Catholic Legends And How They Get Started: An Example

Apha and Omega Ministries ^ | April 11, 2000 | James White

[mockingbyrd]

I was shocked by the blantant anti-Catholicism was posted on the Plan B threads. But then again, "Be good to those who hate you." If it wasn't true they wouldn't hate it so.

[pissant]

Excellent post.

[ARAD]

Ok,

So, this may be a shot in the dark. But, I see your posting name is Virgil. Do you know of any good English translations of Dante's Divine Comedy? I've read one, but it is since discontinued/out-of-print, and my parents have my old versions. Any help, as I traverse these many rings of life would be helpful. I just bought a couple of Cardinal Ratzinger books (now the Pope) that I'm really looking forward to reading.

Thanks,
ARAD

[FJ290]

That was beautiful. What a gentle loving soul. God bless her. thank you for posting that link.

You're welcome!

[FJ290]

Thanks for posting this. It is because of Freepers like you that I even bother with this site anymore. To be frank, the anti-Catholicism that has been permeating this site recently has been very disturbing to me. It has always existed, but in the last 2 months or so it has been growing unabated, and no one is being held accountable. It is really sad.

It is very disturbing to me too. We will just have to counter it as best we can.

[wmfights]

Interesting article.

I think where they get the interpretation wrong though is by thinking that Jesus was speaking literally rather than figuratively. I suspect that one reason for Cyprian to look at that passage literally was due to the competing Christianities of the time. By going with a literal interpretation it would empower his church.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

"I suspect that one reason for Cyprian to look at that passage literally was due to the competing Christianities of the time."

Uh, yeah, wmfights, Cyprian was writing in about 256 wasn't he? What competing Christianies exactly are you talking about?

Donatists? Didn't exist yet.

Arians? Didn't exist yet.

Novatians? Existed, but weren't a different Christianity, so much as a schism really.

Gnostics? Weren't Christians.

Who was Cyprian in essence competing with? What proof do you have he was interpreting literally to "empower his church"?

[klossg]

This is one of the most twisted and sick things I have ever read in my life. I think you may have stepped into some really sick and Catholics in your past. Or possibly you have run into some sick anti-Catholics who hang out with Timothy McVeigh like characters.

What you should do is just wipe them off your shoe and move on. You should concentrate on loving God and your fellow man and leave this UFO-abduction like anti-Catholic stuff behind. I think you will find that life is more meaningful after you stop drinking, eating and breathing poison.

[Straight Vermonter]

Good work, you saved me some searching!

[Straight Vermonter]

I have gone away from FR for varying length of time because I have been so insulted by the anti-Catholicism regularly expressed here.

The discourse is not the type of thing I think people would ever engage in face to face but they think nothing of doing it here.

[siunevada]

If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith?

Well, Cyprian, the answer seems to be yes, one can imagine such a thing.

[jo kus]

I suspect that one reason for Cyprian to look at that passage literally was due to the competing Christianities of the time. By going with a literal interpretation it would empower his church.

If that isn't an anachronistic statement, I don't know what is...

Regards

[Claud]

To be frank, the anti-Catholicism that has been permeating this site recently has been very disturbing to me.

Forgive me for being contrary, but I don't quite understand why we must characterize a classical Protestant position as "anti-Catholic". Of course its anti-Catholic, in the sense that the posters/writers are theologically opposed to the Catholic Church--that is the very essence of the protest in "Protestant". On the other hand, if it's being used as an ad hominem label...as if to suggest that the posters/authors are particularly prejudiced against us rather than merely in disagreement, I think it is bandied about far too often. The Protestant apologists on this forum don't--by and large--seem to be motivated by prejudice but by honest disagreement.

Moreover, I can't see how it helps in any way, at all. The people who are firmly convicted against Holy Church will proudly wear the term like a badge of honor, as much as I wear the term "anti-abortion" like a badge of honor. The people who are just in disagreement will be frustrated and get put in the uncomfortable (and nearly impossible) position of having to defend themselves against an accusation of blind hatred and prejudice. "Anti-Catholic" has become our own version of "homophobic". I have yet to see anyone called it react positively.

IMHO, I think we would be well-served by a total moratorium on the term. Perhaps I'm wrong--and please tell me if I am-- but I really see it as more harmful than helpful in this context.

[Theoden]

Here's a series of links from the last week alone with inflammatory headlines or content to Catholics. This goes far beyond the genuine disagreements with theology or beliefs. These are flame bait threads and nothing more. These are just titled threads from the last week, go into threads about Mary, or the thread from just yesterday with the Statue of Jesus at John's Hopkins and you will see a lot more of these swipes.

The Certainty of the Written Word of Truth The Lord Christ or the Pope of Rome?

Catholic Legends And How They Get Started: An Example

Hitler's Pope? (Book review of The Myth of Hitler's Pope)

The real problem is that these threads are condoned. If they were reworded, let's say against Baptists, Evangelicals, or Calvinists, and posted here, it would be pulled almost immediately. Since it is against Catholics, it's just a "legitimate objection to Catholic doctrine", and is freely able to be "discussed". There is certainly an anti-Catholic bias here. There always has been, but things are starting to go out of control. The Catholics that raise objection to this are warned, and threatened with suspension, while the Protestants who do the same get nothing. A good, long time member was banned just yesterday for daring to challenge this.

[Theoden]

You would think that they would finally come to the conclusion that we are on the same side as Conservatives and Christians. In reality, it seems that they merely tolerate us as long as we vote for those candidates that they like. To them, we are only Christian when we do something they like, and we are Catholic when we do something that they don't like. They pick and choose how/when/why they like us, just like they do with their own beliefs.

[Claud]

These are flame bait threads and nothing more.

They may very well be. But every attempt at flame bait is a chance for us to publicly correct the record. Every attack on the papacy is a chance for us to post the Fathers. Even if the poster learns nothing from the exchange, those threads stay up and are read by lots of people...people will continue to see seeing flame bait being turned into cogent, reasonable, and frankly compelling defenses of Catholic doctrine. Moreover, they will see the flame baiter unable or unwilling to respond to those specific points.

[Religion Moderator]

I'm not aware of any established Freeper being banned yesterday - though one was give an hour "time-out" to calm down.

Also, I monitor the forum closely to make sure the various confessions have an opportunity to be heard, with a few exceptions: Christian Identity/KKK/Aryan Nations et al are not tolerated – neither are confessions which are anti-Semitic, anti-American, anti-Israel or anti-U.S. Military. Other confessions are tolerated even though they may for all intents and purposes be "anti" other confessions. This includes confessions which are anti-Calvinist, anti-Arminian, anti-Catholic, anti-Mormon, anti-Scientology, anti-Hindu, anti-Buddhist, anti-Wiccan, anti-Atheist, anti-Baptist, anti-Methodist, anti-Orthodox, anti-Anglican and so on.

I see no way to have a Religion Forum which permits rigorous debate among a wide variety of confessions but disallows any of them to declare another belief or practice as false, anathema, etc. On the bright side, our loudest and strongest witness is often how we deal with false claims and other adversities.

And of course, the devotional, prayer, caucus and other "church-like" threads are protected from all challenges. So every confession which is allowed on the forum can find a "safe harbor" at least for now.

Recurring - and especially collective - broaches into the closed threads of other confessions to protest, poke fun, assert challenges etc. could result in a loss of the privilege to all. I will not permit “safe harbors” for only selected confessions – if one is allowed a safe harbor, all are allowed a safe harbor.

The following is not true:

If they were reworded, let's say against Baptists, Evangelicals, or Calvinists, and posted here, it would be pulled almost immediately.

[AlbionGirl]

I don't think Mr. White is either ignorant or necessarily anti-Catholic. He's no different in tone or style than hard-hitting Catholic apologists are who are contending against him. He gets as good as he gives. And to quote Mr. White here's where I think the problem lies:

"When in the service of Mother Church, any response, as long as it uses words, is a refutation of those who are not part of Mother Church."

[Ottofire]

Ever seen his sister's conversion story? He certainly didn't display much of a Christian attitude toward his sister when she converted to the Catholic Church, did he?

Did you hear his side of it?

His relationship to his sister is something that is very personal and to my mind a family matter. I have heard much on this, and anyone that makes a lot about this is getting out of the apologia realm and jumping straight into an ugly affair with both feet. I was uncomfortable listening to the attacks on him from those that wanted to beat him with her conversion, as well as his defense. Some laundry is best not displayed.

[Ottofire]

"When in the service of Mother Church, any response, as long as it uses words, is a refutation of those who are not part of Mother Church."

My church right or wrong? I agree this is a problem.

When a dialog cannot be made and both sides just throw ad hominum or I am right you are wrong attacks, then we are wasting our time.

Debate does not actually get anywhere either, in my experience, as those on either side are already to emotionally attached to their ideas. Only occasionally will a debate spur real reflection on the opponents position away from the emotion. It is those that have not made up their minds that debates can effect.

Is it possible to get a dispassionate debate on something so tied to the human emotional response as religion is?