Friday, March 23, 2007

The Super-Secret REAL Teachings of the Catholic Church

Ok fellow Catholics, it's time to fess up.

Let's all pull out our Super-Secret decoder rings, and the hidden handbook (all written in Latin so no one else can understand, of course) and admit to what we REALLY believe, but pretend not to with all those faux "official documents of the Church".

You know what we really believe...that the Pope is more important than Christ Himself, that he can change scripture all he wants and we accept it gladly. (Not quite sure why he hasn't taken out some of those pesky verses as of yet, all that "call no man father" stuff and "doctrine of demons" stuff that describes us so well!)

That Mary is above God in our eyes (since She's His Mother, after all!)

That reading scripture is dangerous, and we're not really allowed to unless a priest reads it to us so he can tell us what it REALLY means, especially when it seems so obviously contrary to Catholic teaching (the REAL Catholic teaching, you know).

That priests are the most powerful and magical people on Earth, and it's necessary to treat them as such.

That Christ needs to bend His will in accordance with His Blessed Mother's.

Come on guys...we've been outed, it's time to admit it!

68 comments:

kate said...

Oh no!!! Our secret is out!! Did they get the secret handshake too?

I can't believe they're taking that stupid thing seriously! Yu don't even have to be Catholic to see that it's heretical nonsense!

Anonymous said...

Stephanie,

You also need to tell the world that the Catholic Church plotted the murder of Abraham Lincoln and wanted to overthorw the US government.

Tell the world about the monks who make beer in Spain so as to sell it to people who will become alcoholics, then once they are addicted the money keeps rolling in.

Tell the world about how the Knights of Columbus are the pope's hit men.

Don't forget you secretly worship the pope as God himself.

Hmmm. Let's see.

I got this all from O.C.Lambert's book "Catholicism Against Itself"- a good sound Church of Christ preacher's book, so you know you have been found out. :P


BH

jd said...

What are you doing at preachers files still? You know better than to take them seriously! :)

Sara said...

Don't forget that we lock rebellious women away in the convents so they can "service" the priests!

Anonymous said...

JD,

Don't forget that the Catholic Church burned so many billions and billions of people at the stake to this day the dust from all those bodies flying around drives French and Italian housewives crazy trying to keep the furniture dust free. ;P

Now, back to Preacher's Follies.


BH

Stephanie said...

BH....I'm sorry, but as a non-Catholic, I think you know too much...you might want to be extra cautious the next time you leave your house.

Stephanie said...

Lol, jd, I'm just havin' some fun ;-)

Stephanie said...

LOL Sara!!!

Sara said...

Stephanie--I think we're going to have to "take care of" BH, if you know what I mean ;-)

Stephanie said...

Yep...you bring the rosary to strangle him with (convenient disguise for a weapon, eh?) and I'll hold him down.

Mark said...

I think that we should send a request to Rome to encourage the PF's to use contraception.

Sara said...

I've got you covered on the rosary front. I'm making one now and I'll make sure it's extra strong :) You got a supply of holy water for cleaning up the evidence?

Anonymous said...

You better not come after me. Me and my friends in high places will produce the real and used tampon belonging to none other than Pope Joan herself so as to expose your evil even more!


BH

Stephanie said...

LOL!!! Eeeeewwww! Wow...didn't know they had tampons way back then...the wonders never cease, the things the Church has kept hidden!

jdavidb said...

Sorry, Mark. I'm from PF and have had four children in three years of marriage (counting the twins who are due to be born in August, Lord willing), and we're not done, yet. :)

Stephanie said...

Wow jdavidb, you've certainly been blessed!

Cheryl said...

You guys have decoder rings and hidden handbooks???

NOT FAIR!!!!!!11!11one1!

I am so signing up for RCIA *right now*.

(hee! Luv ya Steph!)

Stephanie said...

;-D

Kasia said...

Hey, Stephanie, you don't need to 'take care' of BH. The albino monks from Opus Dei will do that for you. Just turn on your big monk spotlight...they'll see the need and swoop right in! ;-)

Man. My sister must be feeling REALLY bummed, that she's been a Catholic convert for 15 years and they still haven't told her about this. Especially the "every priest is more important than Mary" bit...I thought Catholics were supposed to be Mary-worshippers?

Stephanie said...

Ah, good point about the albino monks...and we mustn't forget the Jesuits!!

I know, the priest worshipping is a well kept secret...that's why we kneel and bow at mass, you know, it's to worship the priest.

Aren't you glad you found all this out so you know what you're REALLY getting into?!?!

Thomas J. said...

I'm wondering how you making fun of them is any different than them making fun of you?

I am perplexed at why you remain so obsessed with the PF dialogue anyway. I mean, they seem really stuck in what they beleive, and are VERY unlikely to change (they are getting too much satisfaction from being "right".

It seems to me that your constant return to their diatribes, and validating it by posting about it on your blog simply reinforces to them how much power they have over YOU.

I think that it may be better to change focus. . .spend your energies elsewhere. Spending time getting amused, bemused, or even puffed up by their ludicrousness seems to be the same that they do with the denomination du jour.

I think that you are better than that, and you DESERVE better than that. Don't stoop to their lowness.

((((((((((Steph)))))))))))))))

Stephanie said...

I don't see them making fun of me. I see much worse than that...I see them so bent on villianizing my beliefs that they are willing to believe obvious monstrocities about them. I would never do that to them. I would have enough respect to ask THEM what they believe, what their church teaches, and to believe them when they tell me. I would never stoop so low as to mock their faith, and I don't believe I've ever done so...but when it comes to such far fetched ideas about what I believe, I'm sorry, I can either get upset about what they say, or laugh it off. I chose to do the latter, and share it with people who can appreciate the humor, especially those who have to deal with similar preposterous beliefs about Catholicism on a regular basis.

I hardly consider myself obsessed. I hadn't stopped over there in quite a while, I just happened to glance over quickly and see the silly post, and thought I'd have some fun. If I were obsessed, I'd get upset about it rather than deal with it as light heartedly as I did.

The reason I mention it at all is, as I believe I've tried to explain before, to hopefully point out to any lurkers just how ludicrous it is, and I figured why not do so in a fun and entertaining way?

I think maybe you have a misperception of just how much I read over there and/or care about what they say. I can assure you they are rarely on my mind. In case you haven't noticed, lol, my "claim to fame" so to speak is all things CoC/Catholic related...when I see something having to do with this, I usually mention it, regardless of where it comes from. If I see something there, I'll mention it. Not because I'm obsessed, or because they have any "power" over me, simply because the subject is related to my "area of expertise" if I could call it that. That's what my blog is all about!

My nature is such that I tend to stick with what I know and talk about what I know. This is part of me, and it's not going to stop being part of me any time soon, so if anyone is expecting me to stop talking about the topic in general, they're probably going to be disappointed! ;-)

The bottom line is, there is a big difference in what I am doing and what they are doing. They actually believe the worst about people of other faiths, they believe if someone hears what they have to say and don't agree, they're ill intentioned, don't love God enough, don't really want to know truth, etc...when they "joke" about something, it's not funny because they usually actually mean it. It's NOT a joke to them, that's what is so sad...the difference is I'll never assume ill intent on someone's part. I may flippantly point out what seems like ignorance brought on by anti-Catholic bias, but I would never assume that someone "knows better" and/or "doesn't love God" enough to admit the truth, etc. I will never make judgements like that, that is the low to which I will never stoop.

I don't, however consider having some fun with obviously absurd ideas about my faith as particularly low. What I consider to be much lower is that anyone could seriously entertain the idea that Catholic Christians could actually believe and profess such laughable (not to mention plainly heretical) statements. And I just don't see anything wrong with pointing this kind of thinking out.

So, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that subject!

Thomas J. said...

You remain really defensive anytime anyone challenges your ideas Stephanie.

I think in that, you and the folks at preacher's files are very much alike.

I think my point is that you are trying to beat them at their own game. Unfortunately you try to play by rules that they won't even play by themselves.

It just seems that frequently, when I come over here to read, there is something about how someone ELSE is wrong and you are right.

These people are foolish, blind, and closed minded. You will not change them. anyone who lurks over there will be able to see them for what they are, unless they share the same closed-mindedness.

The flavor of c of C that these folks belong to forges it's identity by focusing on how wrong the other guy is. That is something that I would hate to see you retain from your c of C heritage.

Stephanie said...

If by "defensive" you mean I don't see all viewpoints as equally valid and therefore challenge what I see as untruth, then sure. We have a fundamental disagreement about life that will always cause you to think I am "close minded" or "defensive" or some such thing...that is, I believe there is an absolute truth. That is part of my belief system. To ask me to renounce that is the same as asking me to renounce belief in God.

I will never understand why people think there is something wrong with pointing out factually wrong information. If I go somewhere and tell them, "Hey, did you know Thomas likes to eat babies?" you would have every right to say, "Um, excuse me, that's completely untrue!" Likewise, when someone says something FACTUALLY WRONG about Catholicism, I feel it is my right (and my duty) to say, "Um, excuse me, disagree with catholicism all you want, I'm not here to convert you...but you do need to know what you are disagreeing with. If you think that's what Catholicism teaches, you are utterly mistaken, and you're essentially disagreeing with a tall tale version of Catholicism, not the Real Thing."

If someone tells me I am defensive because I expect factually correct info about my beliefs, well I'm sorry but I just have to disagree.

Now...isn't it your stance that everyone can believe what they want and there's no one right way? Why, then, do you care what it is I say or don't say on my blog? I'm not really sure why it seems to bother you so much? How do you know this isn't good for me? What is "good" anyway?

I think it's unfair to compare what I've said about them to what they've said about other denominations. Do you see me going from denomination to denomination and focusing on all the things we disagree with? Absolutely not! Again, I focus on CoC-Catholic issues primarily! That's the point of my blog, that's my "ministry" if you will. If you can't see the difference between my POV and theirs, I don't think I can say anything to make you see it.

But then, I have no problem agreeing to disagree. Do you?

Thomas J. said...

Hey. . I am posting solely for your benefit, Stephanie. I really don't "care" per se, other than thinking that you are a good person, who sometimes loses your way in dealing with people of differing opinions.

I really DO think that there is a whole po TAY to/po TAH to thing going on here. . you are trying desperately to justify why you should argue with them, but equally invalidate why they should argue with you. Regardless of how you say it, you dislike it when people disagree with you (regardless of your claim of a desire to "agree to disagree").

For some evangelical fundamentalist nuts to go on and post about who/what anybody else believes is inevitable. I understand that coC to Catholic conversions are your "pet issue", but it still comes across as you getting aggravated with them for "disagreeing" with you.

Again, hey, it's your blog. . .post what you wanna. It's their site, they can post what you wanna. You feel the need to "correct them in their error". Good luck with that.

I personally see no difference between THEIR rigidity and inability to examine themselves and yours. That is not a slam. That is pointing out a double standard that you are functioning under in your internet dealings. I am tending to think that you are just as unwilling to examine yourself as they are.

And yes, we will have to agree to disagree with this, which is really just another way of you saying "I am unwilling to examine your assertions".

Good luck with all of this.

Sara said...

Hey Thomas J. I mean this solely for your benefit, but maybe you need to look at your own double standards. After all, you preach peace and tolerance--as long as everyone agrees with you. So Stephanie doesn't believe in your moral relativist philosphy, that's her perogative and it's your perogative not to read her blog. If you didn't "care" you wouldn't be posting here.

If you had read the thread at PF, you'd also notice they had mentioned her new board and had said that she's out to convert CoC-ers to Catholicism.

Thomas J. said...

"everybody agree4s with me?"

In what way Sara?

what DO I really beleive?

What part of this discussion has been about what *I* believe? do you even KNOW what I believe? Do you even CARE? Are you just ASSUMING you know what *I* believe? and if so, doesn't that put you in the same category as those poor knuckleheads at PF? Last I heard, you thought I was anti-Catholic. Just goes to show how much YOU are paying attention. "Moral Relativist" indeed. Looks like the PF guys are not the only ones who can throw inflammatory names around.

Nice for you to have Steph's back back, but if you are going to just completely turn of your brains and pat each other's backs all day long, are ya REALLY doing each other any good? In your small mind, you may have seen all of this as an attack on Stephanie, Sara, but that is simply because you apparently dislike ANYONE who points out when you make a fool out of yourself.

so there, dislike me Sara. . .you are making a fool out of yourself.

Sara said...

No, Thomas, you are the one making a fool of yourself. I have never accused you of being anti-Catholic. I can't help it if you are so thin skinned that you read that into my comments.

I base my comments on your past behavior and now your current behavior. I disagreed with you and look at your above post.

Sounds like the peace and love ended the moment I disagreed with you.

Are you not a moral relativist? I believe you've stated in the past that everyone has different "conceptions" and that therefore there can be no "misconceptions." Stephanie believe that there is an absolute truth and you do not.

How nice of you to accuse us of "turning our brains off."

Sara

I think for myself not to come up with my own teaching, but to make the Church's teaching my own.
--Fr Neuhaus

Thomas J. said...

Yes, Sara, you DID accuse me of being "anti-Catholic" several times on the ex coc board. so, now, you are either forgetful, or a liar.

I think it strange how the #1 fan of Catholics on the ex coc board is consistently labelled as being against you, simply because i DO disagree with you on many points.

And no, I am NOT a moral relativist. A moral relativist believes that actions are good or bad based on the situation. I disagree with you, but i DO believe that there are absolutes in right and wrong. "Moral Relativist" is a term used by fundies like yourself to try to denigrate the viewpoints of others in the face of an audience which they think already agrees with them or to piss their opponent off.(much like I just used the term "fundies"--pissed you off didn't it!)

Sara, Stephanie, I accept that you have traded one set of absolutist beliefs for another. it SI that simple when you boil it all down. There are many holes in ANY absolutist belief system, and people seek to find systems that work for them. You have consistently whined about "anti-catholic" attitudes and atmospheres, Sara, but your attitude and demeanor is JUST as hostile towards anyone who disagrees with you.

As for me, I could care less which church you went to. . .as I personally think there is good and bad in all of them (yes, even the good ol c of c). what i DO see as inconsistent, is for you, or ANYONE to denigrate someone of another FAITH system, when yours is built on just as subjective a platform. The bottom line is, you rely on faith, as do protestants, fundies, etc. And while the Faith of the devout Catholic may have a longer history that makes it no less accurate and right (as the orthodox adherent could easily tell you).

You live in glass houses, as do all believers. It should behoove you to throw stones.

Thomas J. said...

and with that, I will let yo have the last word. I think that some of the posters here are just as unwilling to examine their own views critically and remain as blindly defensive of their tactics as the folks on PF. . .therefore I shall take my own advice and bid adieu.

Sara said...

Thomas, I never accused you of being anti Catholic. I believe I called you out for being too quick to judge my comments simply because I am Catholic.

I think you need to look at your own posts and see what you're really saying. I find it interesting how quickly you resort to name calling. Rather than address the points I raise you call me a fundie, you accuse Stephanie and I of being blind, on the ex-board you called me childish and hysterical.

Yet you never address my main point--you seem to be unable to handle it when someone disagrees with you.

You previously lit into me because you thought I had the unmitigated temerity to assume that I knew what you believed. No, Thomas, I don't claim to know the inner workings of your mind, I base my comments solely on what I have seen of your past behavior.

I find it interesting how quickly you have fallen into the same behavior of which you accuse me. I think you need to take the time to look at yourself and to see why you get so upset with Stephanie and myself.

Stephanie said...

Thomas, I appreciate your attempt at enlightening my poor self and doing so "solely for my benefit," but do forgive me if I don't fall at my knees in thanks.

You see...I find your position to be a bit contradictory.

You seem to be saying, "You shouldn't go pointing out to people that you think they are wrong and you're right, because that's absolutist...I tell you this because you're doing it, and that's wrong, and I'm right about that."

Um...yeah.

Now, I need to make a couple points.

You really don't know me very well...I really couldn't care less if someone disagrees with me. I don't know how many times I can say that...Don't think there's a God? Ok, whatever, I disagree. Think all religions are the same? Ok, whatever, I disagree. I'm not going to hound anyone about those things.

I will, however, call someone as soon as I see them spreading information about MY beliefs that are UNTRUE. This isn't a case of mere disagreement, this is one person spreading lies (knowingly or unknowingly) about my beliefs.

Again...they think we venerate Mary too highly? That's ok, no prob, we disagree. They think the Church teaches to worship Mary above God? WRONG. That's heresy.

Can you not see the difference? Now, if you do not acknowledge that there are official teachings of the Church, and that there is truth and untruth when it comes to what the Church teaches, then of course you'll be stuck in your idea that it's all the same, and I have a problem with anyone who merely "disagrees" with me.

Let me give a scientific analogy to see if that helps you understand the difference...there are two people who have different theories of evolution that they both believe is more accurate than the other. They discuss it, but still believe theirs is the better theory. There has not been, as of yet, one official theory accepted over the others in the science world. They agree to disagree, not worried about wanting to convince the other that they are RIGHT.

Now, you have a science teacher who one of the scientists overhears teaching his class that the Earth is flat/the sun revolves around the Earth/there is no such thing as gravity so they can fly off a building if they want/take your pick! Would you say, "Oh well, that teacher has the right to teach what he wants, it's not my place to tell him he's wrong about any of that." Or would you say, "WHAT?!?!?! Whoa, he's presenting something as fact that is totally and completely untrue! I've got to say something to him, so that those kids don't have misconceptions about what the scientific world says."

I doubt you would choose the first option, would you?

So you see, I'm doing the same thing. If someone is talking about their own personal belief system, I'm not going to challenge them or really care that we don't agree. If they're talking about MY belief system, which happens to have "official teachings" that are spelled out, I'm not getting upset that we "merely disagree," I'm correcting factually wrong info about what I believe, and really don't care if they agree or not with that teaching.

Do you understand the distinction that I'm making? Or do you think I'm just making up stuff to try and justify "getting upset that someone merely disagrees with me?"

So if you're asking me to give up trying to point out when someone is lying about what my Church teaches, sorry, ain't gonna happen.

And if that's not what you're asking me to do, then I'm just not quite sure what it is you want, except for agreement that you're right, lol.

Thomas J. said...

No. . .you are totally missing what I originally said, because you remain defensive about any critique. this has NEVER been about beliefs, this has been about TECHNIQUE. Here is where I say that you and Sara are absolutist in your thinking . . this has NEVER been about your beleifs.

it has been about your ACTIONS.

You said:

"You seem to be saying, "You shouldn't go pointing out to people that you think they are wrong and you're right, because that's absolutist...I tell you this because you're doing it, and that's wrong, and I'm right about that.""

No, I am not telling you what you are doing is wrong. I am telling you that it is INCONSISTENT.

If you are ok with that, then fine. However, from an impartial observer, who has no vested interest in being right or wrong about anything from a Christian perspective, The way I see you acting is NOT very different from how they are. You are ridiculing the way others are expressing their beliefs. Something that you ABHOR. Likewise, you are finding ways to JUSTIFY that inconsistent behavior, by insisting that you know your way is RIGHT.

as far as that goes, hey, you COULD be right. ..all the Catholics, or Christians, or whatever may be. . .but I have yet to be convinced by any of the arguments. I am not telling you that you are wrong in your belief systems, or even that I disagree with you about them (in fact, I am certain that we agree more than we disagree, but your intolerance for ANY disagreement, quite frankly, is a big turnoff to trying to find out more)

I went off on Sara, because she was nasty. Great way to win friends and influence people.

At no point in time has this been an attack on YOU dear Stephanie. . .and it is unfortunate that you have to take it this way.

I call it like I see it. You are guilty of the same things you charge the PF people of. . .being nasty and snarky about those who have differing religious faiths.

While I appreciate your desire to correct misinformation, that doesn't change the fact that THIS post, and the responses to it, are all about ridiculing the ridiculous fools over at PF.

Hey. . .I am all FOR that. I think they are a bunch of idiotic hypocrites (hey guys!!! you reading this?), and I am not telling you you are WRONG to do so. I am simply telling you that it makes you no different than they are.

Sara said...

Thomas J, If what I said was taken by you as nasty then I truly feel for you because you must have an exceptionally thin skin.

It was you, Thomas, who turned the discussion "nasty." All I did was point out that:

1. if you didn't "care" you wouldn't feel the need to correct Stephanie. If you didn't care you'd be able to pass by the post without comment.

2. I also pointed out your tendence to do the same thing you're accusing Stephanie and myself of doing--having double standards. You appear to have them also. After all, look at your response to disagreement as posed by Stephanie and myself. Instead of responding calmly to me, you resort to name-calling. Why won't you address my point?

Thomas, maybe you need to remove the plank from your own eye before addressing the mote in Stephanie's (or my) eye.

Stephanie said...

Thanks for clarifying, Thomas. I think my point, though, is that I'm not ridiculing their belief system, am I? Is it part of their "belief system" that Catholics think the Pope is due more worship than God? Is that what you're saying? I'm just trying to understand...

I may be a little dense at times, so maybe you can help me out by giving me a parallel example of what they do and what I do, to show me how you think it is the same thing? I'm just really very confused by this statement:

You are ridiculing the way others are expressing their beliefs. Something that you ABHOR. Likewise, you are finding ways to JUSTIFY that inconsistent behavior, by insisting that you know your way is RIGHT.

Again, if I were making fun of their zeal for God, or their belief in the bible as the sole authority, or things like that I would see your point. But I do not consider their bias against Catholics as "the way they express their beliefs." And that's the difference I was trying to point out.

I really am baffled that you think I have such an intolerance for disagreement??? Lol, I get along with people of all different faiths just fine, have in depth discussions with them, etc, and have no problem disagreeing with them and forgetting about it, so I'm really not sure what you mean. The only people I have issues with are those who repeatedly show an anti-Catholic bias by clinging to lies about Catholicism despite being repeatedly shown that they are, in fact, lies.

Maybe we have a different definition of disagreement or something? I admit I have an intolerance for untruth. And no, I don't even mean by that "whatever is contrary to Catholicism is untrue," by that I mean I won't tolerate someone telling a blatant lie (knowingly or unknowingly) and expecting me (and others) to believe them. I will point out their factual error, assuming they didn't realize it was wrong, give them a chance, and if they still cling to it I'll make sure anyone reading knows that it is indeed a verifiable untruth. Is that what you object to?

Or is it just that we were joking around about the absurdities that were said about or faith? Like I said, you can either get mad, or laugh it off. Are you telling me that you never laugh off ridiculous assertions about yoursef or your beliefs, or that you think this is somehow wrong?

Sorry, I'm just really confused as to what you're upset about.

Thomas J. said...

The only thing I am upset about is Sara being snotty to me. And that was only mild peevement.

Not upset at all. . .and to be honest with you. . none of this is really a CRITIQUE of you at all. . .

I have REPEATEDLY said how the things that you say here can "come across" I think that you state that your effort and desire is to give a more accurate representation of your faith and of Catholicism, and I believe that is true.

I also, believe, however, that there is some level of snarkiness involved with what is going on with your relationship (for lack of a better term) with the PF website. I think that while you DO desire for people to be accurate and informed, I think that your desire to do it over there at PF is more Quixotic than anything. I think that it is because you enjoy the fight--that is just my impression, and I could be totally wrong.

to go and argue/discuss/inform/whatever over at PF is like trying to reason and discuss with White supremacists. (yes, PF lurkers, I used that analogy). there is no reason or rationale, and no desire to understand in their dialogues. I think that deep down, you really know this, and that what keeps drawing you back to those discussions is something else, something deeper.

Maybe I am reading far too much into it all, but I this i what I mean by "i think you are better than this" There is a THIRD option, aside from getting mad or laughing at it. . .just ignore it. You believe what you believe, and their conceptions or misconceptions of who you are and what you believe has no bearing on who you are. If you continue to interchange and dialogue with them, regardless of the outcome, you are allowing them to have a certain level of power over you. . THEY are controlling how you spend YOUR time. . .and that time is being kept away from your devotion to God and is rather being spent on a trifle nothing, which, in the end, is all those discussions will be.

Like I said, I think you deserve better than that.

Sara said...

The only thing I am upset about is Sara being snotty to me. And that was only mild peevement.

Well, gee Thomas, I'm soooo sorry I offended you by being snotty.

Hon, you haven't seen nasty or snotty from me. I'm sorry that you feel anyone disagreeing with you is snottiness.

Stephanie said...

Ok, granted I could choose to ignore it, you're right about that. Sometimes I do, and sometimes I let it get to me and get upset, and sometimes I have a little fun instead. The truth is, I'll never get away from misconceptions about Catholicism, they're everywhere, and trying to run away from them will only result in more frustration, so while I often will ignore them, sometimes I feel like facing them head on and having a laugh.

I don't think non-Catholics can really understand the constant absurdities we have to put up with, just like I can't really understand the bias that black people or Jewish people have to deal with on a day to day basis. Comedians often make a point of using those things to bring some levity to the situation, and this was my feeble attempt at humor! (I am, admittedly, NOT a comedienne!)

Honestly, I wouldn't have even commented over there myself if it weren't for the mention of my forum, and you'll notice I didn't continue trying to convince them as I recognize it wouldn't have done any good. It didn't take up much of my time at all. =) This post was just a way to release some frustration (which is not just from THEM, whom I could easily avoid, but from the neverending and unavoidable barrage of silly misconceptions about Catholicism I have to deal with daily) and have a laugh in the process! That's all it was, nothing more!

Certainly they are, if you will, the archetype of my antithesis, and so they're a convenient example of the daily absurdities we have to put up with. I would rejoice to see them prove me wrong about that, I don't WANT them to be this way so that I can be "right", that's what I see as the biggest difference between me and them...I would be the first to point out actions disproving their bias, and to congratulate and encourage them for that! I hope and wish to be wrong, that's why I give them so many chances to show me I am! Perhaps that isn't coming across, and it seems I'm just picking on them in a mean kind of way. I apologize if that's the impression I've given!

So I appreciate your concern, and I assure you that in the grand scheme of things I hardly ever think about the PFers. When I do, I usually mention it here since it has to do with my "pet topic"...so perhaps that gives the impression that I think about them much more than I mention them, when the truth is I only mention them on the rare occasion that I think of them, and if you'll look at my entire blog, I think you'll see that isn't all that much!

Anyway...I need to vaccuum, lol! Hope that clarified some of my motivation in all of this so that it's clearer why, from my POV, I'm not being at all inconsistent. =)

Sara said...

Hey Stephanie--can you come vacuum my place when you're done?

jdavidb said...

but it still comes across as you getting aggravated with them for "disagreeing" with you.

Thomas J., I know nothing about your history and your convictions, so maybe I would understand your point of view better if I had that context. But I'll say that it does not come across that way, to me. She is making fun of PF folks, and I suppose one could find fault with that. But she's also pointing out the fact that they are dealing with strawmen. It's not the fact that they disagree with her that is annoying her, if I am understanding correctly. It's the fact that they are disagreeing with a version of "what a Catholic is" that does not line up with her understanding of "what a Catholic is."

I felt the very same thing when a Catholic lambasted me for believing that the KJV was the only Bible, and refused to listen to me as I patiently explained to him time after time that I did not believe the KJV was the only Bible, only to eventually ban him from my website. It wasn't that he disagreed with me that bothered me. It wasn't that his knowledge about my beliefs was extraordinarily incomplete. It was that he preferred to continue to have incomplete knowledge of my beliefs so that he could satisfy himself by attacking and proving wrong that incomplete picture of my beliefs (strawman). Thus, discussion between us was useless.

Stephanie said...

That's exactly it, jdavidb, thank you! I always appreciate your attempts to get the facts. =)

jdavidb said...

hey guys!!! you reading this?

Yes.

Stephanie said...

Lol, Sara ;-)

jdavidb said...

to go and argue/discuss/inform/whatever over at PF is like trying to reason and discuss with White supremacists. (yes, PF lurkers, I used that analogy).

Yes, I see you, and I'm at a loss as to how you think you're somehow taking a moral high ground over this blog post.

jdavidb said...

Thanks, Sara. Didn't realize I was well-known enough for you to think that about me. :blush:

Stephanie said...

People who actually make a genuine attempt to look at what Catholics say they believe tend to stick out on the PF board (in a good way). ;-)

Anonymous said...

There is a THIRD option, aside from getting mad or laughing at it. . .just ignore it.

Party pooper.

Rachael said...

Party pooper.

No need to resort to name-calling. He just has a little crush on her and cares how she spends her personal time.

Kevin Cauley said...

Stephanie,

There's been a lot of things said about this thread that we have, but I've seen absolutely not one shred of evidence to prove that this document is other than genuine. Where is your evidence contrary. Seems that all you can do is poke fun of the concepts without offering any kind of proof that the RCC has historically believed such things. I, for one, am willing to listen to the evidence as to whether this document is legitimate or not. It was part of a greater document that contained the Catholic Catechism. The same document was listed by Philip Schaff in part of a listing of Catholic confessions of faith. It is, whether you like it or not, a historical Catholic document and you must explain the concepts within it some how. I, as well as many others, await your explanation.

Stephanie said...

It is full of heresy. That's all the proof I need. It just makes absolutely no sense for the Church to officially declare these things as heresy for 2,000 years, and then secretly have people confess that it's true...makes no sense at all, unless you believe in the evil secret Catholic conspiracy.

I see no convincing evidence that this heretical statement is authentic, I do see that part of the document it is contained in has been proven to be a hoax started by anti-Catholics, and I see no reason to believe that it, too, is not an anti-Catholic hoax.

I mean...really, you might as well be trying to convince me that Catholics believe Jesus was a little green man from mars. It's that preposterous, which is why I give it no credibility at all, and I haven't seen any proof to the contrary. I mean it's like if I brought some book that had one out of place and strange passage that said members of the churches of Christ like to dismember small children, and then said, "Hmm...prove to me that this isn't true!" The book itself might be legit, but the passage is not.

It seems the part of the document that Mr. Schaff speaks of specifically is the part that is talking about the council of Trent. (I asked some friends who were knowledgeable in Latin to take a look at it, they said it had those weird heretical oaths, and the rest looked like a reproduction of documents from the Council of Trent.) So, it looks to me very likely that someone tried to sneak in the heretical oaths into a legitimate Catholic collection of writings, and hoped no one would notice. I mean come on...even if you think the Church is evil and deceptive, do you think they would really be stupid enough to put completely contradictory "oaths" and "confessions" into the same collection of Catholic writings? (If you'll read some of the writings from Trent, you'll notice nowhere does it say the Pope or Mary is due higher honor than God, etc.) I would think the biggest evil mastermind on Earth would be just a tad smarter than that!

It has already been shown that the KofC oath was not legit (as y'all figured out for yourselves), so it's not unlikely that this oath was snuck into the collection at the same time the other was.

Anyway...it really is just so ridiculous that it's not worth wasting any more time on. If y'all want to believe it's true, go right ahead, I can't stop you. It's no skin off my back, it's not like you have a very rosy picture of the Church to begin with, lol.

Anonymous said...

There's been a lot of things said about this thread that we have, but I've seen absolutely not one shred of evidence to prove that this document is other than genuine.

I'd like to hear your explanation for why you WANT it to be genuine? Why do you WANT the RCC to be a lie? What does it do FOR YOU to believe that the faith of a billion people is a dangerous sham? What kind of person relishes that kind of thing?

Or don't you relish the idea? Maybe you cry for us in prayer, begging God to be merciful and forgive us 'for we know not what we do.' Do you do that? Maybe you treat every Catholic you meet with deference, meekness, kindness, humility, and gentleness of Christ, putting them before yourself in every way in an efforts to win them to a true relationship with our Lord. Do you do that too? If so, I'd sure like to hear about it. What exactly have you done out of love for us, other than ridicule and try to undermine our faith?

I'm awaiting YOUR explanation.

Peter said...

Silly Silly Stephanie!

So you just thought you'd drop in a little light hearted laugh at ourselves and maybe a soft dig at our less than charitable friends across the Tiber? You began with one huge mistaken assumption. That everyone reading has a sense of humor!

The difference between a little gentle sarcasm to gently bring to other's attention the ludicrous nature of an argument presented and a misleading and malicious criticism of our opponents in debate is not merely in the eye of the beholder. It is the difference between an Opus Dei priest pretending to call in his assassin monk to deal with his opponent in a debate about "The DaVinci Code" and that same priest loudly denouncing his opponent as a spawn of Satan for misrepresenting Catholicism.

Unfortunately in defending usch things presents a catch 22. That is, if someone doesn't understand the basic rules of reasoned debate, how can you argue for those rules using reasoned debate?

Well, you can do so from Natural Law of course, but there I go being a discriminating Catholic again! Oh the shame!

jdavidb said...

Anonymous, you don't even know Mr. Kevin Cauley, so I find it completely unjustified for you to make such judgments about his motivations. For all you know, he does engage in whatever activities you think are necessary as a prerequisite before anyone has the right to question Catholicism.

Questioning the truth of religion, mine or someone else's, is not a wrong or hateful act. If you don't like religious dialogue, don't engage in it.

And I seriously doubt you're a qualified psychoanalyst. :)

Stephanie said...

You began with one huge mistaken assumption. That everyone reading has a sense of humor!

Mea culpa!

Anonymous said...

jdavidb,

And I seriously doubt you're a qualified psychoanalyst. :)

Actually, I am. So, let me clarify things for you. That was not psychoanalysis. Reread his post yourself. Do you not detect the aggression? Do you really not see the attempts to shame my friend? It's right there on the page.

Superior truth will always be evidenced by superior fruit: love, gentleness, meekness, humility, and kindness. If he's going to waltz in here making such vehement accusations about our faith, he'd better be ready to defend his own. I challenged him to a fruit-check. If he really is speaking from Truth and Love, he shouldn't have ANY problem shutting down my challenge. Evidence will abound.

But more importantly, do you really not see the difference between how he speaks in here and how you do? You have behaved generously in my friend's house and I find you charming. Question her Catholicism all you like. As long as you keep up that gentle tone of yours, you will never hear a rebuke from me. He, on the other hand, is picking fights. He drew an ugly "you know you're a big fat liar" line in the sand. You don't really need my degree to see the difference, do you?

kate said...

Where is your evidence contrary. Seems that all you can do is poke fun of the concepts without offering any kind of proof that the RCC has historically believed such things.

How about the 2,00 years of assertions of faith that contradict any such beliefs? How about the total lack of church council rulings that decree such belief? Or is that not good enough?

Anonymous said...

The Super-Secret REAL Teachings of the Catholic Church
Ok fellow Catholics, it's time to fess up.

Let's all pull out our Super-Secret decoder rings, and the hidden handbook (all written in Latin so no one else can understand, of course) and admit to what we REALLY believe, but pretend not to with all those faux "official documents of the Church".

The truth be known is that the Vatican does indeed have secret archives.

You know what we really believe...that the Pope is more important than Christ Himself, that he can change scripture all he wants and we accept it gladly. (Not quite sure why he hasn't taken out some of those pesky verses as of yet, all that "call no man father" stuff and "doctrine of demons" stuff that describes us so well!)

Christ says He's the Head of the church and it is Catholic teaching which declares the Pope as the Head of the Catholic church on earth. Popes believe they have to power to make up new doctrines based on Oral Traditions which they have absolutely no proof they actually came from Christ and the Apostles. Yet the so-called sacred traditions of Roman Catholicism are on equal ground with Biblical Truths. Do you have the assurance that these "sacred Traditions" roots actually came from Christ and the Apostles? No you don't but you trust in man instead of God. The Catholic Church does not even have evidence that Peter acted in the role as Pope or even his successor. Where's the evidence?

That Mary is above God in our eyes (since She's His Mother, after all!)

You haven't been Catholic long enough to realize that it is better to go through Mary than straight to Jesus. Apparently you haven't read St Louis de Montefort "Glories of Mary"

That reading scripture is dangerous, and we're not really allowed to unless a priest reads it to us so he can tell us what it REALLY means, especially when it seems so obviously contrary to Catholic teaching (the REAL Catholic teaching, you know).

In the last century or so Catholics can read the Bible but they can not interpret without the guidence of the Catholic Church. I used to do Catholic Bible studies but only with a priest and not a layperson.

That priests are the most powerful and magical people on Earth, and it's necessary to treat them as such.
Why not? They have the power to bring Jesus down from Heaven onto the altar at Mass, change bread and wine into Jesus' body and blodd, absolve you from sins, and release folks from purgatory

That Christ needs to bend His will in accordance with His Blessed Mother's.

That's in the Glories of Mary by St Louis de Montefort (Dr of the Church)

Come on guys...we've been outed, it's time to admit it!

You must read Dave Hunt's book "A Woman Rides the Beast". It fits the Roman Catholic Church to the tee. Satan's greatest deception is to draw good people away from Christ and corrupt God's Holy Word.

Anonymous said...

opps I forgot to sign off on my above post.

x-Catholic who left Rome for Home

Stephanie said...

Lol...ok...whew, sorry, had to stop laughing so I could see to type.

Um...yeah. www.catholic.com. Check it out. (Do a search for Dave Hunt on there and you'll get lots of great stuff.)

Again, x-Catholic, been there done that, bought the t-shirt...

Anonymous said...

Once you compose yourself could you at least be honest with yourself and take a deeper look at the history of Catholicism which dates back to Constantine and not to the Apostles?

You can not trace back Catholic non-Biblical practices/beliefs to Christ or the Apostles. You can not even prove that Peter was a pope or his successor. Just saying they were doesn't make it true.

Do you trust in Christ alone for your salvation or do you trust Christ + what the Catholic Church teaches you? If the latter, do then please share with me, a former Catholic, why I should place my salvation in the hands of a religious organization where they have no evidence for their authority other than their say so? Why when I left the Catholic Church Catholics accuse me of leaving Christ and I loose my salvation?

I don't believe them or the Catholic Church because I place my faith in Christ alone for my salvation and trust God's Word over man's tradition anytime.

Left Rome for Home

Stephanie said...

What you don't seem to understand is that what you are saying is exactly how I started out...I USED to believe what you're saying, I used to claim the same things. Then I started to actually examine unbiased history rather than leaning on biased anti-Catholic sources, and that is how I ended up Catholic. So forgive me if I don't fall over in shock when I hear the same old anti-Catholic misconceptions I once believed myself being spouted from yet another person.

When you can respectfully and accurately explain what the Church actually teaches and why you disagree instead of leaning on straw men, then I might seriously consider taking the time to explain my POV. Until then, all I see is another anti-Catholic asking questions to prove a point, not to actually hear the answer, unwilling to deal with reality, and desperately clinging to biased misinformation and hatred for the Church.

If you really want to hear the answer to your questions, there are plenty of places to look...the Catholic Answer forums are full of people, especially Catholic converts, just waiting to discuss these kinds of things. But I have a feeling you're not asking questions to hear the answers, but rather your questions are aimed at proving yourself right. I will not engage in that kind of one-sided discussion.

Anonymous said...

What you don't seem to understand is that what you are saying is exactly how I started out...I USED to believe what you're saying, I used to claim the same things. Then I started to actually examine unbiased history rather than leaning on biased anti-Catholic sources, and that is how I ended up Catholic.

I was raised Catholic and practiced Catholicism faithfully for many moons. Never once questioned it's teachings or practices but believed in it 100%. Since I was surrounded by the Catholic culture since my infancy I have a solid knowledge of what it means to be Catholic. It was in my blood.

Just because you studied Catholicism from unbiased resources does not mean it's God's truth. Shouldn't that be more important to you is to find out what God's truth is? What better way then through the Bible. The Bible warns of ravenous wolves entering even in the new church. Acts 20: 29 "I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. 30 Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. 31 So be on your guard!"

You may think the websites I gave are anti-Catholic. A nice tag to slap on something to discredit it without even checking it's sources. If you are secure in your religious faith then investigate it's claims and see if they are lying about Catholicism. I, as a former Catholic,can acknowledge what Catholics believe and I know these former Catholics are not lying. There are many former Catholics around the world would agree that it's been their experiences as well. As you will see these "biased" website give references from unbiased Catholic sources and they provide the links to these sites to be checked out.


So forgive me if I don't fall over in shock when I hear the same old anti-Catholic misconceptions I once believed myself being spouted from yet another person.

No I don't expect you to "fall over in shock" because I know Satan has blinded you. I was the same too when I defended the One True Faith. The Gospel made no sense to me that is until sometime after I left. When someone explained what Christ did on the Cross for sinners a tremendous relief fell over me. All those years as a Catholic going about trying to figure what more did I need to do to make it into Heaven. I was overwhelmed by the process of figuring out what I needed to do for my salvation. Oh boy, the Indulgences was a headache trying to understand how, when or where I can obtain one. Plus, you have to do them right and if you did do them right you never know if it's acceptable to God anyway.Do you seriously believe that this came from God and not from man's traditions? You can not guarantee it No, Thank you. Christ's Blood purifies us from all sin. No need for purgatory to purify our souls since God says He remembers them no more. I take God's Word for what I need to know about my salvation.

When you can respectfully and accurately explain what the Church actually teaches and why you disagree instead of leaning on straw men, then I might seriously consider taking the time to explain my POV. Until then, all I see is another anti-Catholic asking questions to prove a point, not to actually hear the answer, unwilling to deal with reality, and desperately clinging to biased misinformation and hatred for the Church.

The jokes you were making I was addressing that there are some truth to them. I gave you some references as the Glories of Mary. A very blasphemous book that elevates Mary to equal diety status. Read it for yourself and you can read it on-line if you do not have the book. Again, Mary worship (yes Popes have used the word worship in reference to Mary..this is proven on the Vatican website. If interested I can get the encyclical) I can also get you Catholic sources on the papacy giving sorbid history of Popes gone wild..fornication, murder of other popes, etc. Titus and Paul would rolling in their tombs.
If you really want to hear the answer to your questions, there are plenty of places to look...the Catholic Answer forums are full of people, especially Catholic converts, just waiting to discuss these kinds of things. But I have a feeling you're not asking questions to hear the answers, but rather your questions are aimed at proving yourself right. I will not engage in that kind of one-sided discussion.

Like I've said before I've been a practicing 100% believing Catholic for many moons. I know what Catholicism teaches. In fact I've been studing more about Catholicism and the more I read in light of Scripture I know with absolute certainty that Catholicism is a false religion. I don't say this out of hatred but it is so obvious to me I can't ignore it. Any Catholic who remains in this system will never know peace in their hearts. The peace that they may feel is a false sense of security in "Mary" (not the Biblical Mary but a Satanic Mary posing as the mother of Jesus)

It's your choice to remain in Catholicism and believe it without questioning it. I however would want to know the truth about Salvation and that can be found only in Scripture.

Thank you for your time.

Sara said...

x-Catholic,

What is your point in coming here? The websites you listed in her introduction thread are widely held to be anti-Catholic. They may quote church fathers, but if they do so out of context, then they are biased.

If you were truly a cradle Catholic then you would know that we do not worship Mary.

Check out the following link:

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/02/does-st-alphonsus-de-liguori-in-glories.html

Stephanie said...

I'll repeat myself one more time...I didn't grow up Catholic, I chose to become Catholic, exactly because I started questioning my own beliefs, including every one of the points you have raised. You're asking me to do something I've already done.

Now, when you start asking questions to listen, and not to make a point, then I'll engage.

Until then, peace be with you.

Stephanie said...

And by the way, since you seem to be so affected by what was written in "The Glories of Mary," (which was written by St. Alphonsus de Liguori, not St. Louis de Montfort) I highly recommend the link Sara posted above. I just finished reading it, and as usual Dave Armstrong does a thorough and excellent job of explaining the Catholic faith, and showing how nothing in the book is contrary to scripture when properly understood. If you really wonder how Catholics view and understand that book, are willing to listen honestly and openly, and aren't just blindly and gleefully using it as a tool to back up the ridiculous assertion that Catholics worship Mary, and do so above God, you'll read the link.

Anonymous said...

Every Catholic knows they don't worship Mary but what they don't know is what they are doing is worship. Most Catholics are enthralled with Marian apparitions, visionaries, "sightings", etc.. Catholic Marian doctrines and practices are not Biblically based but yet you claim that Catholics don't worship her. Dressing up her statues in silk, crown her head with real jewelry, singing praises to her as you parade after her while saying the rosary. Month of May will be full of Marian festivals at many parishes around the world all in honor of Mary. Yet you still don't see it as being worshipping. Many Catholics get excited when their rosary turns to 'gold', smell roses, see tears or blood coming from the statues eyes. Light candles underneath an image of her on a plane of glass or an underpass.

Here is a encyclical straight from the pope's own words where he used the word 'worship'. The Vatican is responsible for translating this.

18. It is therefore, a pleasure for us, a full century having passed since the Pontiff of immortal memory, Pius IX, solemnly proclaimed this singular privilege of the Virgin Mother of God, to summarize the whole doctrinal position and conclude in these words of the same Pontiff, asserting that this doctrine "vouched for in Sacred Scripture according to the interpretation of the Fathers, is handed down by them in so many of their important writings, is expressed and celebrated in so many illustrious monuments of renowned antiquity, and proposed and confirmed by the greatest and highest decision of the Church" (Bull Ineffabilis Deus), so that to pastors and faithful there is nothing "more sweet, nothing dearer than to worship, venerate, invoke and praise with ardent affection the Mother of God conceived without stain of original sin. (Ibidem.)

ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII 1953

According to God He is a jealous God and doesn't take to anyone worshipping anything else but Him alone. Veneration is a form of worship which still breaks God's Commandments no matter how one want to slice the meaning of it. That's Satan's little trick. Why risk being wrong in God's eyes with the practice of Marian "devotions"?

Jesus said "Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only"

Now are you going to argue with God's Word?

Stephanie said...

Hmm...I'm guessing you didn't read the link. I still see attempts to prove points, not listening. No listening means no discussion.

Good day.

Anonymous said...

>>Stephanie said...
Hmm...I'm guessing you didn't read the link. I still see attempts to prove points, not listening. No listening means no discussion.

Such GORGEOUS boundaries, my dear! I'm so proud to know you.