Ahh THE MISCONCEPTIONS

[Krush2k2]

[url="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=438305"]http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=438305[/url]

Dont you hate it when people post, acting like they know what they are talking about but are totally wrong, esp regarding our church

[AngelofJesus]

Tell me about it. I always seem to do that whenever I post.

[Brother Adam]

the moonbats

[jasJis]

OMG. This is excellent. I was laughing and laughing.

Go to this link and read this. I love the biting humor. I think I'm going to see the DaVinci Code now. It seems the ones who are offended and the ones who belive this movie are idiots anyway. The wittiness of the non-Catholics pointing out what's wrong with the movie and addressing the "Cathlolics" who claim to be offended is good enjoyment. Not everybody are idiots, even if you're not "Cathlolic"! LOL!

Did you see how the guy who posted that "Cathlolics" didn't like sex was refuted by a Catholic with the Catechism and a non-Catholic with reason? Ha ha ha.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

I don't have the time but I think we need to send a crusade there.

[Nathan]

All I ever hear in my discussions with non-Catholics, in person and online, is misconceptions. It's a pandemic. In my experience, extremely rare is the case that someone speaks negatively of the Church/Catholicism without their arguments being based on misconceptions of some kind.

Because the garden-variety atheist/agnostic views organized religion, specifically Christianity, as "stupid," this gives them the illusion of intellectual superiority over religion and religious-minded persons. Thus, because religion to them is pointless, they feel that there isn't much to it, and in turn think that they know all about it -- at least, enough to speak about it authoritatively. In my anti-Christian days I personified this mentality, spouting off about Christianity when I didn't know a beaver dam thing about it outside of things that I had heard from friends (misconceptions and outright falsities) and seen/read in the mainstream media (more misconceptions and outright falsities).

Thank God for good apologists. Their ministry is sorely needed out there in the trenches.

[Jesuspaidtheprice]

I'd like to think that I don't have that many misconceptions. I don't know all there is to know about Catholic history or the faith. But I know enough to know that Catholics are divided, even on what truth is, no less than Protestants are. Look at the debates you've had between the two camps you call traditionalists and charismatics. It seems even in Catholicism a wide variety of beliefs are permissible. I just don't get why some Catholics remain Catholics with how critical and negative they are of the Pope. It's a lot better to just be out on your own than to live without love.

Peace.

[ReinnieR]

[quote name='Jesuspaidtheprice' post='973258' date='May 6 2006, 02:50 AM']
I'd like to think that I don't have that many misconceptions. I don't know all there is to know about Catholic history or the faith. But I know enough to know that Catholics are divided, even on what truth is, no less than Protestants are. Look at the debates you've had between the two camps you call traditionalists and charismatics. It seems even in Catholicism a wide variety of beliefs are permissible. I just don't get why some Catholics remain Catholics with how critical and negative they are of the Pope. It's a lot better to just be out on your own than to live without love.

Peace.
[/quote]
i'm sorry buddy but i disagree with you on "being on your own" part. you can't be on your own. you have to be part of the mystical body of christ, the church.

[Guest Rick777]

[quote name='Jesuspaidtheprice' post='973258' date='May 6 2006, 12:50 AM']
I'd like to think that I don't have that many misconceptions. I don't know all there is to know about Catholic history or the faith. But I know enough to know that Catholics are divided, even on what truth is, no less than Protestants are. Look at the debates you've had between the two camps you call traditionalists and charismatics. It seems even in Catholicism a wide variety of beliefs are permissible. I just don't get why some Catholics remain Catholics with how critical and negative they are of the Pope. It's a lot better to just be out on your own than to live without love.

Peace.
[/quote]


This is exactly why people shouldn't bash the Pope. (Although I must admit I really haven't seen any bashing.) I'll say a Hail Mary for you JesusPaidThePrice guy.

[jasJis]

So nobody's going to seriously address what jesuspaidtheprice challenged?



hmmmm?

[Nathan]

[quote name='Jesuspaidtheprice' post='973258' date='May 6 2006, 01:50 AM']
I'd like to think that I don't have that many misconceptions. I don't know all there is to know about Catholic history or the faith. But I know enough to know that Catholics are divided, even on what truth is, no less than Protestants are.[/quote]

Well, there are over 30,000 Protestant denominations. Contrast that with one Catholic Church. I'd say that Catholicism wins the prize for unity. Sure, there are differences of opinion among the faithful on certain matters, but the Catholic faith itself does not change. That is what the pope, cardinals, and bishops are there for, to defend the faith against those who seek to change it.

[jasJis]

[quote name='Nathan' post='973341' date='May 6 2006, 06:11 AM']
Well, there are over 30,000 Protestant denominations. Contrast that with one Catholic Church. I'd say that Catholicism wins the prize for unity. Sure, there are differences of opinion among the faithful on certain matters, but the Catholic faith itself does not change. That is what the pope, cardinals, and bishops are there for, to defend the faith against those who seek to change it.[/quote]The Catholic Faith doesn't change? The words of the Mass, the language, the rubrics, the music, the architecture, the definintion of the Sacraments, the application ofthe Sacraments, canon law, discipline, doctrine, new Dogma, etc.

Let's cut the bull. What HASN'T changed in the last 1.500 years? I begininnig to believe that what HASN'T changed is the REAL Catholic Christianity. Everything else is minor and acceptable if it doesn't disagree with the core fundamentals. The only 'Infalliblity' that the Catholic Church posses are those fundamentals, most, if not all, are also in other Christian Churchs.

[avemaria40]

The Eucharist hasn't changed and Protestants don't have that.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='jasJis' post='973344' date='May 6 2006, 10:22 AM']
The Catholic Faith doesn't change? The words of the Mass, the language, the rubrics, the music, the architecture, the [b]definintion[/b] of the Sacraments, the application ofthe Sacraments, canon law, discipline,[b] doctrine[/b], new Dogma, etc.

Let's cut the bull. What HASN'T changed in the last 1.500 years? I begininnig to believe that what HASN'T changed is the REAL Catholic Christianity. Everything else is minor and acceptable if it doesn't disagree with the core fundamentals. The only 'Infalliblity' that the Catholic Church posses are those fundamentals, most, if not all, are also in other Christian Churchs.
[/quote]

Really. What doctrine? Now, we did not of course say that Jesus was one prosopon and two natures, consubstantial with the Father until after Nicea, but we didn't teach against it before Nicea either. Doctrine develops.

[ReinnieR]

[quote name='Brother Adam' post='973379' date='May 6 2006, 08:39 AM']
Really. What doctrine? Now, we did not of course say that Jesus was one prosopon and two natures, consubstantial with the Father until after Nicea, but we didn't teach against it before Nicea either. Doctrine develops.
[/quote]
agree

[blovedwolfofgod]

unfortunately, the sacrament of anointing of the sick (well, the application) has changed and it was something that it shouldnt have exclusively been. Vatican II did do some things good (that were explicit).

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='blovedwolfofgod' post='973421' date='May 6 2006, 12:00 PM']
unfortunately, the sacrament of anointing of the sick (well, the application) has changed and it was something that it shouldnt have exclusively been. Vatican II did do some things good (that were explicit).
[/quote]

Really, how so?

For a period the sacrament was known as extrema unction, and the focus was on anointing the dying person. This took place around the black plague. VII emphasised that the sacrament was repeatable and not just for the dying, but for the seriously ill, and changed the name to anointing of the sick. The ex opere operato causality of grace of the sacrament, the res of the sacrament, all have remained the same.

[blovedwolfofgod]

Thats what I was refferring to. Not the ex opere operato grace of the sacrament, however, the emphasis that it was only on the dying and now it has moved to illnesses and is repeatable. The use of it as extreme unction only, I feel, was unfortunate and not the intention of the sacrament. Throughout the gospels, Jesus healed the sick. This outer healing also accompanied an inner healing as well. Healing is a real ministry. As wounded human beings, Christ came to restore us. To heal us. And anointing of the sick is a healing sacrament. Jesus never withheld healing from one who asked. Likewise, he gave his power and authority to his apostles who handed it down from person to person through the bishops. However, this ministry seemed to have dropped off the face of the earth during history. So, the emphasis, i feel, got placed in the wrong area by its exclusivity and now is returning to more of what it should be. The book of James says to gather the presbyters and pray over the sick person so that they may be made well and their sins forgiven. Yes, confession, I know, but that too, is a sacrament of healing. But that one is more the remission of sins and restoration to God's grace. Anointing of the Sick is more of a restoration of the body focus.

[jasJis]

Bro. Adam,
What do you mean Doctrine doesn't change but it develops? Sounds like BS doublespeak to me. I may be willing to accept a claim that Doctrine doesn't contradict itself, and then I'd review doctrine. But to say it doesn't change is not true and is a claim for the TEMPORAL Church to maintain 'athority' or power or control or credibility to some.

[amandaplus5]

Here's the thing- PRACTICES change, DOCTRINE does not. They're two very different things. Practices are the ways in which doctrine is carried out. So, of course they're going to change with time, culture, etc. Doctrine does not change because it is truth, and truth does not change.

That is not "BS doubespeak." Something can develop without changing. Example: I've always been pro-life. But up until a couple of years ago, I didn't know much about the different positions of pro-choice and pro-life people. I have since learned a lot about and come to understand the debate in a more in-depth way. I now can explain my beliefs in a more inteeligent way. My beliefs have not changes, as I am still pro-life, but they most certainly have developed from the basics that they once were. Hence, things CAN develop without changing.

In the same way, Catholic Doctrine has not changes, but it has developed. Example: the Catholic church has always taught that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ (we have early christian letters from Iraneus to prove that). That teaching was not formally defined until years later, when Church officials saw that it needed to be clear. That doctrine was very basic. As the years went on, whenever people started to get confused about what the Church taught about the Eucharist, that doctrine would get more specific. The teachings were always the same, but not every little detail was written down at once. That's how the doctrine developed, but it didn't change.