Replies

"100% of the anti-Catholics and the majority of non-Catholics..."

Dear verga, that is exactly the kind of global generalization I would urge us all to avoid.

For one thing, there are any number of fine Protestant brethren, not to mention many Orthodox brethren, and even one Hindu (of the sistren variety), who when they agree with us, agree guilelessly, and when they disagree, do so in a firm but amicable manner, trying to be accurate and not dealing in stereotypes and moral libels.

For another thing, some of our "sedes" --- a few, not all --- count with the worst of the anti-papist pugilists, and are admonished for it by honest Protestants.

A recent example: a sede-who-shall-not-be-named asserted that Pope Benedict XVI didn't believe in the Resurrection of Our Lord. FReeper Daniel1212 called him on it, and said "Asserting something like Pope Benedict didn't believe in the Resurrection seems pretty absurd to me. "

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3431022/posts?page=132#132 Daniel1212 certainly opposes distinctive Catholic doctrines, but endeavors to do so, I think, without misrepresentation and without snide-issimus personalis.

:o)

Dear verga, that is exactly the kind of global generalization I would urge us all to avoid.

Name a single one of the usual suspects that I did not give an accurate description of. How many times has each of us told them some variation of "Catholics don't adore/worship/ idolize the blessed Mother?" And yet they continue to repeat that same lie over and over. Some of them even bring it into a conversation in which it has no bearing or application. This thread being a perfect example.

FReeper Daniel1212 called him on it, and said "Asserting something like Pope Benedict didn't believe in the Resurrection seems pretty absurd to me. " http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3431022/posts?page=132#132 Daniel1212 certainly opposes distinctive Catholic doctrines, but endeavors to do so, I think, without misrepresentation and without snide-issimus personalis.

I do seek to only argue what i know can be substantiated, and to avoid actual misrepresentation, and i have corrected some things when i found out that i was misinformed (while a couple RCs have tried to charge me with misrepresentation when i did not). Like as "dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savour," (Ecclesiastes 10:1) so can an invalid argument to a position that is otherwise correct. However, there is some much that is substantiated from Catholic sources that there is no polemical need to use misrepresentation in exposing her errors.