Classes for Awards

[camilam42]

@clemlaw,

 

What you're asking isn't the same thing. I haven't made a bigoted slur toward another religion. That is what the term "papist" amounts to.

 

My statement, "For Catholics, the Catholic perspective on religion is how we are to form our consciences. Not the other way around, which is how many Protestant communions view it."

 

I was speaking about Catholics specifically. I was not making a statement that can be taken as a slur toward another ecclesial communion. I also was not making a statement that was inconsistent with Catholic teaching, which was clearly defined.

 

In short, I fail to see your point.

 

"Most Protestant theologians would agree with the proposition that you advance as being uniquely Roman Catholic."

 

How many Protestant theologians have you read, becaue that statement is patently false. Everyone from Luther, to Zwingli, to Calvin, all the way to modern theologians such as Dr. Adrian Rogers and Dr. Robert Schuler.

 

"You know to an absolute certainty what you believe, and I know to an absolute certainty what I believe. But I do not know exactly what you believe, nor do you know exactly what I believe."

 

No, I don't know to an absolute certainty, I am certain insofar as the Church teaches it to be so and I form my will according to the Church.

 

"It often makes conflicts superficially easier to resolve if I can first decide what you believe, and then refute it. It's easy, but it's not being Trustworthy, nor is it bearing true witness. If you strive to always bear true witness, then it's easy to avoid bearing false witness."

 

Again, your point is lost. How is being certain being untrustworthy? And how does a Protestant theologian to justify forming one's conscience to the Catholic view? Because that is what I was getting at. Catholics are to form their consciences to Catholic teachings and Protestant ecclesial communions do not. Not many Protestant theologians will support their constituents forming their consciences to the Catholic Church. That is a simple fact.

[Beavah]

No offense intended, camilam42.

 

I can't speak to how the term was used in da English reformation, eh? But then, I'm not usin' it in the English reformation. I'm an old fellow, but not that old!

 

I note, however, da first Google page that pops on "Papist" includes three Roman Catholic bloggers who use the term affectionately ("The Joyful Papist"), and a truly hysterical article from 1958 about Catholic students responding to an obnoxious diatribe in a college newspaper. That article also includes da one eyed one horned flying purple people eater (no kiddin'!).

 

Page two gets me another Catholic blog with a definition that says "papist: a Catholic who is a strong advocate of the papacy" (on the "americanpapist.com" website) as well as American Papist Cool Catholic Clothing.

 

So it might be that the term no longer means what yeh think it means?

 

I learned it from a few Catholic friends in late night discussions around campfires. They don't seem to be offended, in fact it seems to be used in jest and good-natured camaraderie. Of course, my Catholic friends, they call me funny names too, eh? Yeh can feel free to join in with 'em, I don't mind. Too few years left on my clock to spend any time taking offense over such silliness.

 

Any more thoughts on the topic of da thread?

 

B

 

[Beavah]

[duplicate post](This message has been edited by Beavah)

[camilam42]

No Beavah, I don't have any more thoughts on the thread. I have said my piece regarding that.

 

I merely posted saying that I didn't appreciate the anti-Catholic word "Papist." I don't really care how any person uses the term, it is still offensive. I have asked once that you please not use it and I am now asking a second time, as you think that there is some sort of justification for the word.

 

The word is anti-Catholic and it is offensive. Please understand that as in racial slurs, the term "papist" fits in with a bigoted idealogy. It may not have been your intention, but it is what it is.

 

There is a term I could equate it with, but to do so would show just how offensive it is for a Catholic. I think that you get my point.

 

Notice that in all of our conversations I have never been offensive to you and have shown you the utmost respect. Please offer me the same. Thank you.

[Beavah]

No Beavah, I don't have any more thoughts on the thread. I have said my piece regarding that.

 

Then let's leave folks to continue the topic in peace, eh?

 

While it is a spiritual work of mercy to instruct the ignorant, it is a fault of courtesy to do so in public.

 

B

[clemlaw]

>>>Again, your point is lost. How is being certain being untrustworthy? And how does a Protestant theologian to justify forming one's conscience to the Catholic view?