I will wait.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (23)
sorted by:
What I do here, when I can, is give enough context so that we can separate out the overbearing and rash conspiracies against Catholicism and focus on the well-established ones. To some that looks like defense. But when I arrived at Win/Scored in 2021 I saw a need to defend everyone who upholds the classic Christian creeds, and there do seem to be many in the Roman Catholic church who know Jesus and serve him and who are doing his work in his body alongside the rest of us. I can't say what percentage that is but it's between 0% and 100%, like any other denomination.
So if a Catholic says "it's Mary's birthday" we call that out. If he says "I said it was Mary's birthday but we really don't know", or if he says "Geez", we call that out. But when the Catholic Encyclopedia says there's evidence that people started to celebrate Mary's conception on 9 Dec somewhere in the 5th to 7th centuries and they picked a date on their own", there's nothing necessarily false or problematic there. My pointing that out might look like defense, but it's just what the Scored platform policy seems to me, high energy, no racism, no dilution, etc.
I checked your profile quickly and found pretty much only the civil criticism of Catholicism accompanied by evidentiary fact bases that I look for from rational minds. I haven't watched all the videos of course so it's possible I might find a proposition there I'd want to peel back a bit. As I said, in advocating for everyone who holds the creedal core taught by the Bible, I've learned to speak the Catholic language and understand why they make statements sounding so outrageous to Protestants and Orthodox; sometimes recognizing this language gap defuses a lot of the debate when people are honest. For instance, while it's true that Jesus says not to call any man father, authors of the Bible under inspiration do literally call people father, which means (necessary implication) that Jesus is speaking about a limited situation where there is further context indicating a narrower meaning of father. So my judgment is that some uses of "pope" are beyond the pale but not necessarily all. If that's defense, then you're welcome to call me on it as a fellow Bible student. I'm sure you have some zingers I'm likely to be very interested in.
People get confused when I say as a Protestant that I'm a "little-c catholic" and that means I believe in a universal church. Well, little-c catholic is the Apostles' Creed, and it summarizes the Greek phrase kath holes that appears 6 times in the Bible, translated as "throughout all". So I believe in the throughout-all church, the cataholistic church if you will, and some of its members appear to still be in communion with Rome and to still be doing good work. But I could be wrong.
Just to add on, if I may; as I understand it, we would find something wrong (even a little) everywhere and I also agree to the definition of universal church. (For anyone that doesn't already know, I don't like denominations but I also really don't like division so I keep looking for the peacemakers and keep trying to find common ground)
That's very interesting and thorough. I was quick to blame the Catholic church as a whole, while missing huge chunks of information which you have shared.
In this exchange with a known Catholic-believer, to put it that way, I completely forgot about:
The Catholic church created initially has preserved the correct text in the Bible. That couldn't be done by people, who hate Christianity.
Jacques de Molay was a 13th century heretic that was captured, and executed, by the then Pope, and French King. This action stopped the Templar order, which some consider to be the head, that was "wounded to death", in Revelation 13:3. Again, showing the Catholic Pope's actions were inspired by good.
The Jesuit order were known to infiltrate and kill Popes, in order to take control over the Catholic chuch. Thus, showing that there was indeed some good in the Catholic church at that time.
You are correct on all counts. Credit should be given, when credit is due. And statements should be exposes, when they go directly against the Bible.
I stand corrected, which I really like. You're a person with great knowledge, and control of temper, and I am a person with a great thirst for knowledge, and little control of temper, unfortunately... All I can do now is work on my flaws.
I really appreciate your thorough comment and patience with me!
Thanks for the kind words.
Wow, I take back what I said, Neo! u/CrusaderPepe spammed you this time a lot worse than he ever spammed me.
He posted three full meaty articles all supposing that "Catholicism is true", but since I proved at length last month that by "Catholicism" he means whatever he says (instead of saying it means only what Catholic magisterium teaches without his additional interpretation), this is misleading. The Roman Catholic Church can be the "primary" "true church" without all the implications he adds to it. If he only asked Protestants to agree the RCC is the primary true church, he'd get more takers, but he asks for more than that.
He insists Protestantism has four main errors: Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, denial of Real Presence, and belittling Mary. I answered Scripture and faith are alone in one sense and not in another, and it's not useful to insist that different eucharist or hyperdulia practices. Rather than dialogue or seek to understand, he insisted there was no other way of understanding it than his article. He ignored my 18 proofs that the RCC has taught "sola fide", for instance.
He insists that the RCC having the bishop of Rome proves Catholicism is true (meaning exactly as he teaches it), without realizing that there is no problem for Protestants or Orthodox to admit that Rome is the primary church region without admitting papal supremacy. Having the bishop of Rome doesn't necessarily mean that the bishop can't be wrong; in 1965 he admitted that his predecessor was wrong (in 1054) to effectively excommunicate billions of Orthodox Christians. So having Rome is not a proof that other churches are in error or that the pope is supreme or infallible or any such intended corollary.
He insists that the RCC having the Real Presence doctrine proves Catholicism is true (meaning exactly as he teaches it), without realizing that there is no problem for Protestants or Orthodox to admit there are several isomorphic ways to talk about Real Presence and they do not conflict. I simplify this by joking that the wafer becomes my body and my body is Christ's body, so I only differ with the RCC by a few minutes. So having a Real Presence doctrine is not a proof that other churches are in error or that consubstantiation or symbolic presence is false or any such intended corollary.
So, Neo, the problems are (1) Catholics like this routinely defend both the true believers who represent some part of Catholicism (somewhere between 0% and 100%), and all the folk errors they add to magisterium that they don't realize, making it hard to respond to such a defense levelly or usefully; and (2) Catholics like this compound the error by showing astonishing self-unawareness, which might arise from constantly sitting in judgment on all things and then judging it's more righteous to "speak one's peace" for many myriads of words than to just be personable and able to interact with others winsomely. If you want to pick on his "defense", I'd suggest starting with my link above where I list 18 times the Catholic magisterium, including its popes and Bibles, has taught Sola Fide; that might get his interest the fastest. Maybe I'll post it to c/catholic too.
Well, to be honest here... I am not that knowledgeable about the specifics on different denominations, and I am not even a native English-speaker, so it took me some time to check what some of the words meant. But, as I can understand it, after I checked the meanings of the words, I do agree with your position, as much as I am aware on Protestantism and Catholicism.
I also checked his replies and he is definitely not as coherent and knowledgeable as you portray him. Not that you're making any mistakes, but I admire how you present his stance on the debate, while not even focusing on the petty insults he is constantly using in his comments. This is a remarkable composure from you, I must say.
I would be studying the differences in the different denominations in more detail, to fully grasp what you are saying. But regarding your statement that "maybe" you should be posting this in c/catholic... Friend... You have so much knowledge and understanding that you present in comments. You should definitely be posting a lot, and not even in this specific forum. I see your recent posts are mainly great quotes from the Bible, but your second-to-last post is showing great understanding, and the details are what is very useful for people, who study Christianity. In my opinion, you should be focusing more on posting these type of breakdowns, and explanations. I am not saying you should stop with the Biblical quotes, but you have such knowledge and understanding that is vital for the Christians, who want to believe, but don't fully grasp many of the concepts, like me. Perhaps I am just basing this incorrectly on your last posts, but you should definitely write more free text, or just keep writing free text posts.
Thanks for the encouragement.
There's a lot of writing to be done, and time and logistics are a factor involved. But God's been gracious so far with letting me put out these insights so I will continue to churn them out as he sees fit.