What a shock!

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]The one is of very limited value without the other. Lex orandi lex credendi.

Yes, of course. But both are of limited value without outwardly
practicing (and this is my essential point): Yes, one must recognize
the importance of liturgy. Yes, one must recognize the importance of
sacramental li such
obvious lacks of striving take place.

Nemesio[/b]

I'm not certain what it is you're asking Catholics to do. Make placards and take to the streets? Sorry, we're not about to put on a public show for your benefit. Stop putting money into the collection plate? Sorry, I'm quite satisfied with my priests and my Bishop and the work they do - I'm not about to jeopardise the good work they do to make a political statement about the Church at large.

I do express my outrage when the Church's shepherds mess up -- I just don't do it on the public forums at RHP. In any case, it's not as if there is any shortage of "outrage" expressed here at various offences (real or imagined) that the Church has or is supposed to have done. When you and others like you start expressing your appreciation of the Church publicly more often perhaps you'll see Catholics like ivanhoe and myself trusting you enough to share their "outrage" with you. As he's pointed out repeatedly (which you ignore) just because he doesn't post his criticisms of the Church on this forum doesn't mean he doesn't have or express any anywhere else. I bet if this were an all-Catholic forum you'd see a very different ivanhoe to the one you see now.

And yes, that may mean you'll see an imbalance between Catholics defending the Church in this forum and Catholics criticising her. So be it. If Catholics won't stand up to defend their Church, who will?

Is this thread here for those who want to post total bookworks?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
And yes, that may mean you'll see an imbalance between Catholics defending the Church in this forum and Catholics criticising her. So be it. If Catholics won't stand up to defend their Church, who will?

Oh, here it is. The martyr complex.

I defend the Church whenever someone states something incorrect. I've corrected misunderstandings
about 'Mary Worship' and 'Immaculate Conception' and other blatant misconceptions perpetuated
by both theist and atheist alike.

Roman Catholics should defend those parts of the Church worthy of defending and chastise those
parts of the Church worthy of derision.

That, for example, you will spend time crafting posts which try to rewrite history regarding the
'relative' ethicalness of the Inquisition but remain silent when an Archbishop (and, evidently, many
of his colleagues) colluded with the Polish Secret Police is inexcusable. You would be guilty of the
same bias (albeit its opposite) as those who wrongly chastise the Church.

If Roman Catholics won't stand up for what is right, even when their Church is wrong, then what
are you defending?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Oh, here it is. The martyr complex.

I'll take that over your Victorian charity complex any day. "Dah-ling, I just couldn't stop thinking about all those poor children in Africa who simply have no clothes! Of course, I just had to give a few shillings to that nice girl at the door. It's simply dreadful there; our Government simply must send more soldiers to run their country for them. More tea and sandwiches, dear?"


I defend the Church whenever someone states something incorrect. I've corrected misunderstandings about 'Mary Worship' ...

Here it is. I know eight-year olds who can defend such obvious misconceptions quite competently. Try your hand at something that is not so obvious even a child could clear it up. Try your hand at something that brings you derision from the fellow members of your "wolf pack". Try explaining Mit Brennender Sorge the next time someone brings up Pius XII's record on the Holocaust; try and provide current scholarly estimates every time some one goes on about the "millions of women burnt at the stake by the Inquisition as witches".

Then we can meaningfully speak of you "defending" the Church.


That, for example, you will spend time crafting posts which try to rewrite history regarding the 'relative' ethicalness of the Inquisition but remain silent when an Archbishop (and, evidently, many of his colleagues) colluded with the Polish Secret Police is inexcusable.

I don't "rewrite" history; I'm correcting the bits that have already been rewritten in popular myth. I haven't pointed out anything that competent historians haven't pointed out.

Clearly you have spent time crafting posts criticising the Polish bishops on this matter. Why did you not even bother to post about the subsequent actions and statements of the Polish bishops' conference?

For all the critical posts you made about the US sex abuse scandal, you didn't even know there was a public apology made by the USCCB until I pointed it to you when you rhetorically asked for it.

If Roman Catholics won't stand up for what is right, even when their Church is wrong, then what are you defending?

We stand up for what's right. We just don't feel the need to do in front of you. We don't feel like doing it just to provide ammunition for liberal rags.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I'll take that over your Victorian charity complex any day.

Whatever, LH. My record for personal charity is none of anyone's business but God's and my
tax accountant's. That having been said, there are many Christians here who think that Jesus
was more interested in conversion than charity, and that's simply not the case. Similarly,
there are many (Roman) Catholics who think Jesus thought liturgy is more important than
charity, when He testified repeatedly that liturgy in the absence of charity is an abomination.
So, you can live in your world where you can feel justified by encyclicals and incense and I
will live in a world where I am never satisfied (and consequently never feel justified) because
there is so much work to be done and so much for liturgy to inspire.

Here it is. I know eight-year olds who can defend such obvious misconceptions quite competently. Try your hand at something that is not so obvious even a child could clear it up.

Sure, eight-year olds who are raised in an environment where they are flooded with nothing
but RC doctrine, of course they will know it. However, just because in your cloistered theological
framework you are willing to subject kids to something you assert is the Truth rather than risk
allowing them to deduce it on their own, they would (and often do) have the same magnitude of
ignorance about Anglicanism, Methodism, Quakerism, Judiasm, and Islam that many have about
Roman Catholicism. Personally, I am glad that I have studied all of these (Islam, least of all, but
I'm working on it) and have been enriched by them all. Yes, I have a personal preference, one
which I think best reflects God's wishes, and that's the manner in which I worship, but I make no
pretenses to 'Truth possession;' it's only my best guess -- that which makes me feel closest to God.

Try your hand at something that brings you derision from the fellow members of your "wolf pack". Try explaining Mit Brennender Sorge the next time someone brings up Pius XII's record on the Holocaust; try and provide current scholarly estimates every time some one goes on about the "millions of women burnt at the stake by the Inquisition as witches".

Hold on a second. Have I ever argued with you about Pius XII? No. I disagree with you that he
was purely devoted to the Allied cause; his record at the beginning of the war is far more
tentative (not that I blame him...the Vatican might have been a pile of rubble before the Allies
got in). And I have never argued with you claiming that 'millions' of people died in the Inquisition.

But your presentations of the Inquisition (for example) are just as perversely unbalanced as the
absurd claim that you iterate! You suggest that the Inquisition was 'not really a bad thing' or 'was
better than many alternatives exercised by other institutions' or 'had merits that people fail to
observe.' That's rewriting, LH, and you are as painfully guilty of engaging in it as the atheist who
says that a million women died. Instead of rightfully disdaining that horrible period in church
history -- something that would cost you nothing -- you try to defend it.

This is the problem. You spend time defending the indefensible. You give your vocal and
personal support for the Church equally when it is wrong as when is right.

You used the example of my wife in an earlier post (when you were being civil). As much as I
love my wife, if she murdered someone in cold blood, I would testify against her. Perhaps you or
other people might find this cold, but I believe that the Truth is greater than anything that exists
on this earth, even the love for my wife. If we stop pursuing that which is right simply because
we cherish something dearly, then all we are cherishing is an illusion, a façade of Truth resting upon
a foundation built on sand. We should cherish Godly things, like Truth, Honor, Justice, or
Compassion. We should cherish those things which embody and inspire such virtues. The
point where we lose sight of the virtue, and strive to preserve the 'thing' is when we have ceased
to pursue that which is God-like.

Clearly you have spent time crafting posts criticising the Polish bishops on this matter. Why did you not even bother to post about the subsequent actions and statements of the Polish bishops' conference?

For all the critical posts you made about the US sex abuse scandal, you didn't even know there was a public apology made by the USCCB until I pointed it to you when you rhetorically asked for it.

You missed the point with both. I understand why Archbishop Wielgus commiserated with
Communist Poland; a lot of people did because it would have cost them their lives not to. What
irritates me was his staunch denial of this. With the USCCB's apology (as I pointed out way back
then), there is no mention of an apology for those diocesan administrators who knew about the
abuse and hid it repeatedly from the public.

Both cases show that the Church is more interested in political damage control rather than the
pursuit of what is right. And it is because you repeatedly miss or ignore this point that I continue
to rail against the over-politicization of the Church and observe whenever it is guilty of such action.

We stand up for what's right. We just don't feel the need to do in front of you. We don't feel like doing it just to provide ammunition for liberal rags.

I'm personally glad Jesus didn't have your mindset (although I am profoundly disappointed
that it didn't rub off on you). Jesus prized the pursuit of that which is right even at the cost of His
own life; it would have been very convenient for Him to back off when He saw that the 'heat was
on' and the Romans were looking for Him. However, from prostitute to saint, He pointed out that
which was right and wrong, giving His insight, wisdom, and guidance. When Saint Peter said
something stupid, He dope-slapped him just as quickly as He would chastise the Pharisees. Jesus
exposed and denounced sin wherever it was found -- internally amongst the Disciples and externally
amongst the corrupt leaders of the Temple which He loved enough to turn over money tables in
the midst of the Passover hustle and bustle.

Jesus would be disgusted that some members of the Church were using it selfishly, as a
vehicle for the acquisition and retention of personal power. He would be even more disgusted if He
knew that those people went unrebuked by the people above them and unchastised by the people
below them. Jesus was a Jew, and He loved His faith. This did not stop Him from rebuking
the people to whom He was ostensibly subservient. Jesus recognized the sacred duty of spiritual
leader requires the pursuit of that which is right over that which is convenient. Jesus knew that
you still had to say 'I love you' and 'I forgive you' to your enemy, even as they slapped you,
derided you, and stole from you. Jesus also recognized the role that the laity have in demanding
only the best from their spiritual leaders.

That you won't publicly speak out against the Church when it is wrong simply because you are
worried about giving the WolfPack ammunition merely demonstrates that you are cut from the
same cloth as Bishop Wielgus -- you are interested in earthly things, not Divine ones. Rather than
testify to the Truth, you wish to avoid the clamor of your enemy. And, in doing so, you fail to bring
Christ on earth; you hide your lamp under a bushel basket.

By all means, continue to defend the indefensible. Continue to remain silent for fear of making
DoctorScribbles or Rwingett feel vindicated. Continue to try to preserve an image of the Church
which belies its current state. You might even continue to keep your numbers and payroll up, but
you will have ceased doing God's work at the same time.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]I'll take that over your Victorian charity complex any day.

Whatever, LH. My record for personal charity is none of anyone's business but God's and my
tax accountant's. That having been said, there are many Christians here who think that Jesus
was more interested in conversion than charity, and that' ...[text shortened]... ceased doing God's work at the same time.

Nemesio[/b]

Your accusations are misguided, misplaced and disgusting.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Your accusations are misguided, misplaced and disgusting.

Well, Ivan, your comment is a little brief but at least you didn't cut and paste...congratulations!

TheSkipper

Originally posted by TheSkipper
Well, Ivan, your comment is a little brief but at least you didn't cut and paste...congratulations!

TheSkipper

Why thank you, Skipper 😏

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]I'll take that over your Victorian charity complex any day.

Whatever, LH. My record for personal charity is none of anyone's business but God's and my
tax accountant's. That having been said, there are many Christians here who think that Jesus
was more interested in conversion than charity, and that' ...[text shortened]... ceased doing God's work at the same time.

Nemesio[/b]

Originally posted by Nemesio
Whatever, LH. My record for personal charity is none of anyone's business but God's and my tax accountant's...

I wasn't talking about your personal record for charity, Nemesio. I don't know enough about what you do outside these forums to talk about that; and frankly I don't care much either. What I was talking about was your behaviour here.

Sure, eight-year olds who are raised in an environment where they are flooded with nothing but RC doctrine, of course they will know it...

Yes. And correcting a misconception that a child could correct competently does not bring you much credit. It does not entitle you to meaningfully claim to have "defended" the Church. That's what I mean by "Victorian charity complex". In truth, even the most anti-Church atheist (provided he is not equally ignorant) would be embarrassed to have people who entertained such notions in his camp.

Hold on a second. Have I ever argued with you about Pius XII? No. I disagree with you that he was purely devoted to the Allied cause; his record at the beginning of the war is far more tentative (not that I blame him...the Vatican might have been a pile of rubble before the Allies got in). And I have never argued with you claiming that 'millions' of people died in the Inquisition.

Have you ever argued with those who claim those things? Shown them where they're wrong? QED


You suggest that the Inquisition was 'not really a bad thing' or 'was better than many alternatives exercised by other institutions' or 'had merits that people fail to observe.' That's rewriting, LH...

I have never claimed that the Inquisition was 'not really a bad thing'. The other two points aren't "rewriting" -- they're historical facts. I've always cited the latest historical research (and, in many cases, even historians in their own words) while making those points. I have never failed to condemn the Inquisition's methods and processes overall. Yes, I refuse to over-simplify things in a black-and-white manner as you seem to want. I make no apologies for that.

This is the problem. You spend time defending the indefensible. You give your vocal and personal support for the Church equally when it is wrong as when is right.

I don't spend time defending the indefensible. I spend time defending what popular myth says is indefensible. I don't deny facts; but I criticise those who disregard or can't even be bothered to look up the facts.

You missed the point with both...

No, you missed my point with those examples. You spent a lot of time pointing out where they got things wrong; you have yet to say anything about how they're trying to put things right. If I had to guess, I'd say you've never even tried to find out.

And it is because you repeatedly miss or ignore this point that I continue to rail against the over-politicization of the Church and observe whenever it is guilty of such action.

In an earlier post, I asked you to answer concretely what it is you expect lay Catholics to do. You ignored that question. I would now like you to provide an answer that isn't a political response.

I'm personally glad Jesus didn't have your mindset ...

I may not know as much NT Greek as you do; but at least I base my ideas of what Jesus's "mindset" was on what he actually said and did in the Gospels. Do you remember Jesus saying this:

"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector." (Mt 18:15-17)?

You keep talking about Jesus and the Pharisees. How many times did Jesus run to the Romans to complain about the behaviour of the Pharisees? How many times did Jesus rebuke his Apostles in front of the masses?

He would be even more disgusted if He knew that those people went unrebuked by the people above them and unchastised by the people below them.

Who says they are going unchastised by the people below them? How many conversations between priest and laity have you been privy to on the matter? How many Catholic papers and media organisations have you referred to?

Just because it isn't on the front pages of the New York Times or the "Letters to the Editor" page doesn't mean it's not happening.

That you won't publicly speak out against the Church when it is wrong simply because you are worried about giving the WolfPack ammunition merely demonstrates that you are cut from the same cloth as Bishop Wielgus ...

No, it simply shows that I'm not cut from the same cloth as the WolfPack. It shows I don't care particularly whether they (and you) approve or disapprove of my actions (or perceived lack thereof).

If you want Catholics to show you what they truly feel and do, you have to first show that you are worthy of that trust; that you are not merely using their emotions as a means to a private agenda. Nowhere does Christ say that Christians have to go looking for people to slap them.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Your accusations are misguided, misplaced and disgusting.

You're going to use up your monthly allotment for recommendations on LH, aren't you?

As for your comment, it's another unsubstantiated opinion that you expect people to
have regard for. I may disagree with LH, but at the very least he states his stance and
defends it, and that, at the very least, deserves respect.

Your mindless drivel, however, does not.

Nemesio

1 Tim 1:5-7
Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned: From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling; Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.

Originally posted by Nemesio
You're going to use up your monthly allotment for recommendations on LH, aren't you?

As for your comment, it's another unsubstantiated opinion that you expect people to
have regard for. I may disagree with LH, but at the very least he states his stance and
defends it, and that, at the very least, deserves respect.

Your mindless drivel, however, does not.

Nemesio

You are such a ridiculous hippo .....

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by ivanhoe

You guys need a time-out.

Nemesio, I think you might like this guy:

http://mliccione.blogspot.com/2007/01/what-is-our-problem.html

Originally posted by lucifershammer
You guys need a time-out.

... a long one .....