|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Feb 26, 2024 4:32:40 GMT
www.chick.com/battle-cry/article?id=Roman-Catholicisms-Disconnect-From-the-Scriptures-Is-Increasingly-ClearNone of this comes as any surprise whatsoever to me. Francis's words and actions just give these folks grist for their mills. I just got curious to see what an anti-Catholicism (not "anti-Catholic", they don't hate Catholics, just their religion) ministry such as Chick Publications has to say about recent events in the Church. Those who are "Francis no matter what" have much to consider, but I suppose they can take solace in disregarding what fundamentalist Christians have to say, because they're wrong and the Church cannot err, so we shouldn't care what biblical fundamentalists think... right?And just to clarify, while I find myself in unwitting and unintended agreement with fundamentalists on some issues, where their views coincide with those of traditional Catholicism, and run counter to the novelties proposed in recent years by those who call themselves Catholics, I do not believe that homosexuality (the unwanted orientation, not the freely chosen activity, two different things) is always a free choice. And as to the "wafer god" business, yes, Our Lord does remain with us physically and incarnate, under the appearances of bread and wine, and if the fundamentalists would read John 6:53 as literally as they do other portions of the Bible, they would know this. I have to think that this what He meant, when He said "I will be with you all days, even unto the end of the world".
|
|
|
|
Post by farronwolf on Feb 26, 2024 15:22:11 GMT
The article seems like complete nonsense to me.
Mentioning the Pope, then sliding into what other people or organizations are putting forth.
What does Agenda 2030 have to do with the anti christ? Nothing.
Most "fundamentalist" display hypocrisy at its best, maybe they don't know the Bible as well as they think they do, or maybe it is the pick and choose what you want the Bible to say that are relying on.
|
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Feb 26, 2024 15:28:17 GMT
The article seems like complete nonsense to me. Mentioning the Pope, then sliding into what other people or organizations are putting forth. What does Agenda 2030 have to do with the anti christ? Nothing. Most "fundamentalist" display hypocrisy at its best, maybe they don't know the Bible as well as they think they do, or maybe it is the pick and choose what you want the Bible to say that are relying on. I hope no one will take my sharing of this article as an endorsement of Chick Publications, nor of everything they say, much of which is, as you well note, nonsense. This does, however, illustrate how fundamentalists see Francis, and how, on this point or that, their views coincide with those of the Church before Francis came along. It brings to mind the adage that "even a broken clock is right twice a day". And as to the "wafer god", yes, fundamentalists, we do worship Him as Lord and God in the Blessed Sacrament. Deal with it. |
|
|
|
Post by farronwolf on Feb 26, 2024 16:01:37 GMT
The article seems like complete nonsense to me. Mentioning the Pope, then sliding into what other people or organizations are putting forth. What does Agenda 2030 have to do with the anti christ? Nothing. Most "fundamentalist" display hypocrisy at its best, maybe they don't know the Bible as well as they think they do, or maybe it is the pick and choose what you want the Bible to say that are relying on. I hope no one will take my sharing of this article as an endorsement of Chick Publications, nor of everything they say, much of which is, as you well note, nonsense. This does, however, illustrate how fundamentalists see Francis, and how, on this point or that, their views coincide with those of the Church before Francis came along. It brings to mind the adage that "even a broken clock is right twice a day". And as to the "wafer god", yes, fundamentalists, we do worship Him as Lord and God in the Blessed Sacrament. Deal with it. What does the Eucharist have to do with any of this. The article mentioned nothing of the matter. It mentioned gays/trans, abortion, new world order, but nothing of the Eucharist. Focus grasshopper. |
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Feb 26, 2024 17:05:21 GMT
I hope no one will take my sharing of this article as an endorsement of Chick Publications, nor of everything they say, much of which is, as you well note, nonsense. This does, however, illustrate how fundamentalists see Francis, and how, on this point or that, their views coincide with those of the Church before Francis came along. It brings to mind the adage that "even a broken clock is right twice a day". And as to the "wafer god", yes, fundamentalists, we do worship Him as Lord and God in the Blessed Sacrament. Deal with it. What does the Eucharist have to do with any of this. The article mentioned nothing of the matter. It mentioned gays/trans, abortion, new world order, but nothing of the Eucharist. Focus grasshopper. Third paragraph from the bottom. |
|
|
|
Post by farronwolf on Feb 26, 2024 19:02:37 GMT
Most of the churches who claim to be Bible-believing have bought the lie that Roman Catholicism is just another denomination with a somewhat different worship style. They choose to look the other way when Popes parade a wafer god in the streets and bow to a statue of a goddess that they call the Virgin Mary.
I don't take this to be anything about the Eucharist.
And again, this is nonsense. Most non Catholic religions seem to think that we worship Mary, and therefore would not be bowing to her in the first place, much less caring about what they consider a wafer, or what the Pope is doing.
Personally, why would anyone care what "fundamentalist" think in the first place, or even be interested in an article citing them?
|
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Feb 27, 2024 2:10:00 GMT
Most of the churches who claim to be Bible-believing have bought the lie that Roman Catholicism is just another denomination with a somewhat different worship style. They choose to look the other way when Popes parade a wafer god in the streets and bow to a statue of a goddess that they call the Virgin Mary.I don't take this to be anything about the Eucharist. And again, this is nonsense. Most non Catholic religions seem to think that we worship Mary, and therefore would not be bowing to her in the first place, much less caring about what they consider a wafer, or what the Pope is doing. Personally, why would anyone care what "fundamentalist" think in the first place, or even be interested in an article citing them? "Wafer god" is an epithet often used by Chick Publications, and possibly by other like-minded entities and individuals, to refer to the Blessed Sacrament. I would have thought that the meaning was obvious from the context. As to bowing to a statue of Our Lady, yes, it does "look" like worship, as the English-speaking world commonly understands that word, and there is a strong message in all three of the major Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) against falling down and worshiping a created thing as God. We know it's not, but the world outside of Catholicism and Catholic-adjacent Christian confessions such as the Orthodox and Anglicans doesn't quite "get it". I can understand why, and I do not feel badly towards them for not "getting it", not agreeing, just understanding. It requires some explanation. Indeed, I have the pet theory that "mother goddess worship" was an almost-universal theme of pagan religions, even if those religions didn't always parse and whittle down fine distinctions between worship, veneration, honor, seeking intercession, and so on (and polytheistic religions don't always understand "gods" in the same way we do, even if there is a "head honcho" such as Odin in Norse mythology or Krishna in Hinduism), and that the early Church embraced and refined devotion to Our Lady in answer to some sort of atavistic impulse to "worship" a source of life on this earth (or something like that). Unless one's background is extremely dysfunctional, a son or daughter always has a special and tender place in their heart for their mother. This seems to be just a part of the universal human condition (and can even be seen to some extent in higher animals). Long story short, Marian devotion is entirely consonant with the human condition, even if it tramples upon notions of "worship God and God alone, anything else is idolatry". Fundamentalists can't make this mental leap. So why should we care what fundamentalists think? Different people have different sensibilities, but these are mine, and I think they're well-grounded: - Whether we like it or not, fundamentalist Protestantism is a dumbed-down, simple-to-understand, incredibly appealing (if you don't mind giving up alcohol or extramarital sex) mutation of Christianity, and it's far easier for a person of average intelligence to embrace, than Catholicism. Accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, presto, you are right with God from now on, and you are guaranteed heaven. Some take it so far as to say that "once saved, always saved", no matter what you do after that moment of making that profession. Fundamentalists seem always to be upbeat and chipper with a perpetual smile on their faces. If I though that my salvation were guaranteed for life, no matter what, I'd be pretty bubbly too. What's not to like?
- Which leads to my next point. It's a simple, easy religion that brings happiness to its adherent. Catholics these days generally don't know Jack about their Faith, and all it takes, is for one Bible-savvy fundamentalist to come along, smell the Catholic on them, whip out argument after argument, destroy their Faith, get them to "accept Jesus", and win them over to the fundamentalist brand of Christianity.
- If we're no good at defending our Faith, then they win. If a Catholic doesn't know their Faith, and know it well (I strongly recommend reading the whole Bible, word for word, I've done it), then all they have is "I really don't know, I can't explain Point X, but I trust the Church, and this is what I was always taught, it is my Faith". Catholics have to be able to do better than that.
- Those fundamentalists need conversion too. We can't convert them if we don't understand how they think.
- Truth always needs to be defended, and error always needs to be refuted.
I could probably think of others.
|
|
|
|
Post by farronwolf on Feb 27, 2024 3:00:33 GMT
Personally, why would anyone care what "fundamentalist" think in the first place, or even be interested in an article citing them? "Wafer god" is an epithet often used by Chick Publications, and possibly by other like-minded entities and individuals, to refer to the Blessed Sacrament. I would have thought that the meaning was obvious from the context. As to bowing to a statue of Our Lady, yes, it does "look" like worship, as the English-speaking world commonly understands that word, and there is a strong message in all three of the major Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) against falling down and worshiping a created thing as God. We know it's not, but the world outside of Catholicism and Catholic-adjacent Christian confessions such as the Orthodox and Anglicans doesn't quite "get it". I can understand why, and I do not feel badly towards them for not "getting it", not agreeing, just understanding. It requires some explanation. Indeed, I have the pet theory that "mother goddess worship" was an almost-universal theme of pagan religions, even if those religions didn't always parse and whittle down fine distinctions between worship, veneration, honor, seeking intercession, and so on (and polytheistic religions don't always understand "gods" in the same way we do, even if there is a "head honcho" such as Odin in Norse mythology or Krishna in Hinduism), and that the early Church embraced and refined devotion to Our Lady in answer to some sort of atavistic impulse to "worship" a source of life on this earth (or something like that). Unless one's background is extremely dysfunctional, a son or daughter always has a special and tender place in their heart for their mother. This seems to be just a part of the universal human condition (and can even be seen to some extent in higher animals). Long story short, Marian devotion is entirely consonant with the human condition, even if it tramples upon notions of "worship God and God alone, anything else is idolatry". Fundamentalists can't make this mental leap. So why should we care what fundamentalists think? Different people have different sensibilities, but these are mine, and I think they're well-grounded: - Whether we like it or not, fundamentalist Protestantism is a dumbed-down, simple-to-understand, incredibly appealing (if you don't mind giving up alcohol or extramarital sex) mutation of Christianity, and it's far easier for a person of average intelligence to embrace, than Catholicism. Accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, presto, you are right with God from now on, and you are guaranteed heaven. Some take it so far as to say that "once saved, always saved", no matter what you do after that moment of making that profession. Fundamentalists seem always to be upbeat and chipper with a perpetual smile on their faces. If I though that my salvation were guaranteed for life, no matter what, I'd be pretty bubbly too. What's not to like?
- Which leads to my next point. It's a simple, easy religion that brings happiness to its adherent. Catholics these days generally don't know Jack about their Faith, and all it takes, is for one Bible-savvy fundamentalist to come along, smell the Catholic on them, whip out argument after argument, destroy their Faith, get them to "accept Jesus", and win them over to the fundamentalist brand of Christianity.
- If we're no good at defending our Faith, then they win. If a Catholic doesn't know their Faith, and know it well (I strongly recommend reading the whole Bible, word for word, I've done it), then all they have is "I really don't know, I can't explain Point X, but I trust the Church, and this is what I was always taught, it is my Faith". Catholics have to be able to do better than that.
- Those fundamentalists need conversion too. We can't convert them if we don't understand how they think.
- Truth always needs to be defended, and error always needs to be refuted.
I could probably think of others.
My conversations with fundamentalists are pretty short usually. Who started your church? And what did they come to know a thousand or more years after Jesus left this earth? Humm. You can't drink alcohol, really. What was Christ's first miracle? Yes, turning water into wine, and no it wasn't grape juice because most of the water without alcohol to kill the microbes in that day would kill you. Ya'll can get divorced and remarried, but the Bible clearly says that is adultery. Once saved always saved, really? You simply have to accept Christ as your Lord and Savior and you are guaranteed a place in Heaven. Have you ever told a lie, have you sinned since being "saved". How do you know you didn't lie when you accepted Christ, if you sinned after accepting Him? How do you get re saved since the Bible clearly says that Apostles have the power to forgive sins. Fundamentalist don't have the truth and never will. And just because their religion gives them a good feeling about themselves, and is easy to follow doesn't mean much. Dope heads feel good about themselves too, but I wouldn't consider them worth considering their opinions. |
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Feb 27, 2024 11:56:52 GMT
"Wafer god" is an epithet often used by Chick Publications, and possibly by other like-minded entities and individuals, to refer to the Blessed Sacrament. I would have thought that the meaning was obvious from the context. As to bowing to a statue of Our Lady, yes, it does "look" like worship, as the English-speaking world commonly understands that word, and there is a strong message in all three of the major Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) against falling down and worshiping a created thing as God. We know it's not, but the world outside of Catholicism and Catholic-adjacent Christian confessions such as the Orthodox and Anglicans doesn't quite "get it". I can understand why, and I do not feel badly towards them for not "getting it", not agreeing, just understanding. It requires some explanation. Indeed, I have the pet theory that "mother goddess worship" was an almost-universal theme of pagan religions, even if those religions didn't always parse and whittle down fine distinctions between worship, veneration, honor, seeking intercession, and so on (and polytheistic religions don't always understand "gods" in the same way we do, even if there is a "head honcho" such as Odin in Norse mythology or Krishna in Hinduism), and that the early Church embraced and refined devotion to Our Lady in answer to some sort of atavistic impulse to "worship" a source of life on this earth (or something like that). Unless one's background is extremely dysfunctional, a son or daughter always has a special and tender place in their heart for their mother. This seems to be just a part of the universal human condition (and can even be seen to some extent in higher animals). Long story short, Marian devotion is entirely consonant with the human condition, even if it tramples upon notions of "worship God and God alone, anything else is idolatry". Fundamentalists can't make this mental leap. So why should we care what fundamentalists think? Different people have different sensibilities, but these are mine, and I think they're well-grounded: - Whether we like it or not, fundamentalist Protestantism is a dumbed-down, simple-to-understand, incredibly appealing (if you don't mind giving up alcohol or extramarital sex) mutation of Christianity, and it's far easier for a person of average intelligence to embrace, than Catholicism. Accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, presto, you are right with God from now on, and you are guaranteed heaven. Some take it so far as to say that "once saved, always saved", no matter what you do after that moment of making that profession. Fundamentalists seem always to be upbeat and chipper with a perpetual smile on their faces. If I though that my salvation were guaranteed for life, no matter what, I'd be pretty bubbly too. What's not to like?
- Which leads to my next point. It's a simple, easy religion that brings happiness to its adherent. Catholics these days generally don't know Jack about their Faith, and all it takes, is for one Bible-savvy fundamentalist to come along, smell the Catholic on them, whip out argument after argument, destroy their Faith, get them to "accept Jesus", and win them over to the fundamentalist brand of Christianity.
- If we're no good at defending our Faith, then they win. If a Catholic doesn't know their Faith, and know it well (I strongly recommend reading the whole Bible, word for word, I've done it), then all they have is "I really don't know, I can't explain Point X, but I trust the Church, and this is what I was always taught, it is my Faith". Catholics have to be able to do better than that.
- Those fundamentalists need conversion too. We can't convert them if we don't understand how they think.
- Truth always needs to be defended, and error always needs to be refuted.
I could probably think of others.
My conversations with fundamentalists are pretty short usually. Who started your church? And what did they come to know a thousand or more years after Jesus left this earth? Humm. You can't drink alcohol, really. What was Christ's first miracle? Yes, turning water into wine, and no it wasn't grape juice because most of the water without alcohol to kill the microbes in that day would kill you. Ya'll can get divorced and remarried, but the Bible clearly says that is adultery. Once saved always saved, really? You simply have to accept Christ as your Lord and Savior and you are guaranteed a place in Heaven. Have you ever told a lie, have you sinned since being "saved". How do you know you didn't lie when you accepted Christ, if you sinned after accepting Him? How do you get re saved since the Bible clearly says that Apostles have the power to forgive sins. Fundamentalist don't have the truth and never will. And just because their religion gives them a good feeling about themselves, and is easy to follow doesn't mean much. Dope heads feel good about themselves too, but I wouldn't consider them worth considering their opinions. You take your approach, and I'll take mine, but even though I hope it's turned out otherwise, I seriously doubt assertions such as you cite have ever caused a single fundamentalist to stop and think "hey, maybe I'm not right after all". Any halfway-savvy fundamentalist, who has read even a little bit of Josh McDowell, John Ankerberg, or even the more civilized offerings of Jack Chick and company, will come back with an efficient answer to each one of these points. In days gone by, Catholics just memorized their Baltimore Catechism, and were discouraged from getting in conversations with non-Catholics about religion, and it all rested upon authority, "what I was always taught", and "I don't know, but I'll go ask my priest". That's no way to live the Faith. It may be all that simple, uneducated people are capable of, but educated, faithful Catholics such as those who write on forums like this one, can do so much more. Once in college --- and I knew my Faith quite well then, not as well as I do now, but I'd read every Catholic book I could get my hands on for over five years (it's now been over forty-five!) --- I was challenged on some point I don't remember by a committed fundamentalist fellow-student, and I was left stammering, "well... I don't know... I'll have to go look it up...", and let's just put it this way, I don't think he was sitting there thinking "oh, how wonderful, he's going to go get me an answer, wait, I know, I bet he'll go ask his priest, that'll settle everything, how silly I've been, to think for myself, instead of becoming part of a Church where the members don't have to be able to answer objections, why, they just go ask an expert what's the what, sign me up right now!". I said to myself "I'm not going to let that happen again!", and spent the next three-and-a-half years reading the entire Bible (all 73 books), word-for-word, very slowly, re-reading many of those 73 books, taking notes which I still have to this day. Like it or not, we as Catholics have this juggernaut of a alternative religious movement calling itself Christian, being firmly in command of their (incomplete) Bible, offering a simple, satisfying alternative to the "strong meat" of Catholicism, and it's a challenge we either have to accept, or "just let slide" and allow them to "evangelize" more weak, uneducated Catholics than can be counted. Some fights you can't just run from, for when you run, they win. |
|
