OK that may sound nuts – why would I want to help the opposing side!!? But actually I have had opportunities and experiences debating with nonCatholic Christians about different religious topics and we’ve gotten along very well. I do not think that being on opposite ends of a debate means that you necessarily have to be adversarial.
As regular readers have probably figured out, I have been having discussions on practically the entire Catholic Catechism over at the Of Christian Women blog. First I was just hoping to show that Catholic doctrine can be supported with scripture. When it became clear that no matter what, that wasn’t going to fly, I settled for just trying to tone down the heavy dollop of anti-Catholic rhetoric used with great regularity by the hostess. “Recovering Catholic” and “trapped in the Catholic Church” are two examples of this. Today it was “man made traditions” in reference to the seven sacraments.
Despite my best efforts the hostess is done with our discussions and has deleted my last post. So naturally, I’m posting it here! (Read the entire thing in context here.)
It starts out with Carrie, our hostess, asking me a hypothetical question:
Hypothetically, if I could prove to you beyond a doubt that the role of the sacraments in the RCC where not established by Jesus but by men, would it still be a pejorative?
The conversation continues below. Carrie in pink.
******
Okay Elena, I am going to assume that you do know the definition of “hypothetical” and are refusing to answer because you have absolutely no interest in a real discussion but are just here to defend the Catholic faith in any way possible.
I did answer I said:
“Well, good luck with that Carrie.”
Then I attempted to remind you that someone else, namely KnightofChrist already covered the scripture verses that the Catholic Church uses to support the Sacraments.
“As a reminder here are the bible verses Knightof Christ already provided to support the seven sacraments.
http://ofchristianwomen.blogspot.com/2006/08/115500189281808905”
My purpose was to illustrate that if you are going to prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt, these are basically the verses you’re going to have to tackle.
You have started up again with being critical of me and acting like you are doing me some favor by showing me what a jerk I sound like.
That’s not it at all. As a Catholic I have spent a lot of time reading a lot of anti-Catholic stuff including websites, message boards, books, magazines and anti-Catholic tracts. I know the stuff that is effective and challenging, and is worth my time and trouble to pursue, as opposed to the stuff that is just anti-Catholic without any substance. As in becoming familiar with any type of niche literature, be it childbirth, breastfeeding, homeschooling, crocheting, auto mechanics, whatever, you learn the lingo and after a while you can discern what is effective, what is misleading, and what is just plain wrong.
I can tell from your writing that you have read a lot of anti-Catholic material. I can tell by the style you use and the words you choose when you are writing about Catholic topics. If your goal is to become a compelling and persuasive Protestant Catholic apologist, those words and that type of style are going to hold you back.
Well, I am not interested so you can stop. For a little while we had a nice, respectful discussion but you have come in again with your attitude.
It’s not attitude. I mentioned before that your writing was peppered with anti-Catholic terminology. “Traditions of men” as it relates to the Catholic Traditions is one such term. It’s not unique, I’ve seen it in other anti-Catholic materials.
I have given you alot of latitude and have tried to be nice, but I am done. I am asking you to leave and not return to this discussion.
Which one?
Your personal attacks and refusal to answer a simple hypothetical tells me that you are nothing but a troublemaker at this point.
Hey fine Carrie. Continue on as you have. Don’t change a word. You will probably be able to persuade other Catholics on the fringe like your friend at work, or like yourself who didn’t pay any attention to catechism class. That’s easy. You’ll never be able to compel or persuade a David, or a Tony, or a Knight of Christ for very long. You’ll never ever be able to hold your own in a discussion against a Mark Windsor or David Armstrong. You should strongly thank Ellen for providing the substance to these discussions.
If you would like to repent of your behavior you are welcome to stay, but anything else at this point will be deleted.
I’ll repent when
*********
UPDATE!!
Carrie posted an update:
deleted Elena’s final comment as it continued to misrepresent me and insult me.
They did neither. I copied her word for word and my comments were explanations not insults.
For those few Catholics that are here for a discussion and not here to just shut me down, I can tell you that I do not have an anti-Catholic agenda nor do I read anti-Catholic materials. I have read materials about the Catholic faith from a Protestant perspective (and only recently) but I do not believe they would be considered “anti-Catholic”.
I’ll let you the readers decide!
******A followup****
Today Carrie makes a final post that I feel deserves a response. You can see it in its entirety on her blog. For the sake of brevity I am editing it down to the points I want to address.
Vocabulary has never been one of my strong points. As a child I always tested very high in math, and not so high in vocabulary. I am not a complete rube, but I am a logical thinker and not so good with words. It’s not that I have never heard certain words, but I am not always sure of the definition and/or how to use them properly.
I found this opening statement to be stunning. I can understand having our gifts and weaknesses. Where Carrie’s weakness was language arts, mine was math. I blogged on that just recently. However, when I had (or have) problems with a math situation, I get help. It amazes me then that Carrie blocked me from her blog precisely because I was informing her that her usage of certain terms and phrases was wrong and inappropriate. It seems to me that a logical person with vocabulary problems would seek out and support such assistance rather than shun and stifle it.
There are a few words though that I have come to learn since blogging which I had never heard before. The reason why, I believe, is that I have not been in situations where either these words were necessary or that people felt the need to throw them around. These are words like pejorative, calumny, and ad hominem.
Pejorative: having negative connotations.
Calumny: a misrepresentation intended to harm another’s reputation.
Ad hominem: marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made.
Along with those words I have seen “hatred” and the all-inclusive “anti-“ thrown around also in our recent discussions here. My response in the comment section was this:
I also take the accusation of hatred very seriously since in Jesus’ eyes that puts me on the level with a murderer. Disagreeing and opposing a religious system is not hatred. That kind of attitude seems to be rampant in our liberal culture as a way to squash opposition. If you can’t fight principles, take out their character. Personally, I think those kind of tactics indicate a weak mind, a weak position, or some combo of both.
Those of you who read this blog with any regularity might have smiled at the insinuation that I am part of the “liberal culture.” If you remember my blog from last month, I was complaining of being squashed in a discussion by a person who threatened to call children’s protective services on me, simply because we disagreed! Oh the irony!!
My insight into this current situation is quite different from Carrie’s. I never said she hated anybody, but I did suggest that her language, her rhetoric was in appropriate and was the same anti-Catholic rhetoric that any one can find on line without too much difficulty. That’s not my “rampant liberal attitude” trying to squash Carrie’s opposition. It’s just a fact that she could easily research on her own. Telling her that isn’t an act of hatred. It’s more akin to telling a gal that her slip is showing. Refusing to graciously accept such constructive criticism and then blocking me for doing so, speaks for itself.
But it is not my intent here to defend myself, my beliefs, or my methods. Before I was saved the kind of insinuations that have been lobbed at me would have sent me into a tailspin of anger and revenge. That was a pride issue. But through the love of Christ and his transformation of my heart, these things really don’t bother me too much.
The lady doth protet too much me thinks.
Please browse my eBay items!
