[ECUMENICAL] For My Non-Catholic Readers

Crossed The Tiber ^ | 12/29/2010 | Russ Rentler

[markomalley]

This is a re-post of a previous blog but it warrants repeating. From time to time I get non-Catholics who read the blog and invite me to read their blogs in the hopes I will decide to convert. They believe they are being obedient  to "preach the gospel in season and out."  The presupposition with some of  these individuals is that Catholicism is a false religion or a "false gospel" .  The fact that a person would believe Catholicism is false clearly indicates that they have never studied what Catholicism is all about from a Catholic perspective. It is easy to draw a caricature of what Catholicism is based on myths, lies, distortions. After all, this has been going on for the past 500 years and the purveyors of falsehood have had an abundant amount of time to perfect their attacks.

What I can tell you is that when a person  begins to read what the Church actually says about itself and its doctrines, the scales often fall from their eyes and the Holy Spirit brings them Home. I was one of those.

So, once again, for my readers who believe Catholicism is false:

Did you ever ask yourself why you hate Catholicism so much?
 Who taught me what I think I know about the Catholic Church? Is what I was taught true? Have I looked at what the Catholic Church has to say about itself, using official resources such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church and papal encyclicals? Could my opinion of the Catholic Church possibly be based on bias, bigotry, bad history, propaganda from the secular media, or the bad priests who get publicity (i.e., the sick, and sickening, pedophile priests or those certain heretical modernist priests the secular media love to give press to)? Is it fair to judge doctrine by such things? Is any group with human beings in it free from sin and scandal? If I am wrong about the Catholic Church, what does that mean?

Here are some common myths about the Catholic Church:

• Because Catholics reject the tradition of "sola fide" ("faith alone"), they think they can work their way into Heaven and believe they are saved by works . WRONG

• Catholics think the pope does not sin . WRONG

• Catholics re-crucify Christ at their Masses (or at least think they do) WRONG

• Catholics think Mary is part of the Godhead and is to be worshipped WRONG

• Catholics worship statues WRONG (for the 150th time on this blog) WRONG

• Catholics think they can't pray to God directly but have to go through saints WRONG

• Catholics conjure the dead WRONG

• Catholics believe people can be saved after they die  WRONG

• The Catholic Church teaches that one who isn't formally a Catholic is damned to Hell WRONG

• The Crusades are an example of Catholic aggression WRONG

• The Inquisition(s) killed hundreds of thousands of people and targeted Jews WRONG

• Pope Pius XII was "Hitler's Pope" and didn't do a thing to help Jews during WWII WRONG

• The Catholic Church wasn't around until the time of Constantine, a pagan who controlled the Church. WRONG

• The Catholic Church did more than baptize pagan calendar days for the good of Christ, it is pagan in its very roots. WRONG

If you believe any of the above myths, I implore you to research. For doctrinal questions, ask the Church what it teaches; it's the only fair thing to do. For historical questions, look at balanced and objective scholarly research from a variety of sources (including Catholic ones). And as you research, keep in mind the common logical fallacies that are often used in attacks against Catholicism:

Generalization: "I knew a Catholic/ex-Catholic (or I was a Catholic) who was (mean, a drunk, not holy, didn't like the Church, was superstitious, didn't know the Bible, didn't have a deep relationship with Jesus, etc.), so therefore, the teachings of the Catholic Church are wrong." (Ignores the fact that bad catechesis, misunderstandings, or other shortcomings of a few Catholics do not reflect on what the Catholic Church teaches)

Bifurcation:"If the Catholic Church doesn't teach that it's faith alone that saves, then it must teach that men are saved by their own works." (Ignores that we teach that we are saved by Grace alone -- a Grace with which we must cooperate through "faith that works in love")

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc (with this, therefore because of this): "Winter Solstice is on 21 December; Christmas is 25 December. Therefore, Christmas is a pagan holiday. (Ignores that fact that there are only 365 days to choose from in a year and that the early Church Fathers had good reasons to choose the date they did. It also ignores that Protestants' "Reformation Day" is celebrated on 31 October, the pagan festival of Samhain.)

Post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this): "Constantine must have been the real source of the Catholic Church's teachings because after his reign the Church grew tremendously, and before his reign it wasn't as well-known" (Ignores the simple fact that Constantine merely stopped the persecution of Christians with the Edict of Milan and allowed Christianity to spread. It also ignores the writings of the Church Fathers who lived before Constantine -- and who were Catholic.)

Straw man: "You guys worship statues, and that's evil. Therefore, your religion is Satanic." (Ignores that fact that we don't worship statues)

(comes From FISHEATERS WEBSITE)

[wmfights]

You are always a Catholic once you are baptized a Catholic!

Isn't that special. /sarc.

When you believe The Gospel you are saved for eternity!

I think being a Born Again Christian is the way to go.

[narses]

“It’s great to see that I wasn’t the only one who stopped reading ...”

Classic. Just classic.

[metmom]

I think that’s about the best summary of the matter that I’ve seen yet.

And agree 100%.

[Rashputin]

Actually, he was excommunicated after he wouldn’t agree to remove three of the ninety-five items, not the entire list. That’s why he was excommunicated in something like 1521 and posted stuff in 1517. I could have those years wrong, but it was a four or five year gap and a lot went on and a lot was tried to get him to stay and work to reform the Church. If you don’t know that, though, you don’t want to so I’m sure I must be wrong.

Think what you like, you’re the Pope.

have a nice day

[Rashputin]

I”m sorry, but you answered my post of #56 with the stuff in your #58??

You really don't have any answers, just rote. geez.

[xzins]

You’re not really giving the Orthodox their due, nor the other patriarchal cities.

When many Christians hear “Catholic”, they think “Roman Catholic.”

[caww]

After all the back and forth noise is put aside, I have found the main difference is that born again believers trust in Christ alone for salvation, coming to Him empty handed and believing he bore our burdens and makes us whole................................................The Roman church believes that Christ makes salvation possible by enabling them to perform enough works where they can achieve their own righteousness before God with the help of His "grace".

Since the Gospel is the heart of Christianity I agree very much with what you wrote....and from these threads I think they attest to this difference. I have also found Rome seems to flood it's members with vast amounts of catholic literature. We see them used here to support posters positions...oftentimes another authors take on how the scriptures and various dogma is to be understood rather than the posters opinion or summary.

In flooding it's members, and the threads here, with so much information, and oftentimes using "catholic verbiage", ( allot of catholics don't even understand), the truth is lost in the shuffle, and the topic gets lost along with it.

It was said to me that how catholics see the word.."Church" and how non-catholics see "church" are also different...so communication becomes difficult at best...for the language used differs so much...... An example would be I see the "church" as the body of believers in Christ with Christ as the head. They may see it as so but then 'add' all this other stuff to that.

[Vegasrugrat]

The only stipulation in historical records to “get him to stay” was to denounce his writings and agree with the RCC.

There are historical writings of this outside the church, it is not a secret.

I have no claim to be the “Pope”, I am just a sinner who believes that Christ “did it all for me and for all”. I may do good works but they are all to glorify the Lord, not to glorify myself in the eye of God.

[Natural Law]

"If the RCC didn't claim the moral high ground, people wouldn't hold them to that standard."

I agree that more should be expected of the Catholic Church and its clergy. As we are taught in Luke 12:48:

"From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more."

Your holding them to a higher standard than your Protestant Churches and Clergy speaks as much of you as it does of them.

[metmom]

That is so transparent that it’s not even funny.

But it is also so in character.

[RnMomof7]

When is one justified? When is one sanctified?

[The Theophilus]

Having been brought up Catholic and now being a Christian saved by Grace

It almost always is a language problem. Thanks for some of the most concise comparisons I have seen in these threads for some time.

[RnMomof7]

Otherwise, it's just a propaganda piece.

Of course it is..

[Salvation]

Souce please.

 

Here are the rules as posted (my copy and paste) on the Religion Moderator's profile page.

Ecumenic[al] threads.

Who can post? Anyone

What can be posted? Articles that are reasonably not antagonistic. Reply posts must never be antagonistic.

What will be pulled? Antagonistic reply posts. If the article is inappropriate for an ecumenic discussion, the tag will be changed to open.

Who will be booted? Antagonists