To everyone in this forum:

As much as I like lively debate, I feel that many of these threads have crossed the line into disrespect and shouting matches. No good can come of this. There is no quicker way to entrench someone in their beliefs than to attack them.

Some things to keep in mind to avoid the frustration that leads to harsh words:

A To the non-Catholics who would try to convert us: The arguments you are using, while you feel they are compelling, are lacking something that would make them effective. I will explain what this is later on. But in the meantime, consider that because of this x-factor, these arguments have failed to weaken or disassemble the Church in five hundred years. Please do not expect them to do so in five days.

B To the Catholics: Keep in mind that we have an "x-factor" as well. As a matter of fact, it's the same one, just from the other side of the fence. Unless the person you're arguing with accepts this "x-factor" there is no point in arguing. You will be comparing apples and oranges and are not going to get anywhere.

C The X-Factor (Tradition with a capital T): Until the Gospel of Mark was written during or shortly after the siege of Jerusalem, the Word, at least the New Testament portion, was preserved in a strictly oral tradition. It is not beyond the realm of logic that a portion of that Word remains in oral (or quasi-oral) form to this day. After all, the Talmud existed in oral form for many, many generations before being written down. There is no Christian "Leviticus" (ie. ritual law et cetera written down) in the Bible. It exists in this "oral" component of the Word. Unless we can come to an agreement that the Word *can* have written *and* oral components, then further discussion is useless, so let's not frustrate ourselves. Some protestants and certainly the"sola-scriptura" will demand that verses be pointed out in some New Testament "Leviticus", and not accept anything else.

D The Word, Director's cut:

To the sola scriptura people in particular: If you demand answers to puzzling things to be supported by verses, kindly use the Bible approved by the Council of Nicea in AD325. It was the first one. It was the "Bible" in use before the council (ie, before an official "Bible" was complied) and after it for 1200 years by everyone, and to the present day by Catholics. If not, you are missing many of the books and verses that prove our points. If you are not using this version, kindly don't argue, as demanding scripture will be useless.

E The "everyone should know better by now" category; Catholic beliefs that must be stipulated by both sides in the name of truth and honesty:

1) Catholics do not believe that Mary is a goddess

2) Mary is "the Mother of God" 2a) Jesus was *concieved* by the Holy Spirit in Mary ("begotten not made, one in being with the Father" "concieved by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary" born of the...thus making her His mother) 2b) Mary carried Jesus through gestation and He passed through her to enter the world 2c) Mary is the mother of Jesus 2d) Jesus is God 2e) Mary is the mother of God 2f) That Mary is in any way superior to God is not implied by this statement

3) Praying to and for the dead does not diminish Jesus' role and *is* scriptural (see section D). In addition, it is backed up by what we know about the earliest (ie apostolic-contemporary) Christians. Saints are also supported by that evidence. The Church does not say that a belief in Saints is required to "get to Heaven."

4) The Catholic understanding of the Eucharist is supported by the beliefs of the earliest (ie apostolic-contemporary) Christians. The same goes for all the Sacraments. This is simple history, easily checked and authenticated.

5) We believe that the Pope is infallable when making statements on theology that affect the entire Church for all time. This is not something inherent in John Paul II or any other man, but this is due to the guidance he recieves from the Holy Spirit. Nothing more.

6) Confession only works if the person is 6a) truly sorry 6b) accompanies the Sacrament with prayer

7) Indulgences do not get you out of Hell. Similar requirements to #6. If you "buy" (if you can even figure out HOW to "purchase" an indulgence...usually done through a pilgrimage. If this is the case it is your show of dedicatio *IF* sincere that "buys" you an indulgence) an indulgence and leave it at that, you have accomplished nothing. If you go to Confession and are not truly sorry and seeking forgiveness, you have accomplished nothing.

F Anyone who goes against one of these points in order to cast the Church in a bad light, please be advised that the information you have is erroneous. Please check statements you assert about the beliefs of the RCC with the offical Catechism (should be in any library) before writing them. Chances are, if you got it from a website that isn't www.vatican.va it is erroneous, so before building an argument, make sure you've got the right information.

aaaaaa aaaaaa aaaaa aaaaa aaaaa aaaaa aaaaa aaaaa aaaaa aaaaa

-- anthony (fides_spes_et_caritas@hotmail.com), January 23, 2001

Answers

Anthony,
You are concise and very correct in what you explained here. I might only add the term most used for many centuries was ''Sacred Tradition'', in the aspect of its being according to the Holy Spirit's illumination. All else is traditional, and not necessarily inspired, however customary. Such was the former wearing of a head covering in the church by Catholic women.

When I say Sacred Tradition, it also shows the highest respect for that concept, it being God's Word. The same with Holy Bible. It is not as respectful to make it ''Bible''. No one enforces these rules, but in reality, their observance can only be viewed by God Almighty as worthy of a True Believer, and deserving of His grace. We should always remember God dispenses His grace where He will. We ought to try to please Him in everything, so we might receive a greater share of it. But mainly, LOVE for Him should be our motive. Thanks, Anthony. God keep you, and continue your good work!
Hail, Immaculate Heart of Mary, Pray for us, now and always, dear St. James /

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 23, 2001.

Jmj

Hi, Anthony.
Your contributions to the site are excellent and most welcome. I applaud you for this new thread, and I agree almost totally with the things you have stated.
I want to let you know, though, that I have been intensively using the Internet for more than five years -- and that has helped me discover MANY excellent Catholic sites, besides www.vatican.va, that are 100% (or nearly 100%) reliable. You can obtain a list of links to the "cream-of-the-crop" of Catholic sites by going to the "Petersnet Site-Ratings" page. After getting there, scroll down, plug in the grade "A" beside the categories ("Fidelity," "Resources," and "Implementation") and set the four subcategories ("Purpose" through "Appearance") to "Ignore." Then click on the "Find Matching Sites" button.
Since you mentioned the availability of the Catechism of the Catholic Church at libraries, I wanted to let you know that it is approachable in at least two forms (table-of-contents and search-engine) on the Internet. They are really a tremendous help for us. Here are the links:
CC C Table of Contents
CCC Search Engine (by topic or paragraph number)

May St. James and Mary, the immaculate mother of Jesus, pray for us.
God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), January 23, 2001.

Link off!

-- (_@_._), January 23, 2001.

Yes, there are certainly many good sites out there. I was just trying to make the sifting easier. I suppose I should say that whenever you find a site that has what one feels are convincing anti-Catholic arguments, take a closer look. If the arguments were that convincing and true then they would have won the argument 500 years ago.

I do appreciate the links, and they will no doubt prove useful (especially the Catechism one) to all interested in a serious discussion.

One question, though, what are the "link off" and "to the top" messages I see?

-- anthony (fides_spes_et_caritas@hotmail.com), January 23, 2001.

Jmj

Hi, Anthony.
You wrote, "... whenever you find a site that has what one feels are convincing anti-Catholic arguments, take a closer look. If the arguments were that convincing and true then they would have won the argument 500 years ago."
I wish that I could whole-heartedly agree with you, but it is not that simple. The arguments at good sites are indeed true and are often identical to what can be found in the CCC. But, due to a "darkening of the intellect" from original sin, due to pride, and due to "attachment to the familiar," that which ought to be "convincing" is rejected, misunderstood, etc..

You thanked me for the links, especially "the Cathechism one." But I wanted to make sure that you realized that I left two Catechism links. Here they are again:
CC C Table of Contents
CCC Search Engine (by topic or paragraph number)

You asked, "... what are the 'link off' and 'to the top' messages I see?"

Funny you should ask. I have been planning, for a couple of days, to start a new thread that explains matters related to your "link off" question.
Many of us here use simple HTML (hypertext mark-up language) features to format our posts -- breaking them into paragraphs, inserting "hyper-links," adding bold-ing/italicizing/underscoring/centering/color to the text, etc.. Well, in order to use those features, we have to insert special "codes" that become invisible to readers after the message is stored. We have to use one "code" where we want the feature to start and a different "code" where we want it to end. But sometimes we forget to insert the "stop code" -- or we spell it wrong. The result? The feature continues to the end of the message and even overflows into the next person's message. If you see, "link off" or "bold off," etc., someone is coming along and inserting the missing "stop code" to shut off the feature.

Now, a "to the top" message is something completely different. When someone posts a brand-new message here, it starts off at the top of the "Unanswered Questions" queue.
Only when someone posts a response does such a new message migrate to the "Recent Answers" queue.
What's wrong with that? The problem is that some people have set a bookmark only to the "Recent Answers" page, so they never see the list of "Unanswered Questions." I recommend that people replace their bookmarks to the "Recent Answers" page with new bookmarks to the "Catholic" page, which has links to (1) "Ask a Question," (2) "Unanswered Questions," and (3) "New Answers."
When you see a "to the top" message, it means that someone has noticed a new question at the top of the "Unanswered Questions" queue, judged it as "worth a reply," and has caused it to migrate to the "New Answers" queue -- where more people will see it. (A person who does this is either the original post-er himself or someone who doesn't have a message immediately ready, but would like to see someone else post one.)

May St. James and Mary, the immaculate mother of Jesus, pray for us.
God bless you.
John
PS: Did you see my answer to your question (on "The One True Church" thread) about the Eastern Catholic churches?

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), January 23, 2001.

I did get your other post, thank you.

As for your opening statement, what I meant was that I do feel that the contemporaries of the apostles *had* to be correct in practice, belief, et cetera (or else how can we rely on *anything* that we believe). I find that the Church continues those practices and beliefs and the others not only don't follow them, but outright attack them. I feel that any argument that attacks these things that are as old as the faith cannot be correct. Since I also believe that the Church itself is one of "these things," well, you see where I'm headed...

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaa

-- anthony (fides_spes_et_caritas@hotmail.com), January 24, 2001.