Posted on 08/27/2010 11:45:13 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
I think it’s a low class inaccurate slam at MetMom to accuse her of having been Catechised poorly.
That is such a hollow nauseating straw dog to us Proddys. I’d have thought it beneath the Mad Dawg I respect and love.
- 1517, Hallowe'en, Luther nails theses on chapel door
- 1533, An order is published under Henry VIII saying the pope has no more authority in England than any foreign bishop
- 1552, Spenser is born
- 1558, Elizabeth begins her reign
In 1590:
7.3 decades after Wittenberg,
5.8 decades after Henry VIII breaks with Rome
3.2 decades after the beginning of Protestant Elizabeth's reign
The first half of Faerie Queene is published. It contains an allegory against the Catholic Church.
Totally inaccurate.
I’d stack Guy Malone’s spirituality and walk with Jesus up against all the members of all the RC rabid clique’s
COMBINED.
Any day.
I’ve met him and talked with him at length. He’s top flight, generous, creative and humorous as well.
Jerk-water comments about him subtract nothing whatsoever from his stature, character or ministry. They only show the utter voids haunting the sources of such.
Thanks for such a wonderful illustration of . . . . blindness.
There are plenty of gynecologist verified cases of women becoming pregnant during an abduction experience and losing the child during another abduction at the end of the first trimester.
These are not just fantasies. There’s been good documentation and verified medical evidence collected on a fair number of women.
I believe Quix has been baptized...That makes his as much of a Catholic as you are (if he wanted to be)...
Happens all the time.
I got used to it from the crevo threads.
The mentality seems to be that if you really understood ________, of course you’d agree with them about it and believe as they do. It’s apparently just beyond some people’s comprehension that someone could really know what a belief system is and still reject it.
I know what the Catholic churches I attended taught. I know what the relatives who were priests and a nun believed to be Catholic doctrine. I know what the Catholics I grew up with, went to school with, and worked with believed to be true about Catholicism as THEY were also taught. Even the convert to Catholicism believed the same things those raised Catholic did- the very things that I keep getting told I’m wrong about being the official Catholic church doctrine.
That kind of attitude about those who reject Catholicism being very poorly catechized, is a very condescending, smug attitude, an attitude which I have found to be incredibly consistent in the most faithful, practicing Catholics I’ve known in my life.
However, the accusation just rolls off my back. I know the truth about how much I know about Catholicism as it is taught, practiced and lived amongst the aforementioned Catholics, and FRoman Catholics constant comments about that don’t faze me. I expect no less, and so am not disappointed.
I sleep well at night regardless.
I was first baptized right after accepting Jesus as my Savior . . . either my mother’s father did it or was nearby in the river when the pastor did it. I was either 7 or 11. I forget. I don’t think I ever saw a certificate or if there was one, it has long been lost.
I was baptized again at the Medodist MD and his wife’s house church in their pool at a point where I was renewing my commitment to Christ after extensive healing, deliverance, cleansing etc. It was their custom to dunk you each of 3 times for Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
I was baptized again in the River Jordan on a 3 week trip to Israel. So, all in all, I’ve been dunked 5 times.
We are told repeatedly that someone knows about the Catholic Church because he was a Catholic.
This opinion is maintained with such strength that when I say that the Catholic Church has permitted married priests for hundreds of years, my facts are challenged -- on what other basis than superior knowledge? But the facts are on my side.
Further, the Church has taught for hundreds of years that the very quality of the change in the 'sacred species' is imperceptible. Aquinas (1225 - 1274) not only says this in his theological writings but in his famous hymns. Before Aquinas was even born the fourth Lateran Council declared the doctrine of transubstantiation to be the real deal, implying by the phrase "under the forms of bread and wine" that there is no perceptible change.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with the teaching, it is NO argument against it that "There isn't any visible change," BECAUSE that's precisely what the teaching says.
It's like saying that Pentecostalism is no good because it doesn't proclaim the Holy Spirit. If someone claimed to know ALL about Pentecostalism and said that, what would YOU say about their instruction?
A person claims to know all about something, and gets the first things wrong out of the box. When the error in fact is pointed out, the person claims that the disagreement is wrong and that he knows. It seems to me generous to say that the person was cheated in his instruction as well as mistaken in his estimation of his own knowledge.
Suppose I attack your profession thus: You psychologists are wrong and stupidly wrong. I know, I used to be a psychologist. Heck, you guys think hysteria is caused by displacement of the womb, just because only women suffer from it!
Would you hesitate to challenge my training?
If an opponent brings his training into the discussion to support his authority, it seems to me that that's an invitation to the other side to examine what the opponent brought to the discussion. One can't stop a discussion by saying "I know better, period!" it seems to me.
The mentality seems to be that if you really understood ________, of course you’d agree with them about it and believe as they do.
No, that is an error. That is not my "mentality."
What I am saying is NOT, "if you understood this, you'd agree," but "It is clear from what this person asserts to be unquestionable fact about what we teach that he does not KNOW what we teach."
I am content that you all should disagree. I am not content when you insist that I say what I do not say and don't say what I do say. I am NOT at all content when someone insists that something is a fact when it is clearly NOT a fact.
If someone wants to disagree with transubstantiation, that's okay. If he wasn't to talk about it, fine.
But if he says what amounts to "The doctrine is wrong because such and such doesn't happen," when the doctrine SAYS precisely "such and such doesn't happen," then I have legitimate grounds to say that that person doesn't understand the doctrine.
And then to suggest that I am saying "I know you don't understand, because if you understood you'd agree," is just nonsense and displays not only an ignorance of doctrine cloaked by false knowledge but an ignorance of me, cloaked by the same sort of falsehood.
The psychologist thing is a LOT simpler and more clear cut than ANY of the usual stuff about
POOR CATHECHIZATION SP?
I don’t know how to demonstrate quickly for you . . . tired and heading for the showere . . . how hollow and empty that tired old straw dog is to Proddys.
1. IT DOES NOT RING TRUE.
2. WE HAVE FREEPERS WHO HAVE DESCRIBED THEIR EXTENSIVE HIGH QUALITY SCHOOLING AND EXTENSIVE TRAINING in the core documents of the RC faith. IT IS NEVER enough. We get the feeling that even if a famous Cardinal who trained folks in TEACHING proper Catechization were to convert to say an Assembly of God perspective, HE WOULD STILL BE ACCUSED OF BEING POORLY CATECHIZED sp. Gads I hate trying to spell that word.
3. When former priests who have had extensive training and served in doctrinaire teaching positions convert to Protestantism, THEY are ALSO CHRONICALLY ACCUSED of being POORLY CATECHIZED. IT’S ABSURD. IT’S LAUGHABLE. It make’s ya’ll’s position look extremely weak and totally outrageously absurd.
4. It may be a comforthing phrase to throw around in such cases for the sheeple. It is absolutely absurd when Proddys read it.
5. Yeah, we could allow that occasionally, it might be accurate. For all those examples all the time on every issue and case. ABSOLUTELY NOT. ABSOLUTELY ABSURD. WHAT A COP-OUT. WHAT A FARCE.
6. That’s why I think of it as beneath you to cling to that rationalization.
7. There’s no way that I think it applies to MetMom. There’s no way I think it applies to Dr E’s hubby. There’s no way I think it applies to RNMomOf7. That stinking pile of rationalization in their cases just does not fly. It’s absurd to the max.
It’s absurd to the max.
AND IT’S GROSSLY CHEEKY AND INSULTING.
It essentially calls them liars.
And, it says their high quality RC education was equal to used toilet paper.
And, it implies that they didn’t have the horse sense to learn even their ABC’s from whatever quality of RC education they are ‘pretending’ to have had.
GRRRRRR.
What tripe.
Petitio principii. It is not a rationalization. and to say it is is a personal attack AND mind reading.
I have given two examples when someone both claimed superior knowledge and went on to say things demonstrably false. Actually, with the false accusation that we withhold the chalice, that's three matters of fact. They do not depend on agreement with the Church or anything of that kind. They are statements about the Church which are simply false.
The Church does permit married priests. I know of several.
The Church does offer the chalice, usually.
The Church does not teach anything that would lead anyone who knew the teaching to expect that the failure of the Sacred Body to look like flesh or the failure of the Precious Blood to behave like blood serves to contradict the teaching.
These are ascertainable things, and in all of them false assertions were made. Shall I then say the teaching was good?
Heck, I was told when I was in protestant seminary that one reason transubstantiation was first put forth was to assure people precisely that it would look, taste, smell, or feel or anything like flesh and blood. So it is even more amazing. As a Protestant I knew the doctrine better than that! Would someone well catechized make these gross errors of fact? And we're not talking about errors of
..."Belief"..humm- I would have to say many things which are not reality are "believed" just the same. People 'believe' whatever they have a mind to about whatever they might choose, and they do choose. But it does not necessarily make the object they have determined to be a reality real in and of itself. It is simply a choice of belief.
I still say, again, that I do not see Jesus mentioning "faith" in taking Communion...or that any sort of transformation or even a blessing would occur by doing so. However, there is something said about taking communion in an unworthy manner....which I think has meant a warning to non-Christians not to partake of Communion.
I don't think that the "senses" is what I am referring to...though you mentioning....("I guess I can only respond that we have a very rich 'sense' of remembrance. "I remember so well it's almost as if He were with me again -- so, he IS with me!"), which does make one wonder how then to explain Christ said He would never leave us. So how then can it be "almost as if He were with me again" if He really never leaves us??????????
I don't see His presence as something at all I must "work" at. He said "do this in remembrance of me", so it is done. Most, however, see this moment as solemn between them and the Lord...an individual moment. Whose to say or dictate how that should be?.... I think not anyone...the Lord is Big enough to handle that moment on His terms and then some.
Where I have taken Communion there is not allot of other happenings occurring other than the distribution of the elements when that moment arrives...perhaps some soft background music...but overall people are quiet. Prior there may be a good sermon about the Crucifixion or that associated with it...or maybe about searching ones heart prior to Communion. But generally it is mostly leading up to that time and about.
For me it's mostly "Be still and know that I am God."
Okay. So when somebody says something that is not true, easily shown to be false, but claims authority on these matters of fact, NOT opinion, NOT doctrine, FACT, because of their training and experience, what would you have me say about their claim of authority?
Am I supposed to just fold up and go away because somebody who clearly doesn't know what he's talking about once used to be a member of my Church? Am I supposed to agree that there are no married priests, that the Church teaches ev3eryone to expect the appearance and accidents of flesh and blood, that the Church withholds the chalice, though I know these things to be false?
How do you know how good their training was? On what basis do you say they had a "high quality RC education"?
Bed for me.
Catechism deals primarily church doctrine, not church history. It teaches that priests take a vow of celibacy and does not dwell on historical cases of priests being allowed to be married. The statement is challenged by some simply on the basis that the church has been so adamant about the celibacy of priests that it's met with incredulity. So, yeah, I can see why that could be challenged and it shouldn't really come as that much of a surprise.
As far as communion, FRoman Catholics insist, and quote Scripture to support it, that the bread and the wine become the LITERAL, ACTUAL body and blood of Christ. That in John 6 Jesus said that one must eat his flesh and drink His blood, and that at the Last Supper that Jesus actually turned the bread and wine into flesh and blood and they partook, in direct violation of the commandments of the Law against eating blood.
And the response is that Jesus can do anything He wants and that He changed the covenant. But that could not have happened BEFORE He was crucified or else He could not have possible FULFILLED the requirements of the Law.
So, the Catholics on these threads absolutely insist that the body and blood is real and literal and must be really, literally eaten, and then go on to tell us that the host and cup do not change in physical substance after all, even when they claim on the other hand that they did, the whole purpose of the mass. It simply cannot be both ways. Either it is changed and verified by change in physical and chemical form, or it is symbolic as non-Catholics believe, representing a spiritual reality. Even Jesus said about eating His flesh and blood in John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
Claiming that someone is poorly catechized seems to have turned into a catch all to every statement a former Catholic makes which FRoman Catholics disagree with. It's simply not true. Understanding of what Catholicism teaches is often the reason people leave the Catholic church.
Just like Calvin who had a first-class papist education. He disagreed with much of what he learned in that education when he read the Bible and realized that what he had learned was not what the Bible taught.
Reagan was not ignorant of democrat policies or ideals or methods. Calvin was not poorly catechized. Both men looked at what they had been taught and came to believe what they had been taught was wrong.
So, too, metmom, Rnmomof7, Irishtenor, Topcat54, my husband, and hundreds of other Christians on this website, who all saw that Rome preached another Gospel. They did not rebuke that false Gospel because they didn't understand it. They rebuked it because they did understand it.
Are you able to grasp that someone disagreeing with you is not the same thing as someone not understanding you?
Then why aren't there more married priests? And I personally know priests who left the priesthood, and had to, because they got married.
The Church does offer the chalice, usually.
But not always and not until fairly recently. Besides, that had been corrected in subsequent posts. That was NOT the case when I last attended any masses on a regular basis and had not been the custom the entire time I attended mass in my growing up years. I did not persist in insisting that was the case once it was brought to my attention that it had changed since then.
The Church does not teach anything that would lead anyone who knew the teaching to expect that the failure of the Sacred Body to look like flesh or the failure of the Precious Blood to behave like blood serves to contradict the teaching.
Still working on translating that one.
These are ascertainable things, and in all of them false assertions were made.
Whatever happened to unity and consistency of teaching of the Catholic church anyway? If priests are permitted to be married, why is it so pervasive and such pervasive knowledge that Catholic priests are celibate?
Suppose I buy a house and sometime later the seller calls me and says “watch out for that water heater, there’s a problem with the gas line to it”.
I go check the water heater and call him back to say “is the problem with the gas line that there isn’t one because it’s an electric water heater?”
He then starts telling me it used to be his house so obviously he knows it just as well if not better than I do and he’s even got a copy of the plans.
Meanwhile, I’m looking at an electric water heater.
Where do we go from there? Perhaps his memory isn’t very good. Maybe he’s drunk out of his mind. Maybe he’s bored and just entertaining himself. Maybe he’s thinking of a different house altogether. Clearly I want to put the most charitable spin on his tremendous error, I really don’t want to assume that he’s bad, but the fact remains that he’s wrong.
The fact remains that what passes for Catholic education has been abominable for at least the last 40 years. My best friend is a priest, he’s the godfather of my children and when the time came to decide how they should be educated I looked him in the eye and said “would you trust these kids to your parish school and religious education program?” His answer is one of the reasons we’re homeschooling them.
It’s a disaster, easily 70% of practicing Catholics can’t accurately put their faith into a coherent statement. It’s almost entirely due to the fact that they’ve been taught garbage.
I say “almost”... because there’s something else at work here that my wife has identified over the last 13 years that’s she’s worked for the Church. There’s some kind of bizarre “group think” collective memory thing going on where people are recounting events and memories that simply did not happen. There are enough incidents with concrete evidence proving that it’s going on to convince me, I just don’t understand it. It’s surreal.
But beyond that, when someone tells me something that I know isn’t true I’d far rather assume that they’re honestly telling me what they believe and were merely misinformed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.