Zone1 The true Church will be eclipsed, says Mary at LaSalette

[notmyfault2020]

The Church has been under assault, siege, experienced serious demise many time in its long history as has Judaism with its much longer history. That long history is a repeated theme of Creation, Sin, Judgment, Redemption found in the Old Testament of the Bible. Multiple times God began again with a remnant of the Jews and the Jewish faith is still with us.

And also that has been the case with the Church.

Jewish orthodoxy (the law) sustained their remnants making it possible to begin again with renewed faith and confidence despite the corruption and self serving evils of its leadership from time to time.

It has been the same with Catholic orthodoxy that, in spite of corrupt self serving popes and other clergy, provided a stability and foundation that kept the Church alive, however barely, in the darkest times.

At times the Light of the Church flickered dimly and was in danger of being extinguished, but a remnant of believers inevitably created revival of the faith and the Church became the foundation of cultures and societies again. It now has far more advocates than any other religion in the world.

IMO, the Church again has fallen upon hard times. Many, perhaps most, mainline denominations, including the largest which is the Roman Catholics, have succumbed, at least in part, to the 'woke' Marxist doctrines pushed by the radical left. God is pushed aside and is replaced by these social doctrines that do more to corrupt and weaken communities and societies than what benefit can be found in them. And the Light of the Church flickers more dimly and is in danger of being snuffed out.

And I think again revival is coming. And it will again pull the people back to God instead of worshipping manmade doctrines. And it will right much that is wrong and give us all hope again.

Maybe in 2023? Who knows?

I agree w/ all of this. There have been dark times in the CC before. But I really don't think what happened @ Vatican II is comparable to what has happened in the past. Never have we gone 60 years without a pope. The 2-pope (wondering who was the pope and who was the anti-pope) stories in Church history were usually resolved, although I can't say how long it took but I don't think it took 60 years. I need to read up on Church history again. I read some years ago but things are way different for me these days and I would likely retain the information far better. That's because I find it so fascinating, all this stuff about Vatican II that I didn't know back then. There seems to be a conspiracy of silence on the part of clergy to keep the faithful in the dark about V2 and related matters. I had always believed, for example, that Lefebvre was in schism. Then I read up on the matter and no, it is those who took over the Vatican in the 1960s who are in schism... amazing how many LIES there are in the world, and sadly, how many people believe those lies... But "seek and you will find" our Lord says..

 

[Foxfyre]

I agree w/ all of this. There have been dark times in the CC before. But I really don't think what happened @ Vatican II is comparable to what has happened in the past. Never have we gone 60 years without a pope. The 2-pope (wondering who was the pope and who was the anti-pope) stories in Church history were usually resolved, although I can't say how long it took but I don't think it took 60 years. I need to read up on Church history again. I read some years ago but things are way different for me these days and I would likely retain the information far better. That's because I find it so fascinating, all this stuff about Vatican II that I didn't know back then. There seems to be a conspiracy of silence on the part of clergy to keep the faithful in the dark about V2 and related matters. I had always believed, for example, that Lefebvre was in schism. Then I read up on the matter and no, it is those who took over the Vatican in the 1960s who are in schism... amazing how many LIES there are in the world, and sadly, how many people believe those lies... But "seek and you will find" our Lord says..

Some of the Roman Emperors feared the Christian movement and attempted to snuff parts of it out. Charlemagne, however, admired the Church for its organizational and administrative skills and sought to harness that for the benefit of his somewhat shaky Empire. Christianity wasn't exactly made the State religion but it certainly had preferential status, protection and favor from the Emperor for the first time in Church history which allowed it to become firmly established and a force to reckon with throughout almost all of what is now Europe, the near East, southern Africa.

Part of God's overall plan for the Church? That is on my list of questions I hope to take with me.

The Church was not able to save the Empire though and as it crumbled and new monarchs started cropping up, they often worked hand in hand with the hierarchy of the Church essentially co-ruling in places that would become new nations. IMO, most of the popes during the Middle Ages were pretty much self serving and did little or nothing to either reform, sustain, or advance the Church. So we had several hundred years of truly 'dark ages' in the Roman Catholic Church despite several bright spots in both architecture and institutions that were formed.

And still the Church remained. The Renaissance helped in restoring interest in the classical literature/manuscripts of the early Church even as Martin Luther's rebellion unintentionally created the Protestant movement. (Luther never intended to leave the Roman Catholic Church but intended to reform it. And in fact, even as Protestantism blossomed, the Roman Church did reform and revitalized itself with new energy, influence, and power.)

This is a long way of saying that 60 years of bad popes is neither unprecedented nor unusual in the long history of the Church, nor is scandal or hard times. But the Church is still with us. Things seem dark now, but I think we are ready for a new revival. I hope so.

 

[notmyfault2020]

Some of the Roman Emperors feared the Christian movement and attempted to snuff parts of it out. Charlemagne, however, admired the Church for its organizational and administrative skills and sought to harness that for the benefit of his somewhat shaky Empire. Christianity wasn't exactly made the State religion but it certainly had preferential status, protection and favor from the Emperor for the first time in Church history which allowed it to become firmly established and a force to reckon with throughout almost all of what is now Europe, the near East, southern Africa.

Part of God's overall plan for the Church? That is on my list of questions I hope to take with me.

The Church was not able to save the Empire though and as it crumbled and new monarchs started cropping up, they often worked hand in hand with the hierarchy of the Church essentially co-ruling in places that would become new nations. IMO, most of the popes during the Middle Ages were pretty much self serving and did little or nothing to either reform, sustain, or advance the Church. So we had several hundred years of truly 'dark ages' in the Roman Catholic Church despite several bright spots in both architecture and institutions that were formed.

And still the Church remained. The Renaissance helped in restoring interest in the classical literature/manuscripts of the early Church even as Martin Luther's rebellion unintentionally created the Protestant movement. (Luther never intended to leave the Roman Catholic Church but intended to reform it. And in fact, even as Protestantism blossomed, the Roman Church did reform and revitalized itself with new energy, influence, and power.)

This is a long way of saying that 60 years of bad popes is neither unprecedented nor unusual in the long history of the Church, nor is scandal or hard times. But the Church is still with us. Things seem dark now, but I think we are ready for a new revival. I hope so.

I agree w/ something like 90% of this

the problem is, well, for one you seem to be very wrong about Luther. He absolutely intended to leave the Church, not reform it. The Church hierarchy gave him chance after chance to retract his erroneous beliefs (although the Church agreed with 41 or so of his infamous [as i call it] Theses). He didn't want to obey Mother Church and so was officially excommunicated. He is officially a heretic and as far as anyone knows, never repented, much less did he return to the Church. He did, however, regret a lot of the changes protestantism brought.. the lawlessness, the loss of a sound educational system for young people, etc... but he did not return to the Church as all wayward persons MUST. You cannot just believe whatever you want and get into Heaven where all is absolutely HOLY and perfect. There are no defective doctrines in Heaven... etc.

So now I'm trying to think of other things I disagreed with in your post. Oh, about Vatican II. I know there were dark times that SEEM similar in Church history, but Vatican II was significantly DIFFERENT. Number one, it was not a dogmatic council and that is a FIRST in the Church's history. God does protect his Church, and yet he kind of "didn't" or He did but in a most peculiar way... SSPX.


I know a lot about the demise of the Vatican "church." .. or at least a lot in comparison to most people, or most people here @ the forums in any case.

It is UGLY as sin... because it involved the worst kinds of sin: murder... greed... lawlessness...

 

[Foxfyre]

I agree w/ something like 90% of this

the problem is, well, for one you seem to be very wrong about Luther. He absolutely intended to leave the Church, not reform it. The Church hierarchy gave him chance after chance to retract his erroneous beliefs (although the Church agreed with 41 or so of his infamous [as i call it] Theses). He didn't want to obey Mother Church and so was officially excommunicated. He is officially a heretic and as far as anyone knows, never repented, much less did he return to the Church. He did, however, regret a lot of the changes protestantism brought.. the lawlessness, the loss of a sound educational system for young people, etc... but he did not return to the Church as all wayward persons MUST. You cannot just believe whatever you want and get into Heaven where all is absolutely HOLY and perfect. There are no defective doctrines in Heaven... etc.

So now I'm trying to think of other things I disagreed with in your post. Oh, about Vatican II. I know there were dark times that SEEM similar in Church history, but Vatican II was significantly DIFFERENT. Number one, it was not a dogmatic council and that is a FIRST in the Church's history. God does protect his Church, and yet he kind of "didn't" or He did but in a most peculiar way... SSPX.


I know a lot about the demise of the Vatican "church." .. or at least a lot in comparison to most people, or most people here @ the forums in any case.

It is UGLY as sin... because it involved the worst kinds of sin: murder... greed... lawlessness...

I disagree. Luther in no way intended to leave or blow up the Roman Church. He was distressed by the rampant abuses in the system and wanted eliminate those and restore the 'faith of the Fathers' so to speak. I see him as a genuine reformer though I cannot agree with some of the doctrine he presented.

And education provided by the Church in Luther's day was only for the elite upper classes and/or those studying to become clergy. The poor and middle class were left out of the process/opportunity entirely.

Yes, Luther was branded a heretic and was excommunicated when he refused to recant his 95 theses, but then he was seriously challenging the authority of the pope and objected to the very lucrative (for the Church) practice of selling pardons for money which Luther saw in itself as heresy. Luther's 95 theses were the seeds of the Reformation even though most of the Protestant leaders forming new non-Catholic denominations departed significantly from the doctrines Luther believed.

Bottom line, the Reformation generated a great revival desperately needed at that time. It wasn't Luther's 95 theses that caused the very much needed reforms in the Roman Catholic Church but its need to compete with the emerging Protestant denominations that were attracting hundreds of thousands of people. In the end the Church, Protestant and Catholic, emerged a brighter, more significant, more important, more worthy institution.

IMO, we are very much in need of another great revival at this time.

 

[notmyfault2020]

I disagree. Luther in no way intended to leave or blow up the Roman Church. He was distressed by the rampant abuses in the system and wanted eliminate those and restore the 'faith of the Fathers' so to speak. I see him as a genuine reformer though I cannot agree with some of the doctrine he presented.

That is what you have been taught. Like so many other misunderstandings about the CC, that is just not so. Read the book The Facts About Luther

His own words convict him of the most foul blasphemies against the Church

Blaspheme the Church Christ founded and you are blaspheming God.. Mt 25:31 and etc... etc

 

[notmyfault2020]

And education provided by the Church in Luther's day was only for the elite upper classes and/or those studying to become clergy. The poor and middle class were left out of the process/opportunity entirely.

 

[notmyfault2020]

post mess up again but responding to Foxfyre:

I do not believe this is true (education back then was only for elites/clergy). At one time the Church provided a Catholic education to all age children and all economic situations the children lived in.

I will check up on this but that's what I say is true at this time.. But even if education were only for elites and the clergy.. That began to be lost because of luther and co. A good thing?

not

 

[Foxfyre]

That is what you have been taught. Like so many other misunderstandings about the CC, that is just not so. Read the book The Facts About Luther

His own words convict him of the most foul blasphemies against the Church

Blaspheme the Church Christ founded and you are blaspheming God.. Mt 25:31 and etc... etc

I have read that book and also many others about Luther than are not doctrine motivated intentions to discredit and demonize him. I have studied both under Roman Catholic teachers and in an Episcopal seminary. (I am neither Roman Catholic or Episcopal but have worked for and been thoroughly schooled in both.)

I'm pretty confident of my several years of education on this. I write curriculum for and teach it. I respect your faith and beliefs that are what they are. I accept you do not accept mine and that's okay. I am quite confident we both worship the same God and receive His blessings.

 

[Foxfyre]

post mess up again but responding to Foxfyre:

I do not believe this is true (education back then was only for elites/clergy). At one time the Church provided a Catholic education to all age children and all economic situations the children lived in.

I will check up on this but that's what I say is true at this time.. But even if education were only for elites and the clergy.. That began to be lost because of luther and co. A good thing?

not

I'm pretty confident of my education on this, some received formally and some my own research.

The Reformation did not do away with the Franciscan and Dominican groups who were some of the better educated clergy. The Catholic Church invented the university and promoted the establishment of these places of higher learning and, even though they only accommodated the clergy and the elite, they were thriving and were not diminished by the Reformation. It was the Reformation however, that would open up more education to the middle class and lower income people. Certainly the Reformation advanced education for all and in no way hindered the Roman Catholic Church from providing it. IMO, that was a very good thing.

I am not at all anti-Catholic, but do know that the Church has come through some very dark times in the Roman Catholic Church just as the Protestant denominations have their hey days and dark times. I am comfortable worshipping with anybody so long as the people are seeking to know, love, and serve the living God.

 

[notmyfault2020]

I'm pretty confident of my education on this, some received formally and some my own research.

The Reformation did not do away with the Franciscan and Dominican groups who were some of the better educated clergy. The Catholic Church invented the university and promoted the establishment of these places of higher learning and, even though they only accommodated the clergy and the elite, they were thriving and were not diminished by the Reformation. It was the Reformation however, that would open up more education to the middle class and lower income people. Certainly the Reformation advanced education for all and in no way hindered the Roman Catholic Church from providing it. IMO, that was a very good thing.

I don't think the reformation advanced much of anything except technology or what have you. I mean, if you don't have to "work out your salvation with fear and trembling" anymore, thanks to the lawless Luther, you are free to... do just about anything, including modernizing the world. That by itself is not a terrible thing, but we all know that man can really become too big for his britches and start thinking he has no need for God, much less "working out" any salvation... I mean, Luther said that we are saved even if we commit adultery 20 times in a day, providing we "accept" Jesus and lean on His work and not our own. Sorry, but that is FAR from being Biblical and if people are not careful, they will lose their souls chasing after the things of this world (and its pleasures), while ignoring the requirements of Christian living. Jesus did say that in order to be perfect (and we have to be virtually "perfect" to be allowed into that Perfect Place Heaven-Mt 5:48) we are called to give up our possessions to the poor (what we don't absolutely need ourselves) and follow Him closely.

Instead, most people end up in Hell because they get adjusted to the ways of the world and not to Christ, so I kind of... rest my case?

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't think the reformation advanced much of anything except technology or what have you. I mean, if you don't have to "work out your salvation with fear and trembling" anymore, thanks to the lawless Luther, you are free to... do just about anything, including modernizing the world. That by itself is not a terrible thing, but we all know that man can really become too big for his britches and start thinking he has no need for God, much less "working out" any salvation... I mean, Luther said that we are saved even if we commit adultery 20 times in a day, providing we "accept" Jesus and lean on His work and not our own. Sorry, but that is FAR from being Biblical and if people are not careful, they will lose their souls chasing after the things of this world (and its pleasures), while ignoring the requirements of Christian living. Jesus did say that in order to be perfect (and we have to be virtually "perfect" to be allowed into that Perfect Place Heaven-Mt 5:48) we are called to give up our possessions to the poor (what we don't absolutely need ourselves) and follow Him closely.

Instead, most people end up in Hell because they get adjusted to the ways of the world and not to Christ, so I kind of... rest my case?

You seriously misrepresent both what Luther believed and what he taught here. Have you even read the 95 theses? I won't go into all the good things for humanity accomplished via the Reformation and Renaissance, but will just say those who insist their beliefs and doctrines are infallible and it is heresy to question or challenge them are almost always the problem and not the solution.

 

[notmyfault2020]

You seriously misrepresent both what Luther believed and what he taught here. Have you even read the 95 theses?

I did a long time ago. I forgot a lot of them. One of us should go grab it off some... well, I would prefer a Catholic site myself. I would prefer even a francis sect site over a protestant one.

but in any case, heresy is heresy. How do we lowly mortals know what is heresy and what is not unless Christ provides a Church to teach us such?

Is God not powerful enough to establish a Church on Earth that cannot/will not error in teaching dogmatic (unchangeable) Truth?

He is powerful enough to create Earth and the entire universe, so I would think that would not be a huge difficulty for Him... right?

So, cougarbear (poster) says that the true Church basically met its demise in the 4th century.. which definitely contradicts Mt 16:18 where Jesus promises that the very gates of Hell will not prevail against HIS (not man's.. HIS) Church..

 

[Foxfyre]

I did a long time ago. I forgot a lot of them. One of us should go grab it off some... well, I would prefer a Catholic site myself. I would prefer even a francis sect site over a protestant one.

but in any case, heresy is heresy. How do we lowly mortals know what is heresy and what is not unless Christ provides a Church to teach us such?

Is God not powerful enough to establish a Church on Earth that cannot/will not error in teaching dogmatic (unchangeable) Truth?

He is powerful enough to create Earth and the entire universe, so I would think that would not be a huge difficulty for Him... right?

So, cougarbear (poster) says that the true Church basically met its demise in the 4th century.. which definitely contradicts Mt 16:18 where Jesus promises that the very gates of Hell will not prevail against HIS (not man's.. HIS) Chur

The Church is the sum total of all believers. And it is human beings who administer the institution of the structural Church. And despite the best intentions and efforts of anybody, God gave each of us total liberty to think, believe, act as we do and nobody gets it right all the time. ALL have sinned and fallen short which is why we need repentance and redemption. To believe that anybody or all in positions of authority and power in the Church are incapable of sin, error, even evil, is naive at best and irresponsible or deadly at worst. It wasn't until 1870 that Pope Pius XI declared the edicts of the pope to be infallible and that became doctrine of the Church. Dedicated students of real history know that this has not been true of previous popes or subsequent popes or Pius XI himself for that matter.

The most constructive and beneficial policy for us is learn from our mistakes and move forward as better versions of ourselves. That is true of the Church, all human institutions, humanity itself.

 

[notmyfault2020]

The Church is the sum total of all believers. And it is human beings who administer the institution of the structural Church. And despite the best intentions and efforts of anybody, God gave each of us total liberty to think, believe, act as we do and nobody gets it right all the time. ALL have sinned and fallen short which is why we need repentance and redemption. To believe that anybody or all in positions of authority and power in the Church are incapable of sin, error, even evil, is naive at best and irresponsible or deadly at worst. It wasn't until 1870 that Pope Pius XI declared the edicts of the pope to be infallible and that became doctrine of the Church. Dedicated students of real history know that this has not been true of previous popes or subsequent popes or Pius XI himself for that matter.

The most constructive and beneficial policy for us is learn from our mistakes and move forward as better versions of ourselves. That is true of the Church, all human institutions, humanity itself.

just another comment showing how abysmally uninformed/misinformed non-CAtholics are about the CC

Where do I begin?

For one, the Church is far more than the sum total of believers. Thank God for that! How would u feel if the US was nothing more than 320 million human beings all trying to do their own thing (as humans are prone to do)? But no, we have a written Constitution and a well-thought-out form of govt with 3 branches... (not that the Constitution is adhered to religiously but some Americans still believe in it/adhere to and expect their politicians to do the same..)

The Church is above mere humans and its laws are etched in stone as it were, just as the Constitution of our country is written and supposed to be adhered to. The fact that all Americans do not (politicians "at the top") is no reason to stop believing in our system of govt, the best in the world. It is the same w/ the Church. Just because most Catholics don't want to adhere to true Catholicism, does not make Catholicism any less trustworthy and.. "adhere-to-worthy"

Jesus prayed for Peter, that his faith would not fail. God listens to Jesus, obviously. And so the Church Christ founded does not and cannot teach error (the francis sect, again, is not the true Catholic Church).

It is too bad everyone does not have the certainty in faith that we true Catholics have but that is because they do not want to search for it as we have

 

[Foxfyre]

just another comment showing how abysmally uninformed/misinformed non-CAtholics are about the CC

Where do I begin?

For one, the Church is far more than the sum total of believers. Thank God for that! How would u feel if the US was nothing more than 320 million human beings all trying to do their own thing (as humans are prone to do)? But no, we have a written Constitution and a well-thought-out form of govt with 3 branches... (not that the Constitution is adhered to religiously but some Americans still believe in it/adhere to and expect their politicians to do the same..)

The Church is above mere humans and its laws are etched in stone as it were, just as the Constitution of our country is written and supposed to be adhered to. The fact that all Americans do not (politicians "at the top") is no reason to stop believing in our system of govt, the best in the world. It is the same w/ the Church. Just because most Catholics don't want to adhere to true Catholicism, does not make Catholicism any less trustworthy and.. "adhere-to-worthy"

Jesus prayed for Peter, that his faith would not fail. God listens to Jesus, obviously. And so the Church Christ founded does not and cannot teach error (the francis sect, again, is not the true Catholic Church).

It is too bad everyone does not have the certainty in faith that we true Catholics have but that is because they do not want to search for it as we have

Then the Catholic bishops and priests and nuns I studied under were woefully uninformed/misinformed. The Church has its ugly history and it does no one any good ignoring that or pretending it didn't exist any more than does ignoring the bad of the rest of our history. And it is just as wrong and even more destructive to focus only on the bad and ignore all the good that came out of various periods of our history.

Humankind gets it wrong at times, let's greed or ambition get the best of it at times, sins and does evil at times even within the Church. But because of the Church and other positive influences humankind has also been able to learn, grow, become a better version of itself. It all works together to culminate in the people we are now.

 

[notmyfault2020]

I have read that book and also many others about Luther than are not doctrine motivated intentions to discredit and demonize him. I have studied both under Roman Catholic teachers and in an Episcopal seminary. (I am neither Roman Catholic or Episcopal but have worked for and been thoroughly schooled in both.)

I'm pretty confident of my several years of education on this. I write curriculum for and teach it. I respect your faith and beliefs that are what they are. I accept you do not accept mine and that's okay. I am quite confident we both worship the same God and receive His blessings.

well, thkis may be a first on the Religion site: a non-Catholic saying that I, NMF2020 worship the same God.. although technically, there is no way to prove that. I don't know all of what you believe and vice versa.

So what is the name of your religion, if you have one? Non-denom?

 

[notmyfault2020]

Then the Catholic bishops and priests and nuns I studied under were woefully uninformed/misinformed. The Church has its ugly history and it does no one any good ignoring that or pretending it didn't exist any more than does ignoring the bad of the rest of our history. And it is just as wrong and even more destructive to focus only on the bad and ignore all the good that came out of various periods of our history.

Why do you assume I see no bad in the history of my Church? Of course there is bad and I know about a lot of it.. I know about the sexual lawlessness of some of the popes and how one pope was even accused, credibly, of murder. I wish I knew more about the history of the Church but I do know plenty. the thing is, protestants are always whitewashing their own hideous past behavior, never talking about, for example, the way priests were hunted down and killed in England for simply celebrating Mass... Catholics had to hide priests in closets or wherever to try to save their lives. Edmund Campion.. I could go on and on..

It's so terribly lopsided.. the way protestants go on and on about OMG OMG The Cahtolics this, the Catholics that.. and yet they never ever want to talk about such things..

So that's 1 reason why I don't bother talking about history with protestants. They have it so wrong 95% of the time that it is just nothing short of absolutely RIDICULOUS.. The Inquisition is always distorted to the max..

Anyway.. Jesus did say that His followers would be "hated by all" and no religion is more hated than true Catholicism.

which reality kind of tells you the Catholic Church is the true one all by itself

 

[Foxfyre]

well, thkis may be a first on the Religion site: a non-Catholic saying that I, NMF2020 worship the same God.. although technically, there is no way to prove that. I don't know all of what you believe and vice versa.

So what is the name of your religion, if you have one? Non-denom?

I am pretty much a Christian denomination of one. Over the years at different times I have worked for and worked with the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the Catholics, the Methodists, the Episcopalians, the Baptists and for a short stint the ecumenical Conference of Churches here in Albuquerque. My chosen vocation was/is journalism/communications and though my skill set has often put me in the business world, I have been able to use that with all these different organizations. And as a lover of history including Church history, I have some seminary training and have studied under many different teachers of different disciplines. I now attend a non denominational Christian Church but am comfortable worshipping with Christians of whatever species.

I believe in God, that Jesus was God incarnate on Earth, and God in the form of the Holy Spirit is quite alive and active on Planet Earth among those willing to see and hear it as well as with some who experience it inadvertently. I believe in a personal relationship with the living God. And I believe in eternal life.

I also believe that all of us, once we are able to know in Heaven, will be quite surprised at how much of all of this we got wrong.

 

[notmyfault2020]

I also believe that all of us, once we are able to know in Heaven, will be quite surprised at how much of all of this we got wrong.

considering how weak and sinful we are, I have no doubt that is so.

The thing is.. some of us ADMIT when we were wrong and some refuse to do so. Some (not you) are so utterly convinced the Catholic Church is... spawn of Satan or something akin to it, that they refuse to listen to anything Catholics have to say. I mean, they just KNOW there is nothing good about the RCC, whether you're talking about the SSPX or the francis sect, doesn't matter. They've got it all figured out! Except that they do NOT. Catholics can tell by listening to them that they don't have a clue about Catholicism. They think they know about the CC after listening to their DECEIVED pastors and/or others who told them (whatever) about the CC and they bought it w/o investigation. That's really bad when you llisten to someone who has an agenda (keeping people in HIS church alone) over someone who actually knows Catholicism from that greatest of all teachers Experience..

 

[Foxfyre]

considering how weak and sinful we are, I have no doubt that is so.

The thing is.. some of us ADMIT when we were wrong and some refuse to do so. Some (not you) are so utterly convinced the Catholic Church is... spawn of Satan or something akin to it, that they refuse to listen to anything Catholics have to say. I mean, they just KNOW there is nothing good about the RCC, whether you're talking about the SSPX or the francis sect, doesn't matter. They've got it all figured out! Except that they do NOT. Catholics can tell by listening to them that they don't have a clue about Catholicism. They think they know about the CC after listening to their DECEIVED pastors and/or others who told them (whatever) about the CC and they bought it w/o investigation. That's really bad when you llisten to someone who has an agenda (keeping people in HIS church alone) over someone who actually knows Catholicism from that greatest of all teachers Experience..

I am sorry if you have been subjected to the worst prejudices. Those have not been my experience from either RCC or Protestants. Yes some believe they embrace the only true faith, but they are usually not unpleasant to the rest of us.

I love history, most especially Church history and the development of Christian thought for which I write and teach curriculum. The Roman Catholic Church of course is a huge part of that. Despite all the bad , for example the Crusades and the Inquisition that no moral person can justify with today's conscience and sense of justice, what became the RCC also preserved the faith during some of the darkest times for Christianity. The Protestant Church also has its indefensible history and some shining moments.

I have a huge family and circle of friends, some of whom are Catholic including my sister and brother-in-law as well as many friends who are RCC. The majority are various species of Protestant. I don't know a single Catholic or a single Protestant, however, who would define the other as 'the spawn of Satan or any other such negative characteristic, even among those who describe themselves as Atheist. I do run across people on message boards who love to denigrate the Church and Christians but those tend to use such language for everything in their sad narrow worlds.

Certainly the modern RCC scandals of priests sexually preying upon children etc. and the charlatans cheating and exploiting their parishioners in the Protestant Church--the worst may have been Jim Jones and the horrible tragedy at Jonestown, Guyana--all exist and/or existed and have become part of Church history. But they also represent a tiny minority among the whole and it would be wrong to say these represent what the Church is just as it is wrong to accuse a few bad actors in other aspects of society as being all that society was or is.

In my opinion, the world would be a much more dangerous, brutal, cruel place without the overall tempering affect of Christianity, both Catholic and Protestant.