So, why do you really hate the Roman Catholic Church?

by StAnn 68 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Narkissos

  DD,

  Thanks for the info, even though I am not surprised. Contrary to what ecumenical enthusiasts of both sides have imagined, the Catholic church has never officially conceded anything on its strict definition of the word "church".

  If you have read the document I linked to (and probably you knew it alreay, as there was much publicity around it when it was first issued) you have noticed that its (over?)subtle strategy consisted, not in vainly trying to rewrite 16th-century history (as by questioning or denying the Tridentine anathemas or reciprocal Lutheran condemnations), but in ascertaining what is the current understanding of the issue at stake among contemporary Catholic and Lutheran theology, and see if the historical condemnations do apply to it. No surprise, they don't.

  This approach is diametrically opposite to your intended anachronism, 'the Council of Trent rejected me' -- as if you were a 16th-century person with a 16th-century mind: no matter how hard you try, you're not.

  What we have, as ever, is exclusivists of both sides waving a misrepresentation of the opposite stance as a bogeyman. And extremists being only too willing to identify with the bogeyman, ignoring the nuances of their own theology.
• 

  FlyingHighNow

  Something to keep in mind is that the Catholic Church has many parts of it that are renegade. The Catholic Information center and the Dominican nuns are both very ecumenical and forward thinking, but still part of the Roman church. The thing is, the Catholic church isn't hell bent on kicking out every single person or movement that doesn't agree with the Vatican on every single thought, word and deed. This is very big when you consider the policies of the WTBTS.
• 

  Rapunzel

  Just to reiterate the idea of FHN, it is absolutely essential to keep in mind that the Roman Catholic Church is one truly enormous "umbrella" or "tent." In order to gain an impression of the spectrum or range included within this "tent" of ecclesiastic identity, one only has to consider Opus Dei [an organization that many Catholics, including many clergy, consider disgraceful] on the extreme right, and the proponents of Latin American "liberation" or "revolutionary" theology on the so-called "radical left."

  The Roman Catholic Church is absolutely the farthest thing from being an ideological/theological monolith; it is absolutely by no means monolithic in any sense of the word.

  There is one more absolutely essential idea to keep in mind when considering the contemporary Catholic Church; and that is over-arching role of personal conscience. Basically, personal conscience "trumps" just about everything else This is an idea too often misunderstood by non-Catholics. To frame the metaphor using military terminology, Catholics don't take their "marching orders" from the Vatican, or Mount Sinai [or Mount Hebron, if you read the Scriptures closely, you'll see that there is a contradiction/disagreement on exactly which mountains Moses took up the tablets] for that matter.

  I don't give a fat fig what the current pope says in regard to contraception or the ordination of women. For all his admitted ability in terms of scholarship, I think that he is wrong on both issues. And many Catholic feel the same way. I think that the current pope is conservative to the point of being reactionary. In any case, it all comes down to personal conscience for Catholics. This over-arching principle of individual personal conscience has produced its fair share of "historical ironies." For example, it is quite difficult indeed to think of anyone in history who professed idea as contrary to "traditional" Roman Catholicism as men such as Diderot, Voltaire, and Sade [as in the Marquis of], and yet, if I remember correctly, all three men received a Jesuit [society of Jesus] education. Many of the French philosophes received a Jesuit education. Even today, a Jesuit education is something to be proud of.

  My point is that the Roman Catholic tradition is a very long, and broad [to use a river metaphor] tradition. Like the other long and broad traditions, such as Judaism, Islam, Hinduim, Protestetantism, and Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism has borne or "carried along" ideas or notions which were/are shameful. But these long and ancient traditions have also produced fine things. The key thing is to use discernment and one's personal conscience.

  One last thing that I want to add is that the parish that I occasionally attend is quite ecumenical. For example, the parish celebates seders - which are Jewish rites/traditions.
• 

  yesidid

  I don't hate any individual Catholics. I just cant see any connection between the Church and God.

  http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/10995/Jeffrey-Anderson-lawyer-interview.html

  yesidid
• 

  Deputy Dog

  Nark

  This approach is diametrically opposite to your intended anachronism, 'the Council of Trent rejected me' -- as if you were a 16th-century person with a 16th-century mind: no matter how hard you try, you're not.

  So who cut off who? Did Luther cut off the RCC or did the RCC cut off Luther?

  I was Baptized and raised in the RCC as a child. How do you think I would do in my conformation with my current beliefs? Do you think they would let a monergist back in? If Calvin was still alive today would they let him back in?

  What we have, as ever, is exclusivists of both sides waving a misrepresentation of the opposite stance as a bogeyman. And extremists being only too willing to identify with the bogeyman, ignoring the nuances of their own theology.

  It's interesting to note that many of my synergistic brothers of other denominations tolerate me as a brother (they don't cut me off).
• 

  Deputy Dog

  Nark

  This approach is diametrically opposite to your intended anachronism, 'the Council of Trent rejected me' -- as if you were a 16th-century person with a 16th-century mind: no matter how hard you try, you're not.

  The more I think about this, I disagree. It looks to me that Protestants are becoming more "Roman" all the time. Most (the average person) probably can't see the problem with Trent. I see myself as a reformer within my local church, as much or more than I do with the RCC
• 

  Witness 007

  I just hate the costumes the nuns have to wear, I mean come on as brides of Christ you should be more sexy then that.
• 

  Rapunzel

  Yesidid - Like you, I feel no particular animosity toward any member of any faith or religion; I fully belive that each and every person must, and should be allowed to, find and follow his/her own path to the Ultimate.

  As for myself, I believe that NO revealed religion has any monopoly on truth; in fact, I see ALL revealed religion as "getting it wrong" on nearly every fundamental question facing humanity. For example, to my mind, there is no revealed religion which accurately describes humanity's origins or any "purpose" that we might here on Earth. No religion can provide sufficient answers. I view all religions as man-made ideological constructs.

  Having said that, I see little value in your "strawman" argument. There is absolutely no question that pedophile priests have caused tremendous harm to the Church, and especiallly to the victims - the children - whom they have harmed. To their shame, certain individuals within the Church have tried to cover things up. One long-standing method of operating has been simply to re-assign the "offending" priest in question to another parish. This has long been a tragic issue that too many within the Church hierarchy have chosen to ignore.

  However, [and as a non-believing, "lapsed" Catholic], I believe that these individuals are a minority within the RCC. There are many fine people within the Church - both clergy and lay - who sincerely care about others and are tying to improve their respective communities. Moreover, this is the case in most churches, synagogues, mosques, and other places of worship.

  Your argument is a "strawman" in that it takes a small, negative minority, and posits this group as representive of the much larger group. Pedophile priests are not representive of the RCC. And their presence within the Church no more alientates the Church from God than does the presence of pedophiles in any other religious or secular organization/institution. If one belives in God, then he/she may well also believe that a pedophile who does harm to children will alienate him/herself from God, and that this is also the case for those who cover up things for pedophiles or turn a blind eye upon becoming aware of such transgressions. However, there are many people within such organizations who look out for and protect the rights of children. If you believe in God, these people are serving to align the organization or institution with righteous ideals.

  The same is true for any person in any group. If a Jehovah's Witness learns of such abuse and then comes forth to defend the best inerests of the child in question, then this Witness is acting in a righteous way. In short, a given group/collective/community should not be held responsible for sins/transgressions that most of its members are innocent and unaware of. Of course, once an individul does become aware, then it is his/her responsibility to act.a
• 

  Narkissos

  How do you think I would do in my conformation with my current beliefs? Do you think they would let a monergist back in? If Calvin was still alive today would they let him back in?

  Imho, the larger the church, the bigger the difference between being "in" as a lay member or as an official teacher. And, as Rapunzel already point out, even among the clergy there is room for holding, and even cautiously expressing, a very broad spectrum of opinions... Practically, it now takes very much for anyone to be excommunicated from the Catholic church -- and when that happens this usually has more to do with a provocative mode of expression and the resultant media coverage than with doctrinal difference per se.
• 

  FlyingHighNow

  Andy's mother is a devoted Roman Catholic and so is his dad. His mother has taught Catechism for years, she's a Eucharistic Minister and she sings at funerals. She had her tubes tied and she does not believe in the emaculate conception. The priests know how she feels.