim. As such, it is correct, the RCC does contain the full deposit of the RC faith. Truth is free to be found by any and all who examine the documents.

While only one truth, there are many interpretations and no one can defend that theirs is the “truth” only that they believe it to be to their personal satisfaction.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Suit yourself. As far as I’m concerned, anyone who tells me that I can’t say that anyone else isn’t a Christian, and/or that I can’t object when other say that I’m not a Christian, is nothing but a bully.

It’s really sad though, because I’ve been following the other conversations you’re in on this thread, and you made some good points.

Best wishes,
Peter.

I have no idea what you find sad about it. When anyone claims that the RCC is not Christian, they are absolutely wrong by my estimation, and by that of most thinking persons I would think. My point is given that such people who would make such a claim are ill informed and likely to remain that way, I can envision no reason why I would want to engage in the same kind of worthless nonsence as to make similar claims against anyone else. There are some here who make this claim about Mormons.

I don’t know a good deal about the faith, but I am sure that Mormons consider themselves Christians, and I can see no reason on earth why I should argue with them. It proves nothing in the end, engenders anger and resentment, destroys ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue and work, and is unproveable by any objective standard, and its just plain mean and petty. I have nothing else to say on the subject frankly.

 

[SD_Catholic]

ROFL…your citation is utterly unnecessary. I am well aware of where to find the story in the bible. The point is you made reference to it in ragards to myself, yet have failed to explain in what manner I am so charged.

Are you kidding? You really want me to tell you again… The verse asks why do you point out the splinter in your brother’s eye while you have a beam in your own eye… remove the beam first from your own eye… so I’m asking why would you be critical of the direction the CC is headed (without being asked), when there are some obvious problems (especially moral) in the Episcopal Church… That was what my comment refered to… my message is plain and simple… You shouldn’t be critical of the CCs direction until you’ve somehow fixed or abandoned the direction of the Episcopal church… That’s it, that’s what I was referring to, that’s why I found it ironic… Not that big of a mystery… I was suprised that you would mention the direction of the CC and yet seem unconcerned with that of the Episcopal, but hey maybe you are working endlessly on fixing the moral issues within the Episcopal church and just didn’t happen to bring it up…

SD

 

[SD_Catholic]

Well it seems you seen some error in your 1500 year point, since you have now backed up another 500 years, remembering that the EO may have “upheld” Christian faith a bit too. How about all those other Christians that were suppressed? Did they do nothing to uphold their version of Christianity?

It seems you don’t read my posts. I suggested that being proud of one’s tradition denotes a certain conclusion that it contains truth. I have no clue what Paul has to do with this. There was no suggestion that “rosy” had anything to do with being proud of one’s tradition. I agree with you that one’s main objective is to find a tradition that seems to contain the truth. That then makes one proud correct? Tradition is again, something you bring to this, that I never mentioned. Like I said, you don’t seem either to read, or perhaps not actually understand what I am saying, since your responses seem to make little sense in terms of relevance. I shall attempt to speak more plainly to be better understood.

not error, I view them as being “catholic” in their beliefs… so to include them was just out of respect for their apostolic faith… By other Christians do you mean Heretics that the CC protected the faith from being dismantled by for all those years? I include them as part of the group that the CC protected Christianity from…

Talk about a good laugh… you first said it wasn’t history you were talking about, but now it’s Tradition too… I tell you what, by doing this you have a good start in removing the Truths of Christianity… I didn’t realize that Christianity jumped from 33AD to 1550 AD… I somehow think that is a pretty important time frame myself but hey that’s just me… I like how whenever someone makes a Biblical comparison that fits you some how give a blank stare and act confused by it… I know you’re a smart person and not that easily confused, so I’m pretty sure you aren’t giving it much effort…

I don’t know what I’m not understanding about our conversation… You seemed to want to think everyone contributed as much to Christianity as the CC did… Maybe that’s the part I misunderstood…

SD

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Are you kidding? You really want me to tell you again… The verse asks why do you point out the splinter in your brother’s eye while you have a beam in your own eye… remove the beam first from your own eye… so I’m asking why would you be critical of the direction the CC is headed (without being asked), when there are some obvious problems (especially moral) in the Episcopal Church… That was what my comment refered to… my message is plain and simple… You shouldn’t be critical of the CCs direction until you’ve somehow fixed or abandoned the direction of the Episcopal church… That’s it, that’s what I was referring to, that’s why I found it ironic… Not that big of a mystery… I was suprised that you would mention the direction of the CC and yet seem unconcerned with that of the Episcopal, but hey maybe you are working endlessly on fixing the moral issues within the Episcopal church and just didn’t happen to bring it up…

SD

I guess the irony goes both ways. Unless you are claiming that the RCC is without need for any correction, then you are criticizing TEC before fixing your own. I would wholeheartedly agree that my Church has much to rectify. There is an immoral faction in my church, (my opinion of course) that refuse to accept fully our GLBT brothers and sisters and to continue to claim that women have no place in the teaching church. We work, you can be sure, to help them see the error of their ways.

Since most RC’s on this forum feel quite free to be highly critical of TEC, and any other for that matter, I assumed they could take minor criticism, which I did not specify, but mentioned briefly, in the spirit of truly caring. No denomination is without it’s share of error and closemindedness. We struggle to understand the sincere dissagreements without our tradition, certainly without the need to reject anyone because they believe differently. It is an ongoing thing,and we hope that we return to what we have always been, a church open to argue and disagree as we all strive to attain the best understanding of God and faith.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

not error, I view them as being “catholic” in their beliefs… so to include them was just out of respect for their apostolic faith… By other Christians do you mean Heretics that the CC protected the faith from being dismantled by for all those years? I include them as part of the group that the CC protected Christianity from…

Talk about a good laugh… you first said it wasn’t history you were talking about, but now it’s Tradition too… I tell you what, by doing this you have a good start in removing the Truths of Christianity… I didn’t realize that Christianity jumped from 33AD to 1550 AD… I somehow think that is a pretty important time frame myself but hey that’s just me… I like how whenever someone makes a Biblical comparison that fits you some how give a blank stare and act confused by it… I know you’re a smart person and not that easily confused, so I’m pretty sure you aren’t giving it much effort…

I don’t know what I’m not understanding about our conversation… You seemed to want to think everyone contributed as much to Christianity as the CC did… Maybe that’s the part I misunderstood…

SD

I understand your point of view. However mine is quite different. All the church is catholic or universal as I see it. At all times there have been competing interests all giving their version of Jesus and the Kingdom. You tend to call all those suppressed as “heretics” as your Church defines them. I would not necessarily agree to that. They simply became minority views. The winner always gets to declare “truth” and the loser becomes the heretic.

We all share the same history, and for me, every member of Christendom, those that were never part, those that were and left, have truth, that together amounts to the “Truth” as Christendom" understands it. Each denomination accepts some part, large or small of that compendium.

What RC’s always fail (more likely refuse) to see is that the Non RC world considered itself part of the “true” church, until such time or times that they concluded that one part of it, the RCC, fell into error. For some that occurred very early on, before there was much centralization, clearly, there were losers when the canon was selected, and they automatically became “heretics” as you call them. These “losers” continued on in the tradition of the “true” church as they conceived it to be. It is useless to claim that the HS resides in any one place, and frankly your heirarchy makes no such claim. The HS guides the universal church, however stubborn some pieces of it are from time to time.

That we will never agree is rather obvious I would guess.

 

[SD_Catholic]

I guess the irony goes both ways. Unless you are claiming that the RCC is without need for any correction, then you are criticizing TEC before fixing your own. I would wholeheartedly agree that my Church has much to rectify. There is an immoral faction in my church, (my opinion of course) that refuse to accept fully our GLBT brothers and sisters and to continue to claim that women have no place in the teaching church. We work, you can be sure, to help them see the error of their ways.

Since most RC’s on this forum feel quite free to be highly critical of TEC, and any other for that matter, I assumed they could take minor criticism, which I did not specify, but mentioned briefly, in the spirit of truly caring. No denomination is without it’s share of error and closemindedness. We struggle to understand the sincere dissagreements without our tradition, certainly without the need to reject anyone because they believe differently. It is an ongoing thing,and we hope that we return to what we have always been, a church open to argue and disagree as we all strive to attain the best understanding of God and faith.

Well if I would have started the comments on the direction of the TEC than I could agree, but I only commented because of your initial comment about the CC… Honestly, I don’t tend to think much about the TEC since their doctrines seem quite similar to the CC… Probably similar to the way you might feel about the CC (is this fair?) I think we all need to become aware of things people see affecting their church… substantiated or not… if so we need to see them fixed, if only misunderstood then they need to be explained.

SD

 

[SD_Catholic]

I understand your point of view. However mine is quite different. All the church is catholic or universal as I see it. At all times there have been competing interests all giving their version of Jesus and the Kingdom. You tend to call all those suppressed as “heretics” as your Church defines them. I would not necessarily agree to that. They simply became minority views. The winner always gets to declare “truth” and the loser becomes the heretic.

We all share the same history, and for me, every member of Christendom, those that were never part, those that were and left, have truth, that together amounts to the “Truth” as Christendom" understands it. Each denomination accepts some part, large or small of that compendium.

What RC’s always fail (more likely refuse) to see is that the Non RC world considered itself part of the “true” church, until such time or times that they concluded that one part of it, the RCC, fell into error. For some that occurred very early on, before there was much centralization, clearly, there were losers when the canon was selected, and they automatically became “heretics” as you call them. These “losers” continued on in the tradition of the “true” church as they conceived it to be. It is useless to claim that the HS resides in any one place, and frankly your heirarchy makes no such claim. The HS guides the universal church, however stubborn some pieces of it are from time to time.

That we will never agree is rather obvious I would guess.

Actualy most of the people that had differences in opinions on Scripture or doctrine, usually just submitted to the authority of the Church (you might say forced, but I say submitted)… These would not be considered Heretics… Only the ones that broke away to preach a different gospel (Marcion, Arianism, etc…)… I would think similar to many Catholics today that don’t understand or maybe even question certain Catholic doctrines or disciplines, but faithfully submit, trusting that the Church knows what’s best for them.

Ahhh Spirit… we agree on almost everything, but for some reason we seem to only discuss the things we don’t agree on.… I’m sorry

SD

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Well if I would have started the comments on the direction of the TEC than I could agree, but I only commented because of your initial comment about the CC… Honestly, I don’t tend to think much about the TEC since their doctrines seem quite similar to the CC… Probably similar to the way you might feel about the CC (is this fair?) I think we all need to become aware of things people see affecting their church… substantiated or not… if so we need to see them fixed, if only misunderstood then they need to be explained.

SD

I would agree that TEC and RCC are simiilar in much doctrine. Our liturgies are quite similar as well. In fact, as one RC here noted some months ago, he actually by mistake attended a EC in another town and though a couple of things were of minor difference, he didn’t realize it wasn’t a RCC until he went out and read the fine print on the name outside! lol…

I agree that all persons should be involved in their faith traditions, working to change those things that need changing and to speak correctly of what the Church actually stands for.