Why are people so quick to criticise the Catholic Church?

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

The church continually reiterates its core teachings at ecumenical councils, as well as through the ordinary Magisterium.

And how do those two quotations differ from the later Vatican I declaration?

LOL! I wouldn't call it reiterating, I'd call it adjusting it to whatever new realities have become known.

For instance when evolution became known the Vatican came out and stated that evolution was the way in which god created us, not by poofing us and the rest of the universe into existence as the bible says in Genesis.

 

[Apologes]

The RCC, like any institution out there, has seen it's fair share of scandals and those scandals ought to be addressed. It is clear, though, that there is a very intense anti-catholic sentiment that has been around for quite some time and that drives people to go into territories of not merely providing fair criticism but just trying to defame the RCC in any way possible.

Portraying all priests as pedophiles, ranting over and blowing out of proportion the Vatican's wealth, taking catholic teachings out of context or twisting the RCC officials' words (just look at the recent allegation about pope Francis denying the existence of hell) and the list goes on.

The RCC is certainly to blame for some of the negative sentiment it has received but the amount which is present in the general public is really unwarranted.

 

[Altfish]

Why are people so quick to criticise the Catholic Church?

Some good reasons

1. They supported the Nazis in WW2
2. They protected (and continue to do so) paedophiles.
3. Womens' rights - how many female priests are there?

If you want to go back further..
The Crusades
The Inquisition

I could go on

 

[Apologes]

Why are people so quick to criticise the Catholic Church?

Some good reasons

1. They supported the Nazis in WW2
2. They protected (and continue to do so) paedophiles.
3. Womens' rights - how many female priests are there?

If you want to go back further..
The Crusades
The Inquisition

I could go on

Given how you're listing stereotypical anti-catholic nonsense you might also add "killed Galileo" somewhere in there.

 

[Altfish]

Given how you're listing stereotypical anti-catholic nonsense you might also add "killed Galileo" somewhere in there.

'stereotypical anti-catholic nonsense' - does that mean it is untrue?

 

[dianaiad]

Why do people point their finger at Catholics and say the Catholics are the sinners or the 'stupid' denomination?

Anything Catholic individuals do wrong is blamed on the Church as a whole. That is wrong.

Catholics could also laugh at the Protestants: the Anglican church was set up so Henry VIII could remarry and Mormonism's Joseph Smith couldn't read the same plates twice. Westboro Baptist Church is also a Protestant Church.

Let's see.

My sig file reads "He whom one would persecute must first be made 'other.' " or something similar. I made that up.

Here's another one I made up: It isn't logical to blame the belief system for the actions of those who break its rules.

Why did I made these two up? Because for some reason entirely unknown to me, nobody else did first.

Go figure.

Of course, if anybody in here wants to go quote hunting and find out if someone said this first, I'll be quite happy to give whoever it was the credit.

ANYway....humans have been doing this to one another ever since humans began to have tribes. The religious are VERY good at this, but nowadays I see that atheists do it just as efficiently as theists ever did; that is, determine that anybody who doesn't agree with him/her about God (pro, con, or who) is 'lesser.' That is, dumb, stupid, not quite human...OK to persecute, mock, deride and otherwise target.

Catholics did it to the Protestants....and were really murderous about it. Protestants did it to the Catholics, and were really murderous about it, and everybody 'does it' to the Jews.

Things haven't changed much, though there isn't quite as much torture and killing involved. The whole thing, though, begins with deciding that if the best people represent their own belief systems, then the worst people represent the other guy's.

The upshot is, get used to it. People who don't like your beliefs are going to insist that the worst of you represent the belief system. (shrug) It's part of the 'making other' bit.

and nobody stops to think about the logical silliness of, say, blaming the laws against theft for the actions of the kid who saw a cell phone on the car seat, and broke the window to get at it.

You know, like blaming anything a Catholic does wrong on the church as a whole?

 

[Glaurung]

In reality the Vatican II changed nothing as far as the core doctrines and dogma of the Roman Church. There was a lot of flowery polite language for superficial eccumenism, but always followed by clear statements reaffirming fundamentals of the church. The biggest change was in advocating greater diplomacy and dialogue outside the church to essentially reduce the traditional isolation of the church. There was also some conditional acknowledgment of some of the negative aspects of the relationships with past religions like Judaism.

The watering down of which I speak is mostly in the practice rather than in the doctrines of the faith. I stated that the teachings of the Church as they exist in the books are still staunchly conservative, which is a good thing. The Church is not there to rubber stamp the intellectual and moral fads of the secular culture.

 

[shunyadragon]

The watering down of which I speak is mostly in the practice rather than in the doctrines of the faith. I stated that the teachings of the Church as they exist in the books are still staunchly conservative, which is a good thing. The Church is not there to rubber stamp the intellectual and moral fads of the secular culture.

i have read and studied the Vatican II documents since they came out, and I did not see any of the above. What 'intellectual and moral fads' are you referring to?

Please reference the Vatican II documents to support your case.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Given how you're listing stereotypical anti-catholic nonsense you might also add "killed Galileo" somewhere in there.

Nothing he said is untrue.

 

[Glaurung]

i have read and studied the Vatican II documents since they came out, and I did not see any of the above. What 'intellectual and moral fads' are you referring to?

Please reference the Vatican II documents to support your case.

Are you being obtuse?

My assertion is that among the primary factors driving modern anti-Catholicism is precisely the Church's conservatism. It is one of the few (important) institutions in the western world which has not completely embraced (or rather capitulated to) the progressivist cultural hegemony. (Although there are many in the Church's ranks determined to 'fix' that). And if you think that embracing gay marriage, remarriage, contraception, abortion, causal sex, religious indifferentism, female ordination and abandonment of even the most minimal of religious obligations that the Church still insists upon (such as attending Mass once a week, going to confession at least once a year, ect) then I direct you to the liberal churches who have done just that only to find themselves on the precipice of utter irrelevance. The Church exists to bring people to Christ, not to affirm a culture which has lost almost all sense of sin and truth.

Where the Church has been utterly betrayed is not with Vatican II itself. (I never said that). But that since Vatican II the practice and teaching of the faith has been watered down to iconoclastic levels. The Mass has been stripped down and banalised, ugly, almost atheistic church designs became the norm, the utter abandonment of Latin for a childish and horribly dated 1970's vernacular, the near complete loss of solid preaching and the marginalization of traditional devotions that have been a part of Catholic culture for centuries.

The supposed custodians of the Catholic faith were complicit (and in many cases directly responsible) for a collapse of the faith decades long because they were taken in by an arrogant 1960's-1970's mindset that said that they knew better than the generations of Catholics that came before them. The irony is that the rigid people (contra Pope Francis) are actually the people who still believe that they're going to "sing a new Church into being" or whatever other airy nonsense no one under fifty takes seriously.

Of course I ultimately trust in God and in the eventual triumph of the truth. No matter how obscured it is right now it still retains its divine backing. Matthew 16:18.

 

[Estro Felino]

I attend the Personal Ordinariate which conducts services using a slightly modified version of the liturgy as performed in the Anglican High Church. It's quite close to the Tridentine Mass except that it's in early Modern English. (Think King James Bible). In any case I love Latin and would happily attend Latin services if it were convenient for me to do so.

That's good to hear...modern languages are beautiful, and I don't understand why Latin would be so appealing...
@Musing Bassist
I need to ask you a favor. I am curious about what the songs sung in English during a Catholic Mass sound like.
If they're available on Youtube...could you please post them in this specific thread? Only if u have time...
Religious songs from your Religion
Thank u so much in advance

 

[Glaurung]

That's good to hear...modern languages are beautiful, and I don't understand why Latin would be so appealing...

I'm not against the use of the vernacular, so long as Mass in the traditional Latin is maintained as widely available.

Theravada Buddhism has Pali. Hinduism has Sanskrit. Islam, Classical Arabic and Judaism, Hebrew and Aramaic. Language is a vital element of culture and tradition and for us Roman Catholics Latin is an indispensable part of that tradition. To do away with it is iconoclasm.

I do draw the line at the claim I have seen some traditionalists make, which is that prayers in Latin are more efficacious due to an intrinsic holiness of Latin as the language of the western Church. While I do think there is a reverence due to Latin as language of the Roman Rite I myself don't personally buy into the idea that Latin is intrinsically more holy than other languages. (Especially other liturgical languages). I have a hard time accepting the idea that God would weigh something like language in and of itself as a factor in regards to the weight of prayers.

 

[SalixIncendium]

**THREAD MOVED TO RELIGIOUS DEBATES**​

 

[shunyadragon]

Are you being obtuse?

My assertion is that among the primary factors driving modern anti-Catholicism is precisely the Church's conservatism. It is one of the few (important) institutions in the western world which has not completely embraced (or rather capitulated to) the progressivist cultural hegemony. (Although there are many in the Church's ranks determined to 'fix' that). And if you think that embracing gay marriage, remarriage, contraception, abortion, causal sex, religious indifferentism, female ordination and abandonment of even the most minimal of religious obligations that the Church still insists upon (such as attending Mass once a week, going to confession at least once a year, ect) then I direct you to the liberal churches who have done just that only to find themselves on the precipice of utter irrelevance. The Church exists to bring people to Christ, not to affirm a culture which has lost almost all sense of sin and truth.

Where the Church has been utterly betrayed is not with Vatican II itself. (I never said that). But that since Vatican II the practice and teaching of the faith has been watered down to iconoclastic levels. The Mass has been stripped down and banalised, ugly, almost atheistic church designs became the norm, the utter abandonment of Latin for a childish and horribly dated 1970's vernacular, the near complete loss of solid preaching and the marginalization of traditional devotions that have been a part of Catholic culture for centuries.

The supposed custodians of the Catholic faith were complicit (and in many cases directly responsible) for a collapse of the faith decades long because they were taken in by an arrogant 1960's-1970's mindset that said that they knew better than the generations of Catholics that came before them. The irony is that the rigid people (contra Pope Francis) are actually the people who still believe that they're going to "sing a new Church into being" or whatever other airy nonsense no one under fifty takes seriously.

Of course I ultimately trust in God and in the eventual triumph of the truth. No matter how obscured it is right now it still retains its divine backing. Matthew 16:18.

I consider you being obtuse, vague, and scapegoating the Vatican II for problems and controversies in the Roman Church that are nothing new. Since you agree there is nothing in the Vatican II advocating these changes, You need to cite church documents advocating these changes.

First the Roman Church has not changed it's views on embracing gay marriage, contraception, abortion, causal sex, and female ordination. As far as remarriage there has always been special case consideration by the church, but the doctrine of the church has not changed. Just because individuals may advocate these changes does not represent the Roman Church.

As far as religious indifferentism abandonment of even the most minimal of religious obligations that the Church still insists upon (such as attending Mass once a week, going to confession at least once a year, ect) then I direct you to the liberal churches who have done just that only to find themselves on the precipice of utter irrelevance represents obtuse vague accusations, and not actual changes in the Roman Church Doctrine and Dogma itself.

The Mass has been stripped down and banalised, ugly, almost atheistic church designs became the norm, the utter abandonment of Latin for a childish and horribly dated 1970's vernacular, the near complete loss of solid preaching and the marginalization of traditional devotions that have been a part of Catholic culture for centuries.

This and your posts clearly indicate you are definitely a trad-rad in the most extreme form.

You have neglected the changes and reforms in the Roman Church that 'just beginning' to address the rampant and endemic sexual and physical abuse of the believers by the clergy that has been endemic for centuries.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Why do people point their finger at Catholics and say the Catholics are the sinners or the 'stupid' denomination?

Anything Catholic individuals do wrong is blamed on the Church as a whole. That is wrong.

Catholics could also laugh at the Protestants: the Anglican church was set up so Henry VIII could remarry and Mormonism's Joseph Smith couldn't read the same plates twice. Westboro Baptist Church is also a Protestant Church.

Because it's built on a corrupt foundation since day one, but then so are all revealed religions.

 

[Glaurung]

I consider you being obtuse, vague, and scapegoating the Vatican II for problems and controversies in the Roman Church that are nothing new. Since you agree there is nothing in the Vatican II advocating these changes, You need to cite church documents advocating these changes.

Not in one post in this thread have I claimed Vatican II in and of itself as the cause. You're accusing me of saying what I never have. I need not cite anything because I have not made any claims about the content of Vatican II AT ALL. Can you please stop the projection and actually read my posts?

I am by no means a "rad-trad" but I do resent the watering down of Catholic tradition that has occurred SINCE Vatican II.

I haven't claimed a single thing about Vatican II itself here.

The watering down of which I speak is mostly in the practice rather than in the doctrines of the faith. I stated that the teachings of the Church as they exist in the books are still staunchly conservative, which is a good thing. The Church is not there to rubber stamp the intellectual and moral fads of the secular culture.

I am not saying Vatican II rubber stamped the culture. I am saying that the Church ought not rubber stamp the culture and that its refusal to do so is what drives a large element of liberal anti-Catholicism as it currently exists.

This and your posts clearly indicate you are definitely a trad-rad in the most extreme form.

That's a rather serious accusation to make so casually.

I prefer the traditional liturgy, traditional architecture, vestments and art. I do not like the imposition of dated boomer 'folk' sap (which stopped being relevant long before I was even born) continually interjected in what is supposed to be the central expression of my faith. Growing up in the 90's and 00's my main impression of the Mass was hardly something to inspire faith and devotion. Unless you are deluded enough to think that a young male is inspired by 'liturgical dance'.

Spoiler: Granted

That was relatively rare but I have been subjected to it.

Look, I have no problem with anyone who wants to clap their hands and shake their tambourines whilst singing that they're going change the world with their Christian love. But I don't think it has any place in the Mass. My 'extremism' is little more than the notion (as crazy as it sounds) that the central act of worship within a religious tradition ought to be one of reverence, substance and gravitas. Rejecting the 1970's aesthetic (liturgical, musical and architectural) does not make me an extremist. The actual extremists don't even recognize the legitimacy of the current Church.

I'm not asking to go back to the 1500's or even for the restoration of the Tridentine Mass as the sole form of the Roman Rite. I'm asking for the Church to let go of the 70's and return to a parish worship that is both serious and reverent. Heck, just getting rid of the awful music which has dominated Roman Rite parishes for decades would go a long way into achieving that. Combine that with the restoration of communion railing and the facing of liturgical east and almost all my objections to Ordinary Form would evaporate. (To an actual rad-trad, this alone would render me a heretic).

You have neglected the changes and reforms in the Roman Church that 'just beginning' to address the rampant and endemic sexual and physical abuse of the believers by the clergy that has been endemic for centuries

A red herring. No one is opposed to rooting out bad actors within the Church. Here, we're talking about the teaching and practice of the faith. The sex scandals as awful as they may be, are not relevant to this discussion.

In the end it boils down to this. I'm an under thirty trying to take the faith seriously. And aspersions of 'extremism' or 'rigidity' are cast by those occupying the highest offices of the Church. Yes, there is a pharisaical element among the more conservative or traditionalist circles within the Church. But they're small fry compared to those who smashed the high altars and banished every element of tradition they could from the practice of the faith. (And have gotten away with it for decades). If you hate tradition so much just become a liberal mainline Protestant. That at least would be honest.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

And that's also been my experience of attending mass for over 50 years.

Yeah. Its not in any mass I know of

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Why do people point their finger at Catholics and say the Catholics are the sinners or the 'stupid' denomination?

Anything Catholic individuals do wrong is blamed on the Church as a whole. That is wrong.

Catholics could also laugh at the Protestants: the Anglican church was set up so Henry VIII could remarry and Mormonism's Joseph Smith couldn't read the same plates twice. Westboro Baptist Church is also a Protestant Church.

I pinned these reasons:

Protestant non liturgical deniminations interpret the bible according the criteria they had in mind beforehand.

They think Mass teaches paganism ane idolism without reading the CCC and bible

They had bad experiences with people in the church and project it to the church as a whole

They mistake church as a political organizarion rather than The Church, the body of christ.

They never really "gone" to mass

 

[starsofirelight]

Hello
I do not believe that people are very overly quick to criticize Roman Catholics any more than they daily criticize other things that they disagree with.

Roman Catholics are not any different from other people in this regard.

Outside of the fact that the Roman Catholic Church has handed the keys to the church over to the homosexual community around the world and people around the world have noticed it. It has really wrecked mayhem and havoc on the lower class populations who are having billions of misbegotten children and refusing to use birth control. They expected the billions and billions of dollars to be set up as a reward system and runway between Canaan and South America, straight into America for the billions of fatherless children that the Catholic Church and Islamic Leaders have promoted to be born. America and the infidels and heretics were to pay the bills. Now the Roman Catholic Church has had to remove its billions of dollars out of the social government services. Thousands of Gay men were allowed to use their positions and power and status as a ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST to conduct a personal literal Gay Quest . Billions and Billions of dollars in OUR AMERICAN TAXES and DONATIONS CHARITIES. OUR TAXES and DONATIONS and GIFTS contributions, presents and handouts and offerings. Billions have been lost and thrown away .

Money, property and land and buildings that The Catholics across the planet have lost that could have been used to help the poor and needy- Even could have helped the dreamers and undocumented children immigrants of DACA. But instead, the billions have all been thrown away into the legal system to pay the seXual bills and fees, fines and court costs and settlements for the seXual adventures and pleasures and seXual pedophilic raptures, joys and journeys of the Gay Community worldwide. . Millions of Good, Loving, Caring and Helpful Roman Catholic have been robbed of Billions Of Dollars, as they can not cover the cost.

I have met many, many kindly, caring, loving and honest and real good genuine Catholic people but if we are wondering about quick or sudden or rash judgments - Catholics have Already Decided and judged thousands of souls, { AS Heaven Bound Souls ). Roman Catholics act as Judge and Jury ) and have Already Pre Judged People, before Judgment day. They have thousands of pre-judged souls that they pray to because they are pre judged and in heaven right now.

They have already had their Catholic Judgment day Here on Earth. Mortal MEN, SINNERS are Pre Judging Peoples Souls and Deciding Who is and Who is NOT Going to heaven. Also, Notice that - There are No non-catholic Saints...... In 2000 years of Roman Catholicism, There has never been a single Non-Catholic Saint and There Will be NO NON-Catholic saints because the judgment has been made by previous Vatican Primates / Pontiffs. It is like judging that there can be a black pope. The judgment has been made and it was quick.

Roman Catholicism, as a system, only wants its followers to fit in and be loved and accepted, respected and social workers for the Vatican Primates / " FATHERS " as they tear down and totally dismantle the Hebrew and Greek Biblical manuscript message. That is all that the system wants until that has been accomplished, then on to a new similar goal. There are just too many Catholics and Muslims to judge them all based on the leaders.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why do people point their finger at Catholics and say the Catholics are the sinners or the 'stupid' denomination?

Anything Catholic individuals do wrong is blamed on the Church as a whole. That is wrong.

Catholics could also laugh at the Protestants: the Anglican church was set up so Henry VIII could remarry and Mormonism's Joseph Smith couldn't read the same plates twice. Westboro Baptist Church is also a Protestant Church.

As a resident of Ontario, the only religious schools I pay for are Catholic. As a citizen of Canada, my head of state is legally required to be the head of the Church of England. Because of this, even though I don’t belong to either one, I’m especially entitled to a say in the affairs of those two churches specifically.