anticatholics: please list the "false doctrines of Catholicism"

[Cruciform]

I guess you just aren't much up for conversation today?

I didn't know your intention in posting what you termed "points I disagree with the Latin Rite about" was to initiate a "conversation." It was simply a list of Catholic doctrines, to which I provided a few Catholic sources for any genuinely interested and honest readers who might be looking on.

I do know that I didn't get much out of that.

Then you likely wouldn't be able to accept anything I might post on a more "conversational" level either.

I came for a debate.

The term "debate" implies that there are certain central and defining Christian doctrines that are still "up for grabs" among lay believers, or that still remain to be "hammered out" by you and me. However, this is an assumption that is itself highly problematic, and one which I reject from the outset.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cedarbay]

Cruciform - you obviously are astute and well educated in the Roman Catholic faith.

My concern for the laity is that so many of them are truly worshipping Mary and the saints, because I've heard them say that they are. A very close friend continues to proclaim, "We can get to Jesus through Mary."

So, do you have this concern, given that what the Magisterium actually teaches is not getting to the laity?

Are you concerned that many are idolizing through these statues?

The concern is for each soul who may be putting Mary and saints above the Holy Trinity, for worship.

Any thoughts on this?

Bump for Cruciform.

 

[Cruciform]

My concern for the laity is that so many of them are truly worshipping Mary and the saints, because I've heard them say that they are.

How many Catholics might this be, exactly?

A very close friend continues to proclaim, "We can get to Jesus through Mary."

Your friend's statement here has nothing to do with "worshiping" Mary. Perhaps, then, the problem is that you have simply leaped to the wrong conclusion regarding this matter.

So, do you have this concern, given that what the Magisterium actually teaches is not getting to the laity?

I have no more concern than I had when I was still a Protestant, as a staff instructor in Christian doctrine and Scripture at a local Presbyterian church. The first time I taught there, the lay Protestants listening to me revealed quite a bit of ignorance regarding some very basic teachings of the Christian faith. For example, I actually had to stop at one point and explain that God does not by nature possess a physical body (!). Ignorance of the defining doctrines of one's chosen religious tradition is rather ubiquitous in Christendom, and is certainly in no way solely a Catholic issue.

Are you concerned that many are idolizing through these statues?

No, I'm not. In fourteen years as a Catholic teaching doctrine and apologetics in my local parish, I have never met a single Catholic (and I've spoken to a great many, believe me) who has led me to conclude that he is in any way actually "worshiping" a statue of Mary, or Mary herself. In short, my experience teaching Catholics is diametrically opposed to what you describe above. (For more info, I highly recommend this.)



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cedarbay]

Ignorance of the defining doctrines of one's chosen religious tradition is rather ubiquitous in Christendom, and is certainly in no way solely a Catholic issue.

Agreed. Thanks for the response.

 

[CabinetMaker]

So, then, you've offered no disproof whatsoever. Noted.


The simple fact is that none of us creates his beliefs and ideas ex nihilo, out of whole cloth. Rather, we derive our beliefs and ideas from innumerable informational sources (doctrinal traditions) by which we are influenced over the course of our entire lives. This is simply the way that human beings form their individual mindsets and establish their particular worldviews. You are certainly no exception to this fundamental reality. Thus, my prior comments stand exactly as posted.

So you cannot point to any post of mine where I appealed to any authority beyond scripture. So noted.

No need for you to post any links, as has been observed just above.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

I don't post links as my sole source of argument.

 

[CabinetMaker]

yrs ago, i somewhat blurted out a half baked thought to a relative:

ex Catholics are the WORST...

and you know...

out of the mouths of "blurter outers" with half baked thoughts...

i now believe this fully baked thought 100%

thanks for (with the content of your posts) affirming it



____

We're the worst only in terms of being very well equipped to be able to challenge you to think.

 

[Wick Stick]

I didn't know your intention in posting what you termed "points I disagree with the Latin Rite about" was to initiate a "conversation."

Well, I didn't here come for the brownies and delicious fruit punch. They don't even serve them! What kind of forum is this?!? :banana:

It was simply a list of Catholic doctrines, to which I provided a few Catholic sources for any genuinely interested and honest readers who might be looking on.

It also included a thesis statement for my disagreement with each. Which apparently was invisible to you. And still is, I guess.

Then you likely wouldn't be able to accept anything I might post on a more "conversational" level either.

Are you still laboring under the delusion that anyone on an internet forum honestly convinces the other person of anything? Certainly if they did, they would never let the other person know! The point of all this verbal sparring is to refine our theological jiu-jitsu. Iron sharpens iron, and all that.

The term "debate" implies that there are certain central and defining Christian doctrines that are still "up for grabs" among lay believers, or that still remain to be "hammered out" by you and me.

No it doesn't. It implies that two people disagree, but have the capacity to discuss their differences on the subject in a civil manner anyway... that boat may have sailed, too. I'll get back to you on that one.

However, this is an assumption that is itself highly problematic, and one which I reject from the outset.

Finally something I can agree with. That assumption is very problematic.

Gaudium de veritate

Are you? Are you really? It seems more like you already have all possible truth, and are merely here to dispense bits of it to us mere mortals.

Jarrod

 

[Cruciform]

Agreed. Thanks for the response.

My pleasure. :thumb:

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear republicanchick,

Every branch of Christianity has their own different idiosyncrasies, including Protestant Christians, which I am. The way I see it, the Catholics are Christians regardless and believe in Jesus too, so they do what Christ asked them to do, love each other, and do unto others what you'd have done to you, etc. We are all brothers and fellow Christians, the way I see it. I'm not just trying to win brownie points here, but am being up front and real.

God Bless Us All,

Michael

 

[Cruciform]

So you cannot point to any post of mine where I appealed to any authority beyond scripture.

I point to any post of yours in which you promote the biblical interpretations and opinions of your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect(s) over the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Church. Thus, the extra-biblical authority to which you appeal in such cases is that of your chosen man-made sect(s) from which you have derived your own present assumptions, interpretations, and beliefs. Asked and answered.

I don't post links as my sole source of argument.

Neither do I.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[CabinetMaker]

How many Catholics might this be, exactly?


Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Even one is one to many. Didn't somebody once tell you that doing things that would cause the weak to stumble was a. Ad thing to do? So a new convert comes in, sees what looks like a bunch of people bowed before a statue of Mary, saying prayers and assumes they are worshiping Mary so they start to worship Mary. Doesn't matter what is in your heart, your actions caused the weak to sin.

 

[Cruciform]

Well, I didn't here come for the brownies and delicious fruit punch.

You apparently didn't come here for a "discussion" either, since you posted nothing but a list of doctrines with which you disagree.

It also included a thesis statement for my disagreement with each.

...which were addressed in the cited sources I provided.

Are you still laboring under the delusion that anyone on an internet forum honestly convinces the other person of anything?

I have never labored under any such delusion. So, no.

Certainly if they did, they would never let the other person know!

Over the past couple of years, there have been three people who informed me that they were becoming Catholic because of my posts (in part, anyway).

The point of all this verbal sparring is to refine our theological jiu-jitsu.

Not interested in "sparring." Thanks anyway. There are other Catholics on TOL who may have time for games. I'm not one of them.

No it doesn't. It implies that two people disagree, but have the capacity to discuss their differences on the subject in a civil manner anyway... that boat may have sailed, too.

Already answered in my previous post.

It seems more like you already have all possible truth...

As a Catholic, I have access to all divine truth defined and taught by Christ's one historic Church. You seem to assume that Christian doctrine is something that we lay believers get to define and make up for ourselves based on a private reading of the Bible, rather than something that is formulated and handed on by Christ's historic and authoritative Church, and which is simply to be received by the laity. Big difference there.

...and are merely here to dispense bits of it to us mere mortals.

Ad Hominem Fallacy. Try again.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cruciform]

So a new convert comes in, sees what looks like a bunch of people bowed before a statue of Mary, saying prayers and assumes they are worshiping Mary so they start to worship Mary. Doesn't matter what is in your heart, your actions caused the weak to sin.

Unfortunately, all you've done here is paint yourself into a corner, and demonstrate the internal error of your "argument." How? Because virtually anything that any Christian does---including you in the context of your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect---can be misunderstood and misinterpreted by any given outsider. By your own "logic," then, you need to stop doing...well, EVERYTHING that you do in church, since the potential exists---however remote and implausible---for your actions to be misconstrued by the ignorant. Sorry, but you've merely shot yourself in the foot here, and no one really needs to take your complaint at all seriously.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Right Divider]

All Cruciform can do is give you links to Catholic propaganda in an feeble attempt to "claim the high ground". I'm sure that he'll claim that I've committed some fallacy of some sort. But, of course, his appeal to authority (a biased web page) is fine.

 

[Cruciform]

All Cruciform can to is give you links to Catholic propaganda...

No doubt RD would much prefer ANTI-Catholic propaganda. :doh:

I'm sure that he'll claim that I've committed some fallacy of some sort.

I could point out that your claim that providing links is "ALL" I do is patently false, but why emphasize the obvious? :chuckle:

But, of course, his appeal to authority (a biased web page) is fine.

In the end, it's all an appeal to authority: I appeal to the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Church, and you appeal to the assumptions and opinions of your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect. Which of the two, then, actually possessed a bindingly authoritative doctrinal authority? :think:



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[CabinetMaker]

Unfortunately, all you've done here is paint yourself into a corner, and demonstrate the internal error of your "argument." How? Because virtually anything that any Christian does---including you in the context of your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect---can be misunderstood and misinterpreted by any given outsider. By your own "logic," then, you need to stop doing...well, EVERYTHING that you do in church, since the potential exists---however remote and implausible---for your actions to be misconstrued by the ignorant. Sorry, but you've merely shot yourself in the foot here, and no one really needs to take your complaint at all seriously.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Really. So I need to stop helping the homeless on my wat to and from work because somebody might assume what, exactly?


I need to stop volunteering at the Youth organization I work with because somebody might assume what, exactly?

I am amazed at the lengths you will go to in order to justify a practice that actually leads people into sim. God said that you are responsible for what people assume based on your actions. They don't know what you are thinking when you are kneeling before a statue of Mary with your head bowed and hands folded while you recite the Hail Mary. Pray tell, how does that not look exactly like what God said not to do.

 

[Right Divider]

No doubt RD would much prefer ANTI-Catholic propaganda. :doh:

Since the RCC is a false church with false teaching, I am indeed ANTI-falsehood. :down:

I could point out that your claim that providing links is "ALL" I do is patently false, but why emphasize the obvious? :chuckle:

Oh, you got me there.... I should have said "it's your only 'proof'."

In the end, it's all an appeal to authority: I appeal to the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Church, and you appeal to the assumptions and opinions of your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect. Which of the two, then, actually possessed a bindingly authoritative doctrinal authority? :think:

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

I'll stick with the authority of God and His Word, thank you very much.

 

[Cruciform]

Really. So I need to stop helping the homeless on my wat to and from work because somebody might assume what, exactly?

Hey, what if an outsider sees you praying with a homeless person, and concludes that you're praying TO that person---or even (gasp!) WORSHIPING him?! The uninitiated wouldn't know the difference, right? Or you're praying while holding the Bible, and the newbie puts 2+2 together, and gets 11---he assumes that you're WORSHIPING the Bible! Or you celebrate communion at church and the outsider decides that he can just skip church from now on and "do communion" by himself because, after all, he has crackers and juice in the fridge at home! As I said, virtually anything a Christian does can be misinterpreted by an outsider in some way. That's why they need to be brought INSIDE and taught the basic teachings of the Christian faith. Your scenario, as has already been demonstrated, works against you as much as anyone else.

I am amazed at the lengths you will go to in order to justify a practice that actually leads people into sim.

Post your proof for this wholly unsubstantiated assertion.

God said that you are responsible for what people assume based on your actions. They don't know what you are thinking when you are kneeling before a statue of Mary with your head bowed and hands folded while you recite the Hail Mary. Pray tell, how does that not look exactly like what God said not to do.

QUESTION: What would you do if an outsider came into your church and asked you why you worship your Bible (after all, he saw you holding the Bible and "speaking" to it)? What would you say to him?



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cruciform]

Since the RCC is a false church with false teaching...

Post your proof.

Oh, you got me there.... I should have said "it's your only 'proof'."

...the only proof necessary.

I'll stick with the authority of God and His Word, thank you very much.

Rather, you'll stick with what your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect has told you about God's word. Big difference there.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[1Way1Truth1Life]

Proof is in the pudding. Too bad all there is, is sour grapes topped with mustard.