Your view on other religions

  • Thread starter Thread starter AsStAnselmPrays
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
cardenio:
All religions contain some truth. Catholicism is Truth.
Click to expand...
Catholicism contains the fullness of the Truth
 
40.png
reen12:
quote:Contarini

May I assume that the English “priest hole’s” were
simply a decorative feature? And not a place where
priests had to slip into, for fear of being caught?

Edmond Campion, call your office…

Or that Margaret Clitherow was suffocated to death,
for her Catholic beliefs, by others who were
“enthusiastic” over their brand new faith?

ewtn.com/library/MARY/MARCLITH.htm

Still, I wouldn’t want to be called on the carpet
for the inexcusable act of pointing to fact.

Best wishes, :tiphat:

reen12

Trouble is, I read a book called Come Rack, Come Ruin
as a kid, and I’ve never looked at things in the same
ecumenical light, since.
Click to expand...
I knew someone would jump on that. I should have said “bypass Christianity,” but not all forms of Christianity have sanctioned violence, and I didn’t want to start listing all the forms that have. Of course the historic Protestant state churches have very tarnished records here as well. But since the person making the statement was a Catholic, I mentioned Catholicism. I wasn’t slamming Catholicism at all.

And reen, since Anglican-Catholic violence was definitely two-sided, why would knowing about it make you less ecumenical? I’d think that you would want to be more ecumenical to avoid repetition of those sad days. Neither Anglicans nor Catholics have any right to claim victim status over against the other. They are probably the two most violent traditions of Christianity, though Calvinists/Reformed have a pretty bad record too (of course, Anglicans saw themselves as Reformed at one time).

Edwin
 
Hi, Contarini,
quote: contarini
Neither Anglicans nor Catholics have any right to claim victim status over against the other. They are probably the two most violent traditions of Christianity, though Calvinists/Reformed have a pretty bad record too (of course, Anglicans saw themselves as Reformed at one time).
Click to expand...
You are absolutely right, Contarini.

I just saw red when I read that sentence in your post.
I should have felt guilty, after I posted my response…
but I didn’t! 😃 Shame on me. 😦

And this, after I’d posted some lovely thoughts on
ecumenism…in the same thread!! [Which I meant.]

In some ways, it’s silly of me to respond, because I
don’t know what I believe anymore.

[Besides, I owe you thanks for straightening out the
business with Talmud/Tanach for me, over on
another thread.]

Thank you, Edwin, for your mild response to my
less than ecumenical reply, and for pointing out:

quote: Contarini
And reen, since Anglican-Catholic violence was definitely two-sided, why would knowing about it make you less ecumenical? I’d think that you would want to be more ecumenical to avoid repetition of those sad days.
Click to expand...
Best wishes to you, Edwin,

Maureen
 
Maureen,

No problem. It crossed my mind that I should have made it broader than just Catholicism. But I was trying to keep Protestantism out of it, since the poster was Catholic and was attacking Judaism and Islam. My point was simply that his own religion wouldn’t fare to well by those standards either.

I grew up with a very biased Protestant view of the Reformation, so I totally understand why Catholics would jump on anything that looked like such a one-sided approach.

Edwin
 
40.png
Wormwood:
I was refering to the ten commandments.
Click to expand...
Hello Wormwood,

Below I have quoted the ten commandments of the one true God. Old Testament and New Testament sum up obedience to God’s ten commandments as love for God and love for fellow man. Do Agree that having no other gods besides God who lead the Israelites out of Egypt is the first of the ten commandments you are reffering to?

**NAB EXO 20:2 **
I, the LORD, am your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. You shall not have other gods besides me.6: but bestowing mercy down to the thousandth generation, on the children of those who love me and keep my commandments.7: You shall not take the name of the LORD, your God, in vain.8: Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.12: Honor your father and your mother, that you may have a long life in the land which the LORD, your God, is giving you.13: You shall not kill.14: You shall not commit adultery.15: You shall not steal.16: You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.17: You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male or female slave, nor his ox or ***, nor anything else that belongs to him.
 
Kristina P.:
I’m still a little confused as to how you plan to ensure this. I know that I personally have no control over another person’s mind, beliefs, or actions unless I coerce them in some way.
If, as I suspect, you’re not really suggesting that we attempt to mind-control or to violently coerce the whole of humanity, then the only alternative is to tolerate the beliefs of others, i.e., allow them to exist. This does not mean that we bow to their gods, compromise the Truth, or admit the validity of their false religions. It simply means that we recognize the right of another human being to make up his own mind. Tolerance also doesn’t mean complacency toward the error of our fellow man; we must do what we can to persuade him to believe the Truth. This means living our testimony, preaching the truth in love, and praying for lost souls. Never forget that your faith is a gift of God’s grace, not a product of your own intellect or moral superiority. You cannot judge those who have not received this gift.
Click to expand...
No, I don’t plan on coercing other religions into believing in Catholicism. I believe, and will always believe, that strength isn’t in numbers. It doesn’t matter if the Catholic Church has 1.7 billion members or 17 million, I don’t care, we would still be the strongest religion in the world, because those members are 100% devoted to Church teachings.
 
Kristina P.:
Certainly not in the capacity of a World Religions teacher! How did I miss that this was in a Catholic school? I thought you were somehow shocked by the beliefs of a university professor! You should certainly make an appointment with this teacher to discuss your concerns, and bring your parents to add gravity to your arguments. I don’t really know how the Church could/would deal with this kind of thing, but if no one does something to correct his teaching, I think you and your parents have an obligation to inform the other parents what their children are being taught. They might think that they can trust this school to teach their children in an orthodox manner.
That said, you still can’t shoot him. 😛
Click to expand...
While my teacher isn’t atheist (he claims that he’s a Catholic, though when he makes the sign of the cross, it’s more like him sliding his hand across his pectoral muscles; he did, however, help the priest at a mass that took place at our school), he does seem to be sensitive towards them. Yes, he could be showing empathy and tolerance, but he wants the class to show empathy towards EVERYONE. I have no problem tolerating other religions, but I do have a problem tolerating atheistic religions.

Which reminds me: he seemed rather offended/astonished when I called Scientology an anti-Catholic, Satan-controlled cult.

He’s putting me in charge of the school’s new Peer Ministry, which kind of surprised me, because we obviously have differing ideologies.
 
40.png
Fox:
Sounds like your teacher has a Mason way of thinking about religion, check his fingers.
Click to expand...
Fox, don’t get me started with the Freemasons. I can’t stand them, trying to change the Church in such subtle manners.

And thanks for the heads up, I will check for Masonic symbology and the like.
 
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to preach against non-Catholic religions, I’m just trying to make sure that Catholics realize that the Church is the way to go. I don’t appreciate my teacher saying that as long as you believe in a “Supreme Being” you’ll go to heaven. That’s not correct, and I am striving to change that.

If people truly believed that, and if it were true, the Pope would probably join Scientology, which just so happens to be headquartered roughly 30 miles south of my house (hurray me, right?). If this were the truth, then the Catholic Church would let atheists partake of the Eucharist.

But this doesn’t happen. Why? Because there’s only one God. Not a generic Supreme Being or Great Divinity, “just” God

At dinner, my father slipped and said “Great Divinity” when saying something about the Trinity, and I said, “Dad, please, don’t ever say ‘Great Divinity’ ever again. ‘Great Divinity,’ ‘Supreme Being,’ they’re the same thing. Secularists and atheists believe in ‘Supreme Beings,’ not Catholics. We believe in THE God.”
My dad responded by saying that what I had said made sense, because God is, he is not a supreme being or great divinity, he just is.

And in regards to the students, there are many students who are atheists, and this greatly hurts their chances of “converting” to Catholicism, if they’re being told that they can believe whatever they want, because, in a narrow-but-broad way, they are actually believing in God. Anyone else see something wrong with this?
 
40.png
reen12:
quote:Contarini

May I assume that the English “priest hole’s” were
simply a decorative feature? And not a place where
priests had to slip into, for fear of being caught?

Edmond Campion, call your office…

Or that Margaret Clitherow was suffocated to death,
for her Catholic beliefs, by others who were
“enthusiastic” over their brand new faith?

ewtn.com/library/MARY/MARCLITH.htm

Still, I wouldn’t want to be called on the carpet
for the inexcusable act of pointing to fact.

Best wishes, :tiphat:

reen12

Trouble is, I read a book called Come Rack, Come Ruin
as a kid, and I’ve never looked at things in the same
ecumenical light, since.
Click to expand...

I don’t think we Catholics are in much of a position to complain of Protestant cruelties, since it is perfectly possible that Catholic example led Protestants to do to Catholics some of the things that had been done to them.​

When you mention the English Martyrs, don’t forget the Protestants who were forced into Catholicism in 1685 and later. Some Catholics executed after 1535 were traitors by any definition - which is why not all of them have been proposed for canonisation.

BTW, the very unpleasant form of death penalty suffered by St Edmund Campion was instituted while England was still Catholic: Edward I was the first English ruler to hang, castrate, disembowel and decapitate male traitors; that form of death goes back to 1283 - long before the Reformation; women traitors were burned, this being more decent. Unless one was lucky enough to be of high rank, of course. Why was treason punished like that ? As a deterrent, presumably - and presumably as a reminder of the death of Judas.

I don’t see the point of living in the past - it’s not as though poring over it could reverse anything in it. And anyway, if Christians can’t be at peace between themselves, what is the point of the Church ? How can those who are unreconciled to each other bring the Gospel of reconciliation with God to non-Christians ? ##
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top