Anti- Catholicism

[Calm]

Matthew 25:40

40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

Meaning what?

[RevTestament]

Meaning what?

Meaning that when the church went and killed the Albigensians and Waldensians in crusades, they were doing it to Christ.

When William Tyndale was killed for the "crime" of translating the scriptures into English, it was because of Catholic law on the subject, and they were doing it unto Christ. William Tyndale was innocent under God's law. His "crime" is that he wanted to help the common English man to understand Christ.

Pronouncing the punishment and handing them over to the secular authorities to do the actual killing ie execution, doesn't absolve them of the crime.

Does that mean the rank-and-file members of the church were guilty as well? Of what? Of also fearing their own church would do that to them as well if they spoke up or tried to leave? You see, that is the thing about Satan's ways. He keeps the people under his thumb with secular fear and force. Christ taught to love the dissenter - not to kill them. There really is no way around it. It is an unmistakable sign the church leaders had lost the light of Christ, and were no longer shepherding the flock. They may have been rounding up the flock to stuff them in the pen though. Once you get in the pen, it can be awfully hard to get out.

 

It is ironic that Protestants look to their early leaders as martyrs for Christ, and yet defend the very creeds which in my view caused the problem in the first place, and speak of the early martyrs just as Catholics do. Yet instead of the Roman imperial government being responsible for the martyrdom, it was the Roman Catholic leadership of the "Holy Roman Empire." Out of interest I googled Protestant martyrs and up popped a lists of hundreds who were burnt at the stake by the secular authorities for their beliefs, imprisoned or otherwise martyred for their beliefs.

 

If the way to do God's work is to kill everyone who dissents and does not believe as you, then Christianity is in a sorry state indeed. I believe this state is what led to the Reformation. And yet, Protestants will routinely deny the LDS claim that there was an apostasy. Their leaders called the Roman pontiff the anti-christ, and people left the RCC in droves, but there was no "apostasy." It leaves me scratching my head.

[MiserereNobis]

The religious wars were terrible, indeed.  Please don't forget that Catholics were killed by Protestants as well.  Henry VIII killed around 72000 alone.  Don't forget that he was the founder and leader of the Church of England.

 

There's enough blame to go around, yet the Catholics are routinely scapegoated.

[TheSkepticChristian]

The religious wars were terrible, indeed.  Please don't forget that Catholics were killed by Protestants as well.  Henry VIII killed around 72000 alone.  Don't forget that he was the founder and leader of the Church of England.

 

There's enough blame to go around, yet the Catholics are routinely scapegoated.

 

Christianity is not a religion 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SG-LM9n4ekM

Edited October 26, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[saemo]

Meaning that when the church went and killed the Albigensians and Waldensians in crusades, they were doing it to Christ.

When William Tyndale was killed for the "crime" of translating the scriptures into English, it was because of Catholic law on the subject, and they were doing it unto Christ. William Tyndale was innocent under God's law. His "crime" is that he wanted to help the common English man to understand Christ.

Pronouncing the punishment and handing them over to the secular authorities to do the actual killing ie execution, doesn't absolve them of the crime.

Does that mean the rank-and-file members of the church were guilty as well? Of what? Of also fearing their own church would do that to them as well if they spoke up or tried to leave? You see, that is the thing about Satan's ways. He keeps the people under his thumb with secular fear and force. Christ taught to love the dissenter - not to kill them. There really is no way around it. It is an unmistakable sign the church leaders had lost the light of Christ, and were no longer shepherding the flock. They may have been rounding up the flock to stuff them in the pen though. Once you get in the pen, it can be awfully hard to get out.

It is ironic that Protestants look to their early leaders as martyrs for Christ, and yet defend the very creeds which in my view caused the problem in the first place, and speak of the early martyrs just as Catholics do. Yet instead of the Roman imperial government being responsible for the martyrdom, it was the Roman Catholic leadership of the "Holy Roman Empire." Out of interest I googled Protestant martyrs and up popped a lists of hundreds who were burnt at the stake by the secular authorities for their beliefs, imprisoned or otherwise martyred for their beliefs.

If the way to do God's work is to kill everyone who dissents and does not believe as you, then Christianity is in a sorry state indeed. I believe this state is what led to the Reformation. And yet, Protestants will routinely deny the LDS claim that there was an apostasy. Their leaders called the Roman pontiff the anti-christ, and people left the RCC in droves, but there was no "apostasy." It leaves me scratching my head.

CFF that everyone who dissented was killed by the Catholic Church.

Edit to correct my typo...that should be CFR..please provide references for your assertion. Thanks.

Edited October 27, 2015 by saemo

[Maedros]

Hello LDS friends,

 

There are currently two threads on the great and abominable church (church of Satan) where the Catholic church has been put forward as a candidate.  I have stated that this does not personally bother me, as I find such claims laughable and not supported by any real evidence.  I also think they are very clearly based on the historical Protestant bias that underlies America.  Any in-depth of study of Catholic (European) history would show that our ideas about the Catholic Church's atrocities are not based in fact.  I'm not saying that there weren't atrocities -- I'm saying that we fill-in-the-blanks when it comes to things like inquisitions, crusades, etc, and most of our filling-in is simply false.  We also have a similar bias when it comes to Medieval times ("Dark Ages"?  Really??).

 

I appreciate the LDS folk who have come to the Catholic Church's defense and have offered a more tenable view.

 

Anyways, my point here is not to defend the details but to point out a double standard that I see.  My experience with Mormons, both on this board and in person, has shown a completely understandable sensitivity to anti-Mormonism.  When someone attack the LDS church, especially if they are disgruntled ex-Mormon, the criticism is deflected by calling the criticizer an anti-Mormon.

 

I'm fairly certain that if someone called the LDS church the church of satan, the mother of harlots, the whore of Bablyon, the great and abominable church, etc, etc, that person would be labeled an anti-Mormon and their motives and methods impugned.  If that person were in a position of leadership in another church then their bias would be clearly pointed out -- after all, they have a very strong reason to show that the LDS church is false.

 

Is there a double-standard among LDS members who call the Catholic Church the great and abominable church?  Especially if those people are leaders (McConkie, Talmage, etc)?  Is it ok to be anti-another religion but not anti-Mormon?  Is it acceptable to listen to ex-Catholics' claims (Martin Luther, for example) but not ex-Mormon claims?

 

For my part: I am constantly in the firing line of criticism and mockery about being mormon - I have thus developed thick-skin. When my religion is derided or mocked, I don't take offence (I really don't) so does this justify my criticism of other religions since I have a single standard? The truth is that no good comes from mocking the religious beliefs of another even if one believes that their point is valid - in previous comments of mine in the different threads you mentioned I made such comments about the Catholics and the Abominable church and I lost virtue because of it; so sorry for my comments especially the part of the Pope receiving revelation from Satan. 

Edited October 30, 2015 by Maedros

[theplains]

... in previous comments of mine in the different threads you mentioned I made such comments about the Catholics and the Abominable church and I lost virtue because of it; so sorry for my comments especially the part of the Pope receiving revelation from Satan. 

 

The Book of Mormon is much more critical of religious groups who baptize little children.  See

Mormon 8:14-16,21. Endless torment awaits these people according to what is written there.

 

Regards,

Jim

[Yirgacheffe]

The Book of Mormon is much more critical of religious groups who baptize little children.  See

Mormon 8:14-16,21. Endless torment awaits these people according to what is written there.

 

Regards,

Jim

So are you saying the Catholic church is the abominable church?

[MiserereNobis]

The Book of Mormon is much more critical of religious groups who baptize little children.  See

Mormon 8:14-16,21. Endless torment awaits these people according to what is written there.

 

Regards,

Jim

 

Did you mistake your reference?  I don't see anything in Mormon 8:14-16, 21 about infant baptism.

[saemo]

So are you saying the Catholic church is the abominable church?

Well, that is the difficulty with Mormon and Cathlic dialogue. We all know that anti-Catholicism is canonized in Mormon scripture, but would like to be friendly anyway.

In this thread someone posted a video where Elder Ballard said Catholics don't know God. Where, not more than four months ago he said in a news article, in Intermountain Catholic, IIRC, that our former Bishop Wester was his good friend and golfing buddy. I wish we still had our Bishop. He was good at navigating Mormon waters in a Catholic barq.

ETA, the news article http://www.icatholic.org/article/archbishop-wester-lauded-as-gracious-a-great-friend-2777914

Edited November 3, 2015 by saemo

[Calm]

"We all know that anti-Catholicism is canonized in Mormon scripture"

So what was that about allowing believers to define their own beliefs instead of nonbelievers telling them what they must believe?

How is the above any different than TF insisting that Catholics believe in modalism (even if he didn't know the label)?

Edited November 3, 2015 by Calm

[saemo]

"We all know that anti-Catholicism is canonized in Mormon scripture"

So what was that about allowing believers to define their own beliefs instead of nonbelievers telling them what they must believe?

How is the above any different than TF insisting that Catholics believe in modalism (even if he didn't know the label)?

Ummm, it is the Book of Mormon that call infant baptism an abomination. I didn't make that up.

Certainly, it is not how Catholics view the love that a parent has for a child, that is expressed by ensuring they have a wonderful gift and graces from God. It is unimaginable to a devout Catholic, as to why this grace would be withheld from a loved son or daughter. Naming that love, and those divine graces, as abominable? Really? It is rather diabolical to Catholic ears.

Edited November 3, 2015 by saemo

[why me]

Well, that is the difficulty with Mormon and Cathlic dialogue. We all know that anti-Catholicism is canonized in Mormon scripture, but would like to be friendly anyway.

 

This is not exactly true. If you are referring to infant baptism I don't consider what the book of mormon says about it anticatholicism. Most christian churches have infant baptism. The book of mormon is against the practice and if one believes the book of mormon to be the word of god, it  is god that calls it an abomination and not mormons.

 

And if one thinks about it, I remember being taught as a catholic boy that babies who were christened went to hell or limbo. I think that that would be an abomination. I never did quite understand such a teaching. Of course, the catholic church has mended its ways since when I was a boy....but....it was taught and believed by many catholics who lost a baby before it was christened.

 

Of course catholic converts like yourself don't remember such dark times. But many catholic families in the past agonized over losing their infant before he or she was baptized (christened). One cannot whitewash such a past away with a brushstroke.

Edited November 3, 2015 by why me

[why me]

Ummm, it is the Book of Mormon that call infant baptism an abomination. I didn't make that up.

Certainly, it is not how Catholics view the love that a parent has for a child, that is expressed by ensuring they have a wonderful gift and graces from God. It is unimaginable to a devout Catholic, as to why this grace would be withheld from a loved son or daughter. Naming that love, and those divine graces, as abominable? Really? It is rather diabolical to Catholic ears.

Of course, certain people would claim that a child should be allowed to make up their own minds if they want to be baptized. A baby does not have a choice. Also, I would find it difficult to believe that a baby who dies or even a child who dies would not go to heaven. The age of 8 seems right for accountablility. And young catholics do receive communion when they make their holy communion usually at the age of 7 or 8. It is hard to  justify infant baptisms since for mormons infants receive divine graces automattically.

[saemo]

This is not exactly true. If you are referring to infant baptism I don't consider what the book of mormon says about it anticatholicism. Most christian churches have infant baptism. The book of mormon is against the practice and if one believes the book of mormon to be the word of god, it  is god that calls it an abomination and not mormons.

 

And if one thinks about it, I remember being taught as a catholic boy that babies who were christened went to hell or limbo. I think that that would be an abomination. I never did quite understand such a teaching. Of course, the catholic church has mended its ways since when I was a boy....but....it was taught and believed by many catholics who lost a baby before it was christened.

Oh, it is your God who is anti Catholic. Got it.

[Calm]

"Ummm, it is the Book of Mormon that call infant baptism an abomination. I didn't make that up."

No, but you assumed that it had to with Catholicism,while we believe the author writing the condemnation lived where there was no Catholicism, it had no existence in that time and place, so he was talking about something other version.

[saemo]

"Ummm, it is the Book of Mormon that call infant baptism an abomination. I didn't make that up."

No, but you assumed that it had to with Catholicism,while we believe the author writing the condemnation lived where there was no Catholicism, it had no existence in that time and place, so he was talking about something other version.

So, Catholics baptizing infants is ok?

[Maedros]

The Book of Mormon is much more critical of religious groups who baptize little children.  See

Mormon 8:14-16,21. Endless torment awaits these people according to what is written there.

 

Regards,

Jim

 

I'm sure Mormon was referring to those who baptize infants while holding priesthood authority - so since latter-day saints do not recognize the authority of any other religion, the baptism of little children (as far as our doctrine is concerned) is not an official baptism hence no law was broken and the abomination (as referred to by Mormon) is on principle alone - the principle being that since little children are sinless, they are therefore exempted from repentance and need no remission. Therefore religions who baptize infants do not fall under Mormon's condemnation.

 

Regarding the criticism of other religions, I found the below comment by sethpayne very informative:

 

"I blogged about this last year.  Specifically I was asking whether it is wrong to mock religious belief.  After stating that my view is that it IS -- in the vast majority of cases -- wrong to mock the beliefs of others:"

 

Quote

I base my position that mocking religious belief is immoral on the broad moral principle that intentionally seeking to harm others — emotionally or physically — is wrong.  Given that religious belief often plays a central role in how a person defines themselves it should not be surprising that insults to religious views are often an indirect insult to the person who holds them.  As a result if we were to belittle the person of Jesus, this would likely be hurtful to a person who maintains belief in the divinity of Jesus.  Similarly, if we refer to monotheism as belief in “an invisible Sky Daddy” we insult not only the major Abrahamic religions of the world but also those who accept those systems of belief.  A Christian who presents a caricature of atheism and irresponsibly makes blanket statements about atheists is equally insulting.

 

But why should religious views be given special consideration?  Certainly not because of their religious character.  Rather, religious beliefs fall under a type of belief that William James called “instrumental truth” or truth which human beings utilize to create cohesive “truth narratives” which helps individuals make sense of the world.  There are many types of beliefs and views that are major components to a truth narrative.  These can include, but are certainly not limited to, views on science, politics, philosophy, economics, etc…  Mocking or belittling views that define truth narratives is bound to be hurtful to individuals.  It is no wonder then, that it is commonly said to avoid both religion and politics in polite conversation.  These beliefs are much more than abstract notions.  Rather, they define how a person understands the workings of the universe and perhaps most importantly, an individual’s place within it.  These beliefs are shared among all people to one degree or another.  Some are more deeply committed to metaphysical claims while others are similarly committed to logical positivism.  Religious views, therefore, should not be given special treatment because they are religious but simply because mocking or belittling them is very likely to be hurtful to those who take such views seriously.   Many ideological views should be treated the same way.

 

So speaking more broadly it would be more accurate to say that it is immoral to mock or belittle views and beliefs that are central to individual identity.

 

[why me]

The religious wars were terrible, indeed.  Please don't forget that Catholics were killed by Protestants as well.  Henry VIII killed around 72000 alone.  Don't forget that he was the founder and leader of the Church of England.

 

There's enough blame to go around, yet the Catholics are routinely scapegoated.

Of course, because of such man made wars in the name of religion there would be a reason for a restoration of the gospel. There is no question that if mormonism was created at that time all mormons would be rounded up and killed. And if mormonism was created during the spanish inquisition in spain, all mormons would have been rounded up and burned at the stake in the name of religion. This is what happens when a religion is taken over by humans with god only in word only but not in deed. Thankfully, the new testment began to set people straight but it took awhile for that to happen.

[saemo]

Of course, because of such man made wars in the name of religion there would be a reason for a restoration of the gospel. There is no question that if mormonism was created at that time all mormons would be rounded up and killed. And if mormonism was created during the spanish inquisition in spain, all mormons would have been rounded up and burned at the stake in the name of religion. This is what happens when a religion is taken over by humans with god only in word only but not in deed. Thankfully, the new testment began to set people straight but it took awhile for that to happen.

Surely, faith would dictate that God can do whatever he wants, where ever and when ever, and is not reliant on European politics.

[Calm]

So, Catholics baptizing infants is ok?

You have neither correct doctrine or authority so no more okay than baptizing adults, but there is nothing in our scriptures that can be pointed as specifically and officially teaching about the Catholic Church or Faith, let alone teaching us to destroy it. You have to write your own assumptions into the text which doesn't count as what believers believe. There may even be some believers who interpret scriptures that way, my experience is those who do are reading them very superficially when I ask them their reasoning why.

[why me]

Surely, faith would dictate that God can do whatever he wants, where ever and when ever, and is not reliant on European politics.

However, if the protestant and catholic churches relied more on humans than on god, such wars do start, especially with the religious wars. There is no question that christianity lost its direction for centuries as it became imbellished in politics, domination and power. Thus, a restoration may have been necessary. Certainly it could not be ruled out. The catholic church does have a blemished history and no whitewashing can change it. But so do the protestant churches. They relied more on politics and power relations than on the word of god.

[why me]

Oh, it is your God who is anti Catholic. Got it.

No. Calling infant baptism an abomination is not anticatholic at all. Like I said most established churches had infant baptism. It was against the practice and not the faith or religion. Let me put it this way, calling temple marriage wrong is not antimormon. It just means that one does not agree with the practice. No problem. However, the religious wars were based on power politcs and religious domination. All man made and not god made. And infant baptism was perhaps based on the assumption that without such a baptism the baby or child would go to hell without the baptism. Would that be an abomination or not is the question.

[3DOP]

As I have pointed out many times here, the practice of infant baptism condemned in the Book of Mormon applies only to those (in the New World) who would teach that dead unbaptized babies suffered the sense pains of hell. It doesn't address Catholic baptism. I agree with the Book of Mormon in its condemnation of that kind of infant baptism.

Edited November 3, 2015 by 3DOP

[Storm Rider]

However, if the protestant and catholic churches relied more on humans than on god, such wars do start, especially with the religious wars. There is no question that Christianity lost its direction for centuries as it became embellished in politics, domination and power. Thus, a restoration may have been necessary. Certainly it could not be ruled out. The catholic church does have a blemished history and no whitewashing can change it. But so do the protestant churches. They relied more on politics and power relations than on the word of god.

 

I think we need to be careful with these types of characterizations.  The period you are describing addresses the acts of individuals rather than the acts of entire memberships or churches.  Also, when we begin to point our finger in accusation at others we have three fingers pointing back at ourselves.  

 

Individuals do terrible things regardless of religious affiliation.  I know of no organization lead by men that has done a perfect job in all things to all people.  If we are going to judge anyone or anything, focus on our own sins and let God take care of everyone else's sins.  

 

I think I understand you main points and agree with them, but let us strive to deliver them in a way that does not cause unnecessarily bad feelings.