Non Catholics? What bugs you the most about Catholics?


#101

I have some questions about that passage but why don’t you give us more information on what you are suggesting.


#103

To be perfectly honest, trying to evangelize someone is not “forcing your religion on others”. I can try to evangelize Orthodox folks but if they say, “Thanks, but no thanks” I will shrug, say good day and go about my business. Also, no decent Catholic in his right mind would call random Orthodox folks sinners. Bad Catholics maybe but not good ones.

Also, any Catholic male can technically become Pope. I could become Pope even though I’m not a priest as long as the Cardinals vote for me (let’s hope that doesn’t happen :grin:)


#104

Well …
Not much IRL.
I have been to mass 2x in the last 5 days. Had dinner with my childhood priest about 3 months ago and spoke theology for most of 2 hours. I had no problems with them at all.

I am “bugged” by Catholics here who speak negatively about my faith.
“Absolutely none of them thought or taught anytjing as ridiculous as Mormons do.” - 03Nov2017
“All I’m saying is try not to insinuate that an entire people of faith must be crazy for believing in Joseph Smith. Yes, we do know that the claims are utterly ridiculous and easily refutable today, but I find no value in being sarcastic about another faith, especially when they may have had no control over that belief.” - 31Oct2017 (how is that for damning while taking the high ground)

When Richard Mouw attended an anti-Mormon lecture and a 19-20 year old LDS missionary after trying to defend his view broke down and said, “You are not even trying to understand.” I am bugged! I say, “You are not even trying to understand!” Richard Mouw vowed that day he would not be that way, and ALL evidence suggests he respects LDS beliefs while still disagreeing not because the beliefs are so compelling they converted him, but because he tried to understand and found plenty to respect.

What bugs me the most is that they claim that somehow they inhabit the informed and or rational high ground and as best I can tell they are neither informed nor more rational than most of the LDS with whom I dialogue.

Of course Christ’s Church has ALWAYS been criticized unfairly, so much so that Cardinal Newman explained that this was a mark of the true church and few churches other than Mormon’s were sufficiently derided to meet this mark. Cardinal Newman considered the Catholic Church to be viewed as sufficiently ridiculous that it met this mark, of course that was a long time ago.

I bet you wish articles like this were written about Catholics:

And lest you only agree with part of the article, here is an intelligent LDS to translate for you (though he does not correct the theological errors embraced by religious mockers he just mentions that they exist).

So, while it “bugs” me, I think Christ told me to expect it.

Charity, TOm


#105

I’m not disagreeing with your post as it reflects your experience, but I don’t “wish articles like that were written about Catholics”.
I’m no fan of Roy Moore but I don’t think it’s the place of a church to be commenting on every political situation or condemning disgraced politicians. We should pray for both the sinner and his possible victim(s) , and if individual Catholics want to comment on somebody then it’s their personal decision to do so and to take responsibility for whatever they might want to say, but I don’t think the Church should be identified with publicly “condemning” people in a situation where one man who was accused has already committed suicide yesterday. Nor do I care if some journalist admires one church or another church.


#106

I think my “translate” article didn’t link correctly. I fixed this. Did you find that article?
I am not trying to say positive or negative things about a politician.
The Romans and Jews of Jesus’s day considered his teachings ridiculous.
St. Monica’s brilliant son considered her theology “ridiculous.”

Here is the quote from Cardinal Newman I referenced:

ON the whole then I conclude as follows:—if there is a form of Christianity now in the world which is accused of gross superstition, of borrowing its rites and customs from the heathen, and of ascribing to forms and ceremonies an occult virtue;—a religion which is considered to burden and enslave the mind by its requisitions, to address itself to the weak-minded and ignorant, to be supported by sophistry and imposture, and to contradict reason and exalt mere irrational faith;… and disables serious persons from enjoying it if they would;—a religion, the doctrines of which, be they good or bad, are to the generality of men unknown, which is considered to bear on its very surface signs of folly and falsehood so distinct that a glance suffices to judge of it, and that careful examination is preposterous, which is felt to be so simply bad, that it may be calumniated at hazard and at pleasure, it being nothing but absurdity to stand upon the accurate distribution of its guilt among its particular acts, or painfully to determine how far this or that story concerning it is literally true, or what has to be allowed in candour, or what is improbable or what cuts two ways, or what is not proved, or what may be plausibly defended;—a religion such that men look at a convert to it with a feeling which no other denomination raises except Judaism, Socialism, or Mormonism, viz. with curiosity, suspicion, fear, disgust, as the case may be, as if something strange had befallen him, as if he had had an initiation into a mystery, and had come into communion with dreadful influences, as if he were now one of a confederacy which claimed him, absorbed him, stripped him of his personality, reduced him to a mere organ or instrument of a whole;—a religion which men hate a…—a religion, the very name of which they cast out as evil, and use simply as a bad epithet, and which from the impulse of self-preservation they would persecute if they could;—if there be such a religion now in the world, it is not unlike Christianity as the same world viewed it, when first it came forth from its divine author.

Anyway, I was not trying to make a political statement, perhaps my “translation” link not working created confusion. I think that is fixed now.
Charity, TOm


#107

Very good. “He was, is, and is to come.”


#108

It is hard to generalize. Most Catholics I know in real life are nice people. A generalization of Catholics in my area may be that they are materialistic and less pious than some other Christians I know. But that obviously varies from person to person.
Catholics on forums like this bug me because they blindly and arrogantly quote Catholic apologists without actually reading and understanding the church history. It is easy to be deceived when you only pay attention to the sources that agree with the side you want to believe.


#109

That’s a reasonable answer. But ‘Catholics on forums like this’ and ‘they blindly and arrogantly quote’ is kind of a blanket generalization, don’t you think? I mean, there are Catholics on forums like this who HAVE read and studied and who know their church history. Just because a Catholic quotes somebody, don’t assume that he or she is just doing a blind arrogant quote. It would be more helpful if you said that SOME Catholics APPEAR to not be fully aware of what they’re talking about. After all, some non-Catholics (whether also Christian or not) often quote their own apologetics or views without being fully aware of the history etc. either. This is not something limited to Catholics. . .


#110

No Biblical evidence of being the true church of Jesus Christ. If Catholics want to believe they are the true church ---- prove it with scriptures. That is not possible.


#111

Actually friend,

It is NOT the RCC that claims this; it is GOD Himself

READ
John 17: 17-20, & Mt 28:18-20

May GOD guide your path

Patrick


#112

Well Tex the problem is that “Scripture” in the sense you are using it would refer to both the Old Testament and the New. Am I correct?

If one limits Scripture to the Old Testament --and that would be the understanding of what Scripture was to the apostles themselves–then there is no ‘proof’ of any Church of Christ; the ‘chosen people’ would be the Jews.

But if one extends Scripture to the New Testament --where, exactly, did that New Testament come from, Tex? Please tell me. What Church through the guidance of the Holy Spirit was able to pronounce what of the many, MANY works claimed as Scripture really was Scripture? What group determined that a work like the Didache was simply a pious writing, and not Scripture? What group determined that the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were inerrant Scripture, but not the gospel of Thomas?

What group was that, Tex?


#113

There are also a lot of Catholics on this forum who rarely quote apologists or even get into those sorts of discussions.


#114

Would you agree that they are certainly a significant part of His one true Church ?


#115

Yes you are right…
If one reads and applies the teachings of saint Paul.
Then people would be Evangelical.

As Paul. Said in 1cor.
I didn’t teach you theology.
But I demonstrated the power of the holy spirit.
So that your faith did Not depend on the teachings of man.


#116

Which “Evangelical” would that be, Dann?

Which “Evangelical” church traces itself back to the apostles and the authority given (confirmed in Scripture) by Jesus to St. Peter?


#117

They would be Catholics obviously.


#118

I never realized that Catholics think of themselves as being Evangelical…it might be time to inform the world. :innocent:


#119

On one hand, I’m not surprised that a non-Catholic was wrong about something pertaining to the Catholic Church. Based on most conversations with my old Baptist friends, a book entitled “100 Things Concerning the Catholic Church You’re Totally Wrong About” would be in order for most of them.

But perhaps it’s a question of semantic. How do you define “evangelical”?


#120

It really isn’t a matter of how I define “evangelical” in this discussion as much as how Catholics here at CAF seem to define it. I realize that Catholic individuals often say things that do not accurately portray what the Church teaches and in regards to “evangelical” I think that is so often what we experience here. Here it is presented often as a derogatory term for an undesirable aspect of so called “protestantism.”


#121

Saint Paul defined Evangelical in part in 1 cor. Chapter 2. . its all about the holy spirit… Which is supposed to lead us in all truth.
And as saint Paul said to Timothy. Don’t have anything to do with. Churches that have a form of religious. But lacking the power of God.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.