I promised myself I wouldn't make another post on this thread, but I have to say that, as a Catholic, the responses some of the Catholics on here have given to Protestant remarks have really bothered. Many of these posts have made a less than attractive representation of how Catholics react to outside criticism.
It's true that some of the Protestants on this thread have said things at least equally stupid and rude things regarding Catholicism, but so what? I'd rather my ideological opponents display rudeness than my ideological allies. Frankly, I think many of the responses by Catholic posters on this thread have been not to educate or apologize (in the old sense of the term) to Protestants, but out of personal emotional vitriol. It's annoying, I know, to hear the old, hackneyed stereotypes dredged up again and again, and the natural response may be to simply dismiss them with a wisecrack and laugh amongst ourselves how ignorant those "fundies" are. But such a reaction does nothing to help the Church.
We have to ask ourselves: our the things we say likely to leave Protestant critics and neutral readers with a more accurate and positive idea of Catholicism or less? Given certain abrasive, uninstructive posts by Catholics on here, who can blame people like Havoc if they continue to view Catholicism in a negative light?
Marsh, chin up. This is not representative of all or "most" Catholics. Not by far.
I don't view Catholics in a negative light. I do view Catholicism in a negative light and will continue to do so. It is, afterall, the religion, not the people that is the matter at question. It is the belief system, not the person, that is harmful. The problem is that some are incapable of differentiating between themselves and the religion because of their own nature and because it serves their present purpose not to make the distinction. It is, for lack of a better term, "politics".
They don't care if they gain converts. They don't care what others think of them. If they can 'control' the floor and distract from the facts, that, to them, is a win. It's damage control. And if they can cause a huge uproar and get people looking at their own ill behavior or arguing over their adhom attacks, it is better than people dwelling on facts that would tend to lead people away from Rome. Damage control.. ie politics. Very simple.
They aren't much worried about the slash and burn campaign they wage, because you will come along and apologize and reassure people that they are not the face of Roman Catholicism. In fact, they are - just as much as you are. The people are not the religion. The religion is itself. The people follow it or do not. The religion is right or wrong on it's own merits or failings. Catholic people are not the religion. But they do not want the merits and failings brought into serious scrutiny by any Catholic that deems themselves capable of thinking for themselves and yet disagreeing with Rome. You are only capable of thinking clearly long enough to turn the authority for your critical thinking over to Rome. If you Question, you're in trouble. In fact if you question, Rome is in trouble. They anathematize you because they can't afford for anyone else to think clearly too.. It is the pattern of every cult. Interesting; but, not unexpected.
As a Catholic, you are a subject of your Church. As a Christian, I am a subject of God and God alone. The Lord God through his Apostles gave us the Scriptures as a gaurd against error. That fact seems forgotten by some, and an uncomfortable happenstance to others. But it is central, relevant and undeniable. Protestants would argue from scripture that their philosophy is better because... While Catholics will do the same. Ultimately, regardless of the philosophy, the scripture is the judge because it is the measure we were given for that very purpose. Any attempt to
diminish the role of that rule is merely an attempt to inject a different rule for measurement- the reason for which is obvious. It is the same reason the cults do it - because they cannot, do not and will not live up to the rule they were given. And the only way to keep that from being seen is to measure yourself by another standard.
The mormons accomplish this by claiming the Bible is flawed, ruined and wrong; but, it can be right - to the extent that Joseph Smith has reinterpreted it.. They use Joseph Smith's Rule. Scripture, as it happens, defines what a Christian is - not in name, but in action and deed. John 10 says the sheep here and follow. Elsewhere we are told the outward signs of the gifts of the spirit and that they will follow the true Christians. We are also told that each will have their gift(s) - so they won't necessarily all have the same one. From Catholics, I hear that "Charity" is a gift and that Catholics donate to Charities. Marylin Manson has donated to charities and he's the head of the worldwide Church of Satan, so that would seem to be a faulty reading, else Manson is Christian and at once satanist. Gotta love paradoxes. But we're now searching for the point, so I'll furnish it. Given that The Scriptures define the Christian, Catholicism has it's own definition and it looks nothing like the scriptural one. They, instead, define the church: One, holy, Catholic... etc. None of which really tells you anything. Islam can say they themselves are "One, Holy and universal, etc.." Doesn't really mean much, does it. Islam cannot, however, say that they follow Christ and obey Him. They can't say that they have the gifts of the spirit following them about. They can't say they are saved through and by Christ's work on the Cross because they deny Him as anything more than 'just another prophet'. Prophet losing any worth by way of meaning due to the fact that the mark of a true prophet is to be right. If wrong, they are not a prophet.
Bottom line is that the Catholic religion cannot withstand scrutiny by way of living up to the Biblical defines. The religion therefor has to define it's own measure and invoke it instead. Every heathen is "good enough" by their own measure. Interestingly, they also think they'll go to heaven and be with God if they're "good enough" or weren't "terribly bad". This is strictly unbiblical; but, ironically, not much different than the bottom line for Catholics. Heathens can't define "good enough" any more than the average Catholic or Catholic priest. Thus, no Catholic is certain at death where they are going. They're merely "hopeful". And to be of help, if you do become certain, you are anathema. If you approach it biblically, you're anathema according to Trent and Vatican II which upheld Trent. You make your own rule and then make the Biblical rule illegal to even consider.. that's crowd control++.
So, To again beg difference, it is not the Catholic people that I have even a hint of a problem with. It is the religion itself which I have a problem with and precisely because it masquerades as Christian while abusing the people mistaking it for Christian. These people are looking for Christianity in many cases, and they get a fraud instead.
For me, it is no more clear a statement of who Rome is than in looking at beginnings. Paul preached and stated clearly that the authority over the Oracles of God was given to the Israel - the Jews as it were. The oracles are the scriptures - specifically the Old testament. Now, Judaism never canonized the "deuterocanonicals". This is without question - they never did and will state it plainly and clearly to this very day. The LXX is not judaic canon and to the extent that any version of it ever was, it did not contain the "deuterocanon". Rome failed to gain approval for additions to the old Testament through the Jews and in the failing, usurped that authority and added it to their own canon. That presents a number of blatent and bold problems, not least of which is the fact that the Old covenant is for the Israelites, not Christians or Catholics.
Usurped authority, while it may be 'good enough' for heathens, is "ZERO" authority to the righteous and unlawful in the eyes of a court. It is fraud. And anything built upon that fraud is no less a fraud.
From there the problems, expectantly, become manifold. The simplist way to deal with that is to resort to the basic problem of following two masters. The usurpation in the canon is a means to merging philosophy with the new covenant scriptures and calling them one and the same. The scripture gives you the first master (Christ), the usurpation gives you the second (philosophy). From there, the rest is a given. You cannot serve two masters.. you will love one and hate the other... etc. Again, the religion, not the people - the followers, the Catholics. The worst thing anyone can say is true of Catholics is that they are misled and by that, betrayed. I had that happen to me in a relationship with a woman. So what. Funny how you never know it's the case until you find out that it is the case.. If you don't bother to investigate, you're misled, betrayed and purposefully ignorant. Perhaps that is worse. Perhaps that is sad. It is neither means nor motive to hate someone, only to help them see the truth and be better for it. If that's hateful, then black is truly white and good is truly evil - in your eyes. Mine are quite alright.
You make a generally good point, and there has been some ugliness from both sides in here and it does not reflect on Catholics well.
But many of us actually have tried to treat Havoc as someone who was open to argument, only to discover otherwise.
When you are convinced that you alone understand the revelation of Jesus Christ and you alone can see through the demonic facade of Catholicism, it tends to make one impervious to logical argumentation. The more he "studies" the more he convinces himself he is right.
SD
Could you show me where in the Catechism it says, "Thou shalt be a doormat for ignorant, anti-Catholic bigots?"
i agree with your point, but let's generalize it: people on both(or all)sides should treat each other with respect.