Monday, February 15, 2010

Banned from Catholic Answers: Happy to have a Blog

So, yesterday, I get this message from the Catholic Answers Forum moderator warning me about an infraction I committed. The message stated…














He is referring to a response I made to one of their members. Let me give you a little background, the thread was about the Staples vs. White debate on 1 Corinthians 3:10-15. If anyone is familiar with the Catholic Answers Forum, it is most difficult to keep folks on track and goes astray very easily. Usually, everything from the Trinity to the canon to the ol' "number of Protestant denominations" red herrings are tossed into the mix. Every now and then, someone will hop on the thread with something like this...







Because of the frustration caused by warding off these red herrings and staying on track, I didn't want to wander off the beaten path to indulge philosophical meanderings. It bothers me when purgatory, other than being a later belief and has had multiple understandings in its vague "existence", is given a convenient philosophical coating to bring legitimacy to the doctrine. In my humble estimation, this is sophistry, pure and simple. So, I replied to this post with the following…









Now, although my response is critical of Ratzinger's statement, there is nothing personal about it, let alone any that could be offensive to Catholics. If one provides a statement like the above without there being any evidence of its reality, then we can muse "all the live long day" about it, but it remains nothing but words. At CAF, how often are the statements of Protestant leaders criticized and worse? Yet, is anything done about it by the administrators??? My intent was the statement and not the one making the statement. Getting into these types of dialogues makes the discussion tedious, but it seems that calling sophistry for what it is, gets you warned because of the status of the individual saying it and not for any other reason. I really doubt that there would have been much offense if Ratzinger were still a cardinal and theologian. It is deemed disrepectful of the faith of Catholics to criticize a statement from a pope, at least that's what it seems this moderator is infering. Needless to say, I'm still quite peeved, especially when one considers all the personal nonsense I've endured on that forum. So, I questioned this moderator, asking him if the same thing applies to those who criticize Protestant leaders. What I got was…



Again, remember, the CAF forums is replete with all sorts of personal attacks against Protestants, from past to present, Luther through MacArthur. To back it up, one only needs to read through the threads. Yet, one remark regarding one's own personal musings and I get a warning. Although I have no knowledge of the disciplines given to Catholics on the forum, it is hard to take this moderator's statements seriously when one sees the constant bantering given Protestants. So, I respond once again, explaining that no animosity was intended, but I still had to question him once more if the same standard is enforced for the likes of “John MaArthur, John Piper, R.C. Sproul, James White, etc.” and the ol’ Churchmouse is told…



So, my statement is judged as "contempt for the Catholic faith"??? Calling one's statement "sophistry" (because it is) is ruled "contempt"??? The moderator continued by posting the list of CAF rules, with emphasis (red letters) as to where the violation was committed…



Is calling a statement made by a Catholic cleric "sophistry" disrespectful of the "faith of Catholics"??? How? It seems that one needs an infallible interpreter for these rules because the moderators don't seem capable of grasping a correct understanding. We Protestants can read them ourselves and ascertain what the rules mean without the need for outside sources. If one looks at rule 7 (which is really "8"), does my criticism of Ratzinger's statements compare to “Whore of Babylon, Holy Roller, Christ-killer, or terrorist”? Not at all. If one looks at rule 9 (which, in reality, is number 10 on their website), did I pursue speaking about the mods and their actions on the forum itself? Nope! This applies to those who use the forum to criticize a moderator's actions, of which I didn’t do. Maybe there is another deposit of rules which brings clarity to these rules that I am unaware of (and they cannot provide it for me because it is rooted in the traditions and practices of the forum and not outright). Yet, I am told by this moderator that I must give an affirmative not to break these rules, by midnight, to keep my account open…



I can abide by the rules as they are written. There's no problem there, but the way I see it...it's like this: If I give an affirmative then I would be acknowledging my comments to be "contempt for the Catholic faith and its leader" and that these rules apply to the situation. On another level, to affirm these would imply that Ratzinger's statements aren't sophistical in nature, which is something I cannot do because I believe they are. Please remember, I am not calling Ratzinger a Sophist, but only that his statement is sophistical. The moderator needs to understand that Ratzinger's writings are in the public forum and open to criticism. That's just the way it is.

Moral of the story: If you would like to participate on the Catholic Answers Forums, you must read through the rules and understand that words, such as contempt, are always left up to the discretion of the moderator in charge. He or she can interpret the rules in whatever way he or she deems fit. Whether or not it truly defines contempt really doesn’t matter. Furthermore, although the rules forbid any criticism of moderators or their actions on the forums, the moderator can put you under “review” anyway, which negates your posting privileges until you are able to see things their way (and you have until midnight of course). If you dare to disagree, question the fairness of the actions, or critique the process, well, prepare to have your account permanently closed. Sure, you can exercise the option of contacting the administrators if you'd like, but I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you, especially when one sees the liberality practiced by Catholics who do the same to Protestants. They can continue as they please. If you are one who desires to speak freely without having to walk on eggshells, worrying if public statements are going to be deemed dishonestly, well this isn't the forum for you. Biased minds will find loopholes in the rules and you're a goner.

Addendum: Hmmm…maybe it’s contemptuous to refer to the pope as “Ratzinger” and not by his proper title, Pope Boniface XVI. Well, considering that I still view him as Joseph Alois Ratzinger and considering that I reject the concept of papism and its alleged charisms, I choose to refrain from advancing the title. So, if this is deemed “contemptuous”, well, that is something I can live with. You just can't please everyone, especially when it comes down to one's integrity.

Post addendum: I did get one last response from the moderator, which amounted to "see ya!" I mumbled something to the extent of "There is nothing new under the sun", which leads to my final graphic...



By the way, the word is "refusal" and not "refussal", right PRmerger? (<--inside joke).

CM

36 comments:

MannyAmbanlocRosario said...

You're banned at CAF.
BARM is almost exclusively Tagalog now.

Perhaps its time that you devote yourself to this blog-- or maybe at James Swan's Beggars All.

Churchmouse said...

You're banned at CAF.
BARM is almost exclusively Tagalog now.


Gee...now I have no where to go :-)

Perhaps its time that you devote yourself to this blog-- or maybe at James Swan's Beggars All.

Jim's been after me for awhile to become a contributor. However, I have a hard enough time finding "thought" time to use on my own blog. As soon as I can lessen my load (in life), maybe I can do both, that is if the invitation is still open.

As always, nice hearing from you Tinubos.

CM

PRmerger said...

Well! Churchmouse! PRmerger here from the CAFs. Imagine my surprise that I stumbled over your blog, 6 months later, almost by chance...

(I was surfing the CAFs tonight and came across a "sticky" note about banning/suspensions...and decided to do a google search to see if anyone outside the CAFs had posted comments about having been banned by the mods, and, voila, your blog popped up!)

I enjoyed your sly reference to our discussions about spelling/grammar...(refusal/refussal)

(NB: Joseph Ratzinger is Pope Benedict XVI, not Pope Boniface XVI)

Now, I won't comment on your banning, lest my membership on the CAFs be questioned by the mods--and I LOVE being on the CAFs way too much to risk it, even way out here in the blogosphere...but I will say I am sorry that you were banned.

Good luck in your search for Truth. If you seek, you shall find.

Your Sis in Christ,
-PR

Churchmouse said...

Hi PR! Nice of you to stop by. See where searching the WWW lands you :) Pope Boniface??? I didn't realize I called him that (considering that I know he's Benedict). I guess much is to be said for proofreading :).

Yes, I pray that we ALL can come to the Truth of God's Word through the illumination of the Holy Spirit.

Peace,
CM

Anonymous said...

I was locked out for life for being "impatient". Which was asking if there was an update four days after being told they would look into why I got banned for citing two antisemitic threads.

Boss is:

Catholic Answers

President: Karl Keating..................... (619) 387-7200

2020 Gillespie Way

El Cajon 92020

Nathan Wagar said...

I am truly sorry about how your situation was handled. I came upon this while dialoguing with PadreJ off-forum, who was also banned from CAF for a seemingly trivial (if not non-existent) reason. I hope that you do not let this incident reflect poorly upon all Catholics. Catholic Answers are a prominent movement within the Catholic Church, but they are not The Church, no matter how strongly some members may present themselves as such. Have a Blessed week.

Anonymous said...

wow it looks like loads of people get banned, and the admins are out of control over there. They produced one lying post I saw that said only like 12 or so people were banned at any time. Not likely. Catholic Answer forums are really an embarassment to the Church.

Churchmouse said...

Nathan and Anonymous,

I don't fault Catholics for the actions of a CAF moderator. Heck, I don't even fault Catholic Answers. To this day I see it as the actions of a lone gun with an itchy trigger finger. The rules, seemingly, are left to the interpretation of the moderator and, in this case, the moderator seems to take some liberties that are, probably, unbeknownst to the forum powers-that-be. If anything, CAF needs to pay more attention to those they appoint as moderators. Yet, through all the smoke, I know that no one is to blame but those with who take liberties with the authority given them. It's not a religious thing, but rather a personal action from someone who didn't like what I said even though I meant no disrespect. I'm a Protestant. Surely, he shouldn't expect me to behave as if I wasn't.

Thanks for the words of fairness and support.

Peace,
CM

Anonymous said...

I was posting in Christian Discussion forum a couple months ago when they tossed out all the Catholics, JWs, and Mormons. They give their site a name as broad as "Christian" but all must bow to the bent Protestant and Baptist doctrines, shutting out many other Christians. You have a couple of Christianity's flakey offshoots, breakaways, and tagalongs deciding who else is Christian. But Catholics have to tolerate those people coming into a forum labeled specifically for Catholics bashing our religion? Not.

Sorry, if these other so-called Christian sites can police their boards, so can CAF. Catholics are the oldest Christian religion--2,000 years old. We were here first. Get back in line.

Elizabeth Aviles said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Churchmouse said...

To Anonymous,

Wow! Now THAT was a rant. With that attitude I can see you getting booted from any forum, Catholic, Protestant, or other. If you can just get past your biases for a moment, you will see that even some Catholics, on the CAF forum and in this combox, thought I got a bum deal from the CAF moderator. It isn't a matter of "policing" but of fairness. To compare your forum experience with mine is just a bad comparison overall.

As to the claims of being here "first"? Sorry, some, such as I, don't buy into the premise that the catholic church of yore is none other then the Church of Rome. As you can read here on my blog, purgatory is but one example of a heterodoxy, one such doctrine that cannot be traced to the early "catholic" church. So, your assumption is simplistic at best and proves nothing. How many times have I heard Roman Catholics make the bad assumption that "age = orthodoxy." Believing that "we were here first" means nothing to someone who doesn't believe that you were, let alone teaches doctrines at variance with the early church.

So, you can take your imaginary "line" and keep believing you "were here first." Newman would be proud! Yet, you'll find me following Christ wherever HE leads and not in some makeshift "line."

CM

Anonymous said...

churchmouse and Nathan,

Very much appreciate your comments, posts, and fairness. I was banned too, never given a reason, but that does not mean that there was not a violation of CAF rules.

The exchanges between Catholics, Orthodox and Prostestants are very beneficial in understanding one another and one's faith.

If CAF focused more on this goal, rather than trying to defend every particular teaching of the Catholic Church it would be a very good medium for representing the Catholic church in her attempts
for unity in the spirit of humility, truth and love.

Especially, in a day and hour when we need to encourage and uphold one another.

Peace, zarthan, byeveryword.

Anonymous said...

I can sympathize with being banned by the CA forum and I would agree, it seems unfair. There are some moderators there who really do not seem to want to give every poster a fair shake--and know that I am a very faithful Catholic, so this is not about non-Catholics. It seems if one even charitably disagrees there, if by chance the moderator has a different personal viewpoint--and we're not even talking religious belief here--they don't stand a chance. I now go to other forums. BTW, please do check into things like Purgatory and other Catholic beliefs--and remember no where does it say 'everything' is in the Bible--many things are not! I suggest 'Reverend Know-It-All''s website, as well as Relevant Radio to clear up any confusion www.relevantradio.com (can listen online--grean Q&A shows). Thanks, a happy Catholic (though not happy about CA forums)

Anonymous said...

CA has some absolutely lousy moderators who have over-sized heads and no common sense. It's all about their personal beliefs--not a thing to do with Catholic beliefs--in fact, they make the Church look bad and misrepresent it.

Whoever runs CA should boot out some of the mods--the bad and arrogant ones--and allow someone with a brain who is courteous and respectful of others to take over (note some of the mods are really good, though).

These controlling airheads who are currently the mods (though not all are bad) should get a life. They can't tolerate anyone to disagree with their narrow little minds. What pitiful little 'Barney Fifes' these people are. Sheesh.

C'mon CA, you can do much better. There are many caring and faithful Catholics who could do the mods jobs 100% better!

Anonymous said...

I was banned from that forum...I could care less. The moderating is horrible over there. They are clearly biased. If you conform with the Church's position and denigrate someone that doesn't, you'll get a pass. And if you respond in kind to that person but you might be perceived are less conforming, bye bye! Those mods act in a very un-Catholic fashion, and are a true embarrassment to the religion that they reputedly support.

Blackie said...

To accuse someone of sophistry is the same as accusing them of lying. Look up the definition in a dictionary. If you accused someone of that to their face you'd likely catch a mouth full of knuckles, so how is it not insulting to Catholics (on their own forum no less!) to have you make such a remark about Pope Benedict XVI?

As for all of you that have been banned and badmouth the CAF mods and admins...I've been a member there since November of 2004 and have seen every sort of anti-Catholic attack attack dog that has come along. Some of you have about zero concept of either Christian charity or common civility and the moderation at CAF has prevented it from sinking to chaotic trash levels of CARM and Yahoo's boards.

Oh yeah ChurchMouse...this is "the other CM". That's right...Church Militant from CAF.

PeaceByJesus said...

Yes, sophistry is deceit as in "subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation," (merriam-webster), which also abounds in Roman Catholicism, and which has made use of substantial forgeries.

However, neither pointing out as sophistry such things as exaggerated Prot. claims of deaths by the Inquisitions, nor attempts to minimize it does not itself mean one is showing contempt for the faith, versus contempt for sophistry.

But it is my experience that RCs are more prone to attack the motive or integrity of any anything that even implicitly impugns their church, even statistics .

david ruiz said...

Just got banned today, after almost two years, and they let me say pretty much anything, but with charity-how else could one approach them. Forgot to put quotes on a quotation.got suspended. Then a buddy at work joined, just to check it out( same computer)and i couldn't help but help him out with some threads.Got caught and am banned now, for suspension circumvention. Enjoyed it ,learned a lot, but was very addicted. Hi PRmerger-enjoyed the journey. Sorry I wasn't more careful. Blessings

Yeshua ha mashiack deciple said...

there is ALWAYS 2 sides to the story not saying that you are lying but I'm sure there's more to it than what you are saying. I'm a recent convert from Baptist to Catholic from much studying the New Testament... and it's amazing how many lies I was told about the Catholic Church growing up. pray and Trust in Christ because Christ leads those who love him into all truth!!! :-)

PeaceByJesus said...

I have no idea of what the lies were, but there are so many unScriptural things Rome has taught (from sanctioning the torture of theological dissidents to hindering Biblical literacy, etc.) but changed on, and does teach (from praying to the departed to purgatory, to declaring herself assuredly infallible etc.) that no lies are necessary.

And Rome herself has made use of extensive forgeries (http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/forgeries.html) to provide what Scripture does not.

What the basis (Scripture, etc.) for your assurance that Rome is the one true church?

Ranger Bill said...

When I frist found Catholic Answers several years ago, I was elated. At last a place to go for answers to tough questions. Well I've asked several question over the years and have never gotten a answer! I have one now. What is the feeling toward "One World Order"? I heard that our Pope is in favor of it. Could I get an answer or reply please. You can also contact me at poetranger234@hotmail.com "God Bless"

PeaceByJesus said...

Well, Rome has spoken many things, much of is open to some interpretation and some change, one example being sanction by papal bull etc., of torture to extract confessions from theological opponents, while another pope later on (after Rome lost her use of the sword of men) utterly forbade it.

As regards a OWO, of course she is in favor of it, as this would be consistent with her history, as Rome claims universal jurisdiction and of coercive power over her own.

And as can no longer do so as before, she writes appeals which leave (true to form) are somewhat vague and provides much that supports a OWO:

ENCYCLICAL LETTER CARITAS IN VERITATE

67. To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago...

such an authority would need to be universally recognized and to be vested with the effective power to ensure security for all, regard for justice, and respect for rights. Obviously it would have to have the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties..

They also require the construction of a social order that at last conforms to the moral order,..as envisaged by the Charter of the United Nations.”

Anonymous said...

Limerickman here :
I'm a CAF member.

CAF moderators are a trigger happy bunch.
I've exchanged messages with a moderator called Robert Bay.

Robert Bay likes to throw his weight around on CAF website.

Little Shepherd Girl said...

As a faithful Catholic who can reason out the very real existence of Purgatory based on Scripture, I too have been "banned" from various "Catholic" sites. Please keep in mind that such vague words as "disrespect" have no bearing in Catholic Theology, and bottom line commercial entities such as Catholic Answers and Catholic Match have no authority to speak officially for the Church. I used to post on Catholic Match forums regarding the limits of Papal infallibility only to get censured by some naive twit for "undermining" Papal authority.

Anonymous said...

The Rules for CAF are as follows.

#1 Mormons are evil, any collective derogatory remarks towards Mormons are welcomed

#2 Jews are always victims, at no time, in any time in the history of the world,
has a Jew ever done anything wrong to anyone. All Catholics are commanded by the Mods at CAF to lick the boot straps of the Jews at the Jewish Command. This includes Christian hating Talmudic Jews as well. Steven Spielberg, will decide, when these commands take place.

#3 Protestants are all evil whores, who by the loss of the grace of Jesus Christ will burn in hell for all eternity. (It should be noted, that Jews are not included in this)

#4 Contempt to Catholicism, includes, questioning why you do not feel God's presence in your life, being critical of prayer and any disbelief in church teachings, is punishable by banning

#5 Jews are all victims, and all Catholics will be required to lick their boot straps and do the bidding of their Jewish masters, because they are Jesus's favorites.

#6 TOR browsers are great proxy servers

Little Shepherd Girl said...

Churchmouse - first of all, the moderators on Catholic Answers Forums do not moderate officially for "the Catholic Faith". No educated Catholic would give them any sense of "infallibility". A lot of them are just as ignorant about the Catholic faith as you are. I have been banned, not from Catholic Answers forums, but from other so-called "Catholic" forums, just for articulating the Catholic faith, as officially preserved from the time of Christ. For example, I could respond to you on Catholic Answers Forums, proved that the teaching on Purgatory has not "evolved" or "changed" as you imply, documented this with the writings of the early Church Fathers, and Holy Scripture quotes specifically referring to saved DECEASED (not dead as in damned) souls still being in a place of purgation (i.e., later referred to as "purgatory") . But if I, on that forum, questioned your interest in coming on a Catholic forum to cast doubt on the Catholic faith (faith does NOT equal the pope, faith equals the doctrines/faith system/ set of truths he preserves from Christ, such as "Purgatory", or a post death place of purgation,) they would probably censor me for not being "ecumenical" enough to you. Keep in mind, this would be just be a sincere question to you, "Why are you doing this?" It would not be a subjective judgement against you. I am really curious - because I have no desire to go on Protestant forums, to question, for example, belief in "Altar Calls" or being "slayed in the Spirit" or "Bible only" "Private Discernment - All scripture is easy to understand" (When did Christ teach any of this?) - unless they are knocking MY Catholic Church on THEIR forum. If you want to stay out of the land of bias, avoid social forums, and learn what the Catholic Church really teaches, go right to official Church documents, Papal encyclicals that carry some weight, not just the fallible meanderings of any Pope. And if its a real, fair, respectful, educated debate you want, most of the apologists on the Catholic Answers website itself get their faith correctly, and then you can have a real debate with them, instead of toying with other so-called Catholics who don't even know their own faith, as if that proves the faith system they don't even know - "wrong". By the way, I have never found anybody on Catholic social forums that calls "all Mormons evil", or says Protestants are "evil whores", or says that "Jews are ALL victims". In fact, I am 49, a cradle Catholic, and NEVER MET a Catholic, of any ilk, ever, who talked like that. That sounds like something out of a reverse anti-Catholic Jack Chick publication, that some protestants spread around ("Nuns are burning babies in ovens.") I have perused CAF quite a bit and am not calling you intellectually dishonest, but not quite getting you - could you please provide evidence?

PeaceByJesus said...

The moderator needs to understand that Ratzinger's writings are in the public forum and open to criticism. That's just the way it is.

But the CA version is that YOU needs to understand that Ratzinger's writings are in the public forum and thus are NOT open to criticism by a Protestant, and to do so makes you subject to the CA Inquisition.

Little Shepherd Girl said,

If you want to stay out of the land of bias, avoid social forums, and learn what the Catholic Church really teaches, go right to official Church documents

But that is just what RCs see formal divisions over. As one poster wryly said,

The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. — Nathan, http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html

And let me also helpfully say that not employing paragraphs in a 500 word post effectively banns them from being read. .

other so-called Catholics who don't even know their own faith, as if that proves the faith system they don't even know - "wrong". By the way, I have never found anybody on Catholic social forums that calls "all Mormons evil", or says Protestants are "evil whores", or says that "Jews are ALL victims". In fact, I am 49, a cradle Catholic, and NEVER MET a Catholic, of any ilk, ever, who talked like that.

Then your posting experience is rather limited or you are ignoring equivalents to your examples, even if sometimes with the qualifier "almost all." I could provide examples that broadly describe Protestantism as,

belief in one’s self,
a bizarre and false religion,
absolutely alien to Christianity, and that,
that completely rejects Christ,
and needs to to take responsibility for same-sex marriages
made up of people that are mostly Biblically illiterate,
intellectually dishonest,
who have no foundation for their understanding of Christianity, and
who have a perpetual guilt trip, and
are evil fruit, who don’t have the Holy Spirit, and
are not part of the Body of Christ, and
that Protestants will not be saved unless they become a member of the Catholic Church, and
are by inclination vandals who should be purged from the face of the earth,
and thanking God that the Spanish Inquisition was up to the job.

But that Catholics never put down or challenge beliefs from protestants, and that,
there never has been a bit of anti-protestant bigotry on the forum (after 15 years),
and that they have never seen a Catholic teaching proven false.

Moreover, i can also attest that RCs are the most reactionary to anything that impugns their church, even charging orgs like Pew research with anti-Catholic bias.

The arrogant immature wannebe Inquisitors at Catholic Answers example the insolent elitism and recalcitrant character of conservative Rome, though CA also banns its most conservative posters who expose the contrasts btwn past and modern RC teaching, though they are both promote damming deceptings that have tragically made Rome as the great gates of Hell for multitudes.

PeaceByJesus said...

Perhaps its time that you devote yourself to this blog-- or maybe at James Swan's Beggars All.

Or here by God's grace.

Little Shepherd Girl said...

Dear Peace by Jesus,

You quote me, then prove my points.

You quote me as saying if you want to avoid the land of bias, avoid social forums, then you go to the land of bias to quote a "poster", as if that person speaks officially for the Roman Catholic Church.

Then, you quoted me as saying I have never met a person on social forums who made gross subjective blanket statements against all Mormons, Jews and Protestants, as if all these people are evil. (Let me add that I have never met any Catholic who did that either, and I am 49 and very social, in and out of the Catholic Church.) When you gave your examples to refute my statement, the examples you used were not blanket condemnations of all people within those groups, and most of the remarks you used are criticism of Protestantism, not Protestants. Hard to tell. They're all out of context. Finally, let me add here, that none of the posts you are using are representative of what the Catholic Church really teaches anyway, which proves my other point, once again, that most of these Catholic posters don't even know what they are talking about, and have probably joined social forums just to argue, rather than learn about their faith or teach it to others. Is that what you do? If I wanted to learn about another faith system, I would not go to a social forum, to find out what that faith system teaches as truth. Catholicism is a set of doctrines,which are not subject to change by individual interpretation, (like Protestantism) or the personal teachings of any priest or pope. For example, the Roman Catholic Church officially teaches that everybody that is baptized is a member of The Body of Christ, that includes most Protestants, and this is based on the Doctrine of Baptism,( Doctrine = preserved teaching from the time of Christ) not the personal opinion of a Catholic poster on a social forum, or any priest or prelate.

Little Shepherd Girl said...

Churchmouse, as well, as Blackie said, to accuse someone of "sophistry", purposely deceptive arguing, is to make a subjective judgement of a person, rather than making any intellectual argument against the doctrines that person is defending. The official apologists on Catholic Answers (not on the social forums) speak only of other religions claims against the Catholic faith, defending the teachings of Catholicism as coming from Christ. Catholic apologists do not attack the character or motivation of individual Protestant leaders, or any individual protestants.

PeaceByJesus said...

You quote me, then prove my points. You quote me as saying if you want to avoid the land of bias, avoid social forums, then you go to the land of bias to quote a "poster", as if that person speaks officially for the Roman Catholic Church.

Rather then prove your bias point, i refuted your basic premise that going to official Church documents is what the "biased" RCs you censor (as not not even knowing their own faith) do not do, as well as Churchmouse, in contrast to you who articulate the Catholic faith, as officially preserved from the time of Christ.

For as multitudes of traditional RCs as well as their liberal counterparts can show you, their disputes are taken from historical doctrinal RC teaching. It is because of the contrasts btwn past historical doctrinal RC teaching and that of modern V2 Rome then you have SSPX type sects, formal or not,

For example, the Roman Catholic Church officially teaches that everybody that is baptized is a member of The Body of Christ, that includes most Protestants, and this is based on the Doctrine of Baptism,( Doctrine = preserved teaching from the time of Christ) not the personal opinion of a Catholic poster on a social forum, or any priest or prelate.

Actually, that is a classic example of interpretation, as it must be reconciled in the light of past ex cathedra.teaching on EENS which damns at least most Protestants. Thus some read Lumen Gentium as only applying to "invincibly ignorant" souls, not any who know of the claims of Rome to be the one true church, but sincerely do not know them as being true, due to contrary testimony from Scripture.

There is also disagreement over the meaning of other RC teachings to varying degrees. and even which ones are infallible, or parts thereof, as well as the magisterial level other teachings fall under and thus their authority, and whether any dissent is allowed and in what manner.

One Catholic camp sees so much modern RC teaching as being at variance with historical RC teaching, and dissent in part from V2. Seeking to avoiding this, another RC camp holds to historical teaching that the one duty of the laity is that of simply following the pastors as docile sheep, and are not to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching by their own examination of the basis for it (thus calling traditional RCs "Protestant" who do so and dissent in part from V2). And indeed, the hearers of the word look for its meaning by how the preachers translate it into action.

And Scripturally, what constitutes the reality of one really believes and teaches is not what they say, but what they do and effect.(Ja,. 2:18; Mt. 7:20) And even very liberal RCs as proabortion, prosodmite public figures are treated as members by here in life and in death.

Thus whether RCs admit it or not, the reality is that, while they condemn evangelicals for "private interpretation" (erroneously interpreting 2Pt. 1:20 as censoring that) of their supreme authoritative source (Scripture) of Truth, so do they engage in the same of their supreme authority on Truth, or render implicit cultic submission such as Alphonsus de Liguor advocated for the Religious.

Though RCs are no longer forbidden under penalty of excommunication to engage in public debate over matters of faith, both camps are seen doing so in forums, and which example how interpretative RC teaching can be. And the mods at Catholic Answers can only wish Rome was as censorious as they. Indeed, i think many long for days of the Inquisition, when obedience to the pope could mean torturing suspected "heretics" or witnesses, and exterminating (to be burned) such from the land.

Martin Bobinac said...

Mr. churchmouse; I 2 have been banned from various Cath. sites that I've never even been on.I start to register & get told that me,Darth Vader & Lucifer are not welcome 2 initiate a conversation. Hows that work, anyway ? Does our reputation precede us or does the robot algorythem consult the Vatican weegie mainframe & decide 2 exclude my genotype because one of my ancestors irritated Pope Boniface and I've been racially profiled as a probable Thought Criminal (how George Orwell {1984}is that?) Didn't some really xcool early Christian say,"REJOICE when men slander U & speak all manner of nastiness about U" Really enjoy UR thinkin' pardner. Pax

Little Shepherd Girl said...

Don't know if I have been "banned" from this site, for refuting Peace by Jesus's claims. Let me reiterate, in a more brief way, to insure the publication of my post. Catholicism is a set of unchanging doctrines. There is no point in pointing out the "hypocrisy" or "disagreements" of Roman Catholics, Peace by Jesus, or Churchmouse. To say RC's disagree on public forums, or interpret official dogma differently, does not disprove that Catholicism is a set of unchanging doctrines, only defined in very strict and unchanging terms. Vatican II did not change any unchangeable doctrines, though it's language was more ambiguous. This is because many liberal clerics who sat at the council wanted to make the unchanging faith seem palatable to Protestants. Private interpretation of scripture can only disintegrate and divide, as your religion has, into many different sects, where each person, including all of you, becomes their own "infallible" re- interpreter of Christ's words. The Holy Spirit on the other hand, was only promised to a slect few, a Church, not everyone reading the book that that Church put together, and the Holy Spirit cannot contradict Himself, with different interpretations of scripture, and still be promised to each person of good will sitting in an armchair reading the good book. This would violate the natural law of noncontradiction. If you want evidence for how all the dogmas were originally interpreted by the first Christians, go back to the ancient liturgy of the Mass, which was always the main means for preserving dogma. These interpretations are supported by the earliest writings of the Church Fathers, and taught the same way, only by the Catholic Church. There can only be one way, one truth and one light. If you want to argue against Catholicism, instead of this childish Roman Catholic person bashing, you have to start with this basic premise, that truth cannot change, and prove your relativism as even possible.

Anonymous said...

Dear shepherd girl,I love Mother Church. I love Jesus & the GOD in Isiah who said "come,let us reason, together". I'm agaist abortion & 4 birth control. Using the one can lower the really grave sin. Vatican policy says shame on me. Honesty & prayer makes me abide w/my opinion.I'll answer to the LORD. So be it. Better a condom than a crack baby with 30 days of pain before it dies of disease & defects.

Martin Bobinac said...

Oops,sorry ! I'm not anonymous, I didn't know where 2 put my name. I'm pastor marty. Love 2 chat godzonetruth@gmail@com

Little Shepherd Girl said...

Anonymous,
I respect your right to be "4" birth control. But that is only YOUR "infallible" opinion. No traditional CHRISTIANITY ever taught that killing a baby through abortion is a "worse" sin then playing God: attempting to change the main reason God created the reproduction system in the first place, to reproduce. All Christian denominations, prior to the early 1900's, believed that creating or not creating life, with a human soul attached to it, through the sexual act He created for that purpose, is God's perogative, and God's perogative alone. The child conceived is never guilty because of the parent's sin, and a condom user can be said to only hide, prevent the evidence, and escape the responsibilities of using a woman he does not wish to marry for his own self gratification. The prohibition against birth control is not "Vatican policy", nor does the Catholic Church cast "shame" on anyone. If the ancient prohibitions against birth control preserved from Christ, that the Catholic Church still follows, shame you, your beef IS with the Lord, not the Catholic Church. If you believe in life after death, those created, conceived aborted babies at least have a home forever with Jesus, as well as all the crack babies who "suffer", yet can experience joy and being loved before they die. Who says you have more of a right to come into existence, to live and love, than a suffering crack baby - what makes you think your protestant soul is more valuable in the eyes of God?

 
Who links to my website?