I am curious - why does the same rhetoric come up, time and time again, when the rhetoric has been thoroughly debunked time and again?
Here is my latest example. In a conversation I just had with someone who identifies as a “none” - no specific religion:
*“Since when does Catholicism equal Christ? There are lots of different Christian religions not based on Rome’s reign. Catholics pray to Mary…she can’t help you at all.”
“I’m bewildered at your reverence to a religion based on tyranny…trying to control the masses…that’s probably why Catholics call it mass.”
“Jesus was no Catholic. I’d rather convert to Judaism than Catholicism.”*
I countered with this:
"Wow. Lots of hatred and misinformation there. Completely wrong about Mary. There are examples from scripture involving intercession. And sorry, the early church is the Catholic church (I did mention the schism and Orthodox as well).
I’m curious - were you probing for a chance to slap down this anti-Catholic rhetoric given an opportunity? That’s a part of my identity and I am not asking you or anyone else to believe or embrace it. Please don’t stomp all over the Eucharist and prayers to Mary (both of which are practiced by some mainline Protestant religions as well)."
Granted I could have countered with a lot more, but there is so much misinformation here. My feeling is that if someone is trying to decide between Buddhism, Judaism, and Christianity (this person is someone I know well), that person is thoroughly confused and needs to research all of these faiths.
Mentioning that Jesus was no Catholic is irrelevant - we all know that. The “praying to Mary” and “embracing a religion based on tyrrany” comments are just offensive.
Sorry to vent. These arguments get really old. I am no apologetic, but wow. Venting done! :o