Friday, May 30, 2008

Status update

Been rat racing for secular paychecks up to 16 hours a day since early May, however....because of the long commute to and from work (2 hours a day) I have been studying Mr. Akin's C.A.L. Podcasts and one in particular C.A.L. cast from Karlo Broussard on the 4 Dogmas of Mary. Check them out if you are of the "Ituning" sort. Karlo has Mary solid. Will use this info on the a-C soon in another response to his broken anti-logic.

On another note, I am recording audio pieces to assemble into a podcast, a first episode, and introduce my journey. Currently the Podcast format (thought) would be to take my blog topics and expand them with excrutiating "Why not the Eucharist" would be one full 40 to 60 minute episode. Thats where I am headed for now. It may be early June before I can free up adequate time to blog post...please come back for that or subscribe.

Monday, May 5, 2008

Scripturally handicapped?

Its true. The a-C and I had a chuckle recently. He tells me he went to a Charity Dinner, with mostly Catholics, and proceeded to challenge one of them by introducing himself as a "Non-Catholic Anathema". The Catholic looked at him really puzzled and replied..."you're a what"?"

"Anathema, isnt that what you Catholics say the Bible says I am, since I dont believe in Catholicism?"

The Catholic Man replied...

"Um, no, not at all!" with a smile.

The a-C stated..." well Romans Ch3, ver........" The Catholic man then walked away.

I said "a-C, you ought to know better than to attack a Catholic at a casual Secular Dinner Event with Scriptural Apologetics."

He says "Why not?"

I said "a-C, you know we Catholics are Scripturally Handicapped, why rub it in the poor guys face?."

(Of course we know why now don't we?)

(Now for my comments)
This is a typical example of the lack of fundamental basis for the a-C's hostility toward our Faith, and why it is so dangerous.

  1. He has no accurate grasp on the specific definition of an "Anathema". An Anathema was a Publicly excommunicated Catholic. It required a proclamation by the Priesthood no less to fit this definition. The RCC abolished this ecclesiastical law as well (as it is free to do so). The a-C doesn't know that and doesn't care to research its specific basis. He abandoned the Church voluntarily...too bad he doesn't see the embarrassment of his technical ignorance.
  2. The attack is not based in love let alone a cordial or even friendly introduction on his part to another Christian. Its an antagonizing selfishly motivated attempt at inducing the "enemy" into his fight. The motive is clear, even with a display of sarcasm, one could not in any reasonable fashion find this kind of introduction to a person as approachable.
  3. The lack of respect is blatant and intentional. Imagine having a level of righteous arrogance high enough to brush this off as a passing funny exchange.

Protestants like him (not all) are too quick to disdain Catholics, driven by narrowly researched postures, opinions of Catholic practices that are twisted and flawed. Should you run into one of these fragile souls, be kind but keenly aware to defend a sudden attack. Represent our Faith with love in return. It may be the only way to contrast their approach enough to cast a bit of visible light to them of their sinful attacks.