Anti-Catholicism, Hypocrisy and Double Standards

ConstantinesRant ^ | Sunday, July 22, 2007 | Constantine

[Mad Dawg]

What if your child tells you that YOU are stupid?

Seriously, thanks for clarification. Interesting job you got there ....

[Mad Dawg]

I believe the reaction is self-sustaining by now. Some scheming people way back when made up the myth, but it maintains itself by itself now. The entire Church leadership are like blind automata, stumbling around in the dark making stuff up. So the conditioners are conditioned.

I'd like to be air-conditioned ....

[LordBridey]

I don't hate Catholics, but I'm deeply contemptuous of the mere men in the Catholic church that declare policy and doctrine, and regard them as running a con job on innocent folks.

Well, "mere men" have always declared policy and doctrine, since the days of the apostles. We trust that they are guided by the Holy Spirit, but I can understand how one can dismiss that notion when seen through his merely human perspective.

[Titanites]

Catholics are stupid, deceived, idolaters, etc. You are Catholic. But don’t take it personal.

[Ransomed]

I wonder if they (the original conditioners) made it up or if they actually were goddess worshippers, and they knew that they were goddess worshippers. I think it’s hilarious if the the original “scheming people” were actually not goddess worshippers, they just wanted other people to worship Mary, so they tricked them not only into worshipping Mary but also to be ignorant of the fact that they were in fact worshipping Mary.

Freegards, Onglay ivelay theay Ultcay ofay Arymay orshipway!!

[LordBridey]

America reputed the divine right of kings and all that malarkey long ago. It must be likewise invalid when applied to a faith, especially when applied to a faith, else the founding fathers were flat wrong to create a representative republic and should have replicated a monarchy.

Please make this point clearer. If you are implying that the papacy follows the hereditary model that the founding fathers repudiated, then you are mistaken. If you are implying that the founding fathers were possibly wrong for creating a rep. gov. then you would need to elaborate.

[LordBridey]

Catholics are stupid, deceived, idolaters, etc. You are Catholic. But don’t take it personal.

That's how I understood the clarification as well.

[Mad Dawg]

Onglay ivelay theay Ultcay ofay Arymay orshipway!!

'Scuse me while I duck in this closet to get my mask and rattle.
[sound of rustling, bumps, bangs, various objects, small bones, Mad Magazines from 1957, stacks of old Our Sunday Visitor newspapers, and a pair of ruby red slippers fly out the door. Then ...]

Okay? Everybody ready?

Hunh ahyah ahyah ahyah.
Hunh ahyah ahyah ahyah.
Hunh ahyah ahyah ahyah.

Okay, now people? I can't hear you folks in the back there. We're all going to have to try a little harder here. We all want to sound and look our best when Bishop McGillicuddy Mary Wascowicz Lorenzo visits us next week, right?



The real sorrow here is that a wonderful, beautiful, and consoling, in the strict sense of the word, relationship is rejected by most of our separated brethren. Pearls before swine is one thing, but here are thirsty and enervated people recoiling in fear and disgust from the very drink which would quench their thirst and make them stronger.

[Mad Dawg]

Catholics are stupid, deceived, idolaters, etc. You are Catholic. But don’t take it personal.

The problem, as I see it, is that the poster might truly think the generalization. And he must, I think, be allowed to make it. But I would say that it should be made in a way which invites discussion rather than trumps it. And I guess it wouldn't hurt if the occasional use of phrases like "No offense, really, but it sure seems to the best of my thinking" )that Catholics are dimwits or schemers or whatever) ....

What further stifles conversation is people's thinking that they are better at discussion than they truly are, and especially the failure to distinguish between elaborations of their proposition and defenses of it.

In any event, the practical side of the rule is that,"You're another!" is out while "People who think that Catholics are dimwits and schemers seem themselves to fall under that condemnation," is in.

[Mad Dawg]

The question I have is: Why a priori should there be any relationship between Church polity and civil polity? Should hospital procedures and policies be determined by plebiscite?

"I'm sorry, that LOOKS like a aggressive malignancy. Of course we'll have to run the results of the test past the community and then debate the proper treatment. The elections shouldn't take more than a year or two."

I'm not saying a Church is like a hospital in every respect, but it might be in enough respects to make a representative form of government inappropriate.

Besides if it were a matter of representation, then the Baptists, the Roman Catholics and in a few areas the LDS folks would take over. OR you can bet this idea of "joining by dropping by" would undergo some examination as people sought to "qualify" for a ballot.

But then the only reason I allow the US to be as it is is that I can't get made king. If I could, y'all could forget politics and go about your business.

[Mad Dawg]

Help. I see everything twice!

[wideawake]

Where were you today, wideawake???

On vacation, visiting Jamestown and Yorktown.

[philly-d-kidder]

Jesus Christ forms a 2000 + year old church and Man thinks he knows better on how to obtain Salvation...Go Figure!
No, we think we are ALL part of that same Church Jesus formed. All who believe and follow after Him
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Do you follow the Sabbath by Going to Mass? Do you follow the code layed down by GOD in the Old testement... Do you accept the Eucharist as the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.. Do You accept the Sacrament of Confession? Confirmation? Sacrament of Holy Ordination? Do You accept the Pope as the apostolic succesor of St Peter.? Do you accept the Saints in Heaven? The BVM?

[William Terrell]

As you define your beliefs through your private interpretation of your reading of Scripture, I read Scripture and follow the Holy Spirits promptings and illumination. He has never failed to do instruct me.

By which you mean you use the interpretations of the church magisterium. The Catholic interpretations placed on certain scripture must be known in order to come away with that meaning.

I read the scriptures with no prior interpretations and absorb the meaning they say without presumption. In the rare times where interpretation is necessary instead of just untangling, I use what is said in other places in the scriptures to build my presumptions, then apply them until the scripture makes sense.

Any interpretation of any scripture that has the effect of accruing centralized power to the Catholic leadership, being as how they are the very ones with that interpretations, I can say I find suspect.

[185JHP]

BTTT

[LordBridey]

The question I have is: Why a priori should there be any relationship between Church polity and civil polity? Should hospital procedures and policies be determined by plebiscite?

Yes, that is why I sought some clarification. The implications of what was written suggests a lot of error, but the error could be mine if I was extracting an unintended meaning.

You are absolutely right. Representative government cannot be applied to every institution. Not in families, businesses, schools, or as you ably suggest, in hospitals. It just wouldn't work. So to use the logic employed by William, one could say that, if democratic principles are inapplicable to a family, then they are inapplicable to governance.

Moreover, there is trouble with the perception of the papacy as being the kind of monarchy that the founding fathers are said to have reputiated. And there is trouble even with the attitude toward monarchy in general. After all, we are subjects in the kingdom of God and there is a ruler of that realm, and He wasn't voted in, at least that is what the bible says, even the esteemed version named after a monarch. :o)

[William Terrell]

Let's look at it logically. Finding salvation of your soul is the point.

If salvation is had without the necessity of the one true church, there is either no point of having a one true church, or the number of points for have a one true church is reduced by each instance of being able to achieve salvation outside the church.

So the specific criteria revolves around "no fault of their own", which your quote calls "by their conditioning". (also note "not necessarily cut off from God’s mercy") And the instances that are covered by those criteria must be minimal, or no use for the Catholic church.

I would guess that Protestants conditioning is not included. If it were, the Catholic church could be said to have no ordained place to play in individual salvation that is claimed.

Of course, those who read the scriptures and take them as they're written and figure out the meaning inconsistent with Catholic doctrine would be at fault or not considered as being crippled by conditioning.

If the church controls the definition of "fault" and "conditioning" then I can't say I'm impressed.

I rather you didn't give me a link; instead, please sum up what its point is. Thanks. Maybe I'll read it when I have time.

[OpusatFR]

Good bye and God bless.

[DungeonMaster]

The point on hand is much simpler: there is no scriptural basis for believing that the journey of faith is a one time even following which one is “saved”. It is a lifelong process for both the elect and the condemned.

How would getting saved end the journey, unless you just don't agree with the concept of believing and being saved and then starting a new journey with the Lord.