Papal Titles

Tim,

I've been born-again for 25 years. Prior to becoming a Christian I was an atheist. In the last 25 years, I've lived my Christian life without giving Catholicism more than maybe 20 minutes of thought. Yet your website is very Catholic focused.

What's the big issue? If one of the site's focus is cults, there are so many more to choose from than just limiting it to Catholicism.

Is that how Reformed folks want to be categorized? (i.e. "Hi, I'm Reformed... I'm not Catholic".)

If you want to really, really not be Catholic, and really really not have anything to do with Catholic doctrines, how about moving away from Catholicism all the way and stop bringing the subject up all the time?

For example: I really, really don't like Satan and I really, really don't want to have anything to do with him. So, I don't. And, I don't make a point to talk about him, and I don't post about him, and I don't research about him, and I don't argue about him, and I don't make point after point after point about him and I don't make a point to be categorized as "Hi, I'm a Christian... I'm not a follower of Satan."

Instead, I just simply don't have anything to do with him. (By the way, that's the most I've ever written about Satan in my entire life... just to make a point.)

Am I totally off base here?

Frank

Tim,

You don't dwell on it? Your site isn't Catholic-focused? Bring up some of your own pages and do a search on the string "catho" and you might just change your mind.

I ran a quick search and in less than 5 minutes found 476 hits in 16 different chains that you started. That means that the words catholic, or catholics, or catholicism were typed at least 476 times (many, many, many times typed by you personally). And I only checked a few of the postings.

476? That doesn't even come close because I didn't run a search on "pope", or "mary", or "priests", or any of the other catholic references in your site. I'm not even counting "Papal Titles", the name of this very chain.

476... and I didn't come across one reference to Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnesses. Now there may be a stray reference to these other cults somewhere here... but you don't have to look long to start piling up huge mounds of catholic references.

"I believe you'd find only a tiny minority of the posts on this site have anything to do with Catholicism."

Catholicism=476... other cults=0
There is an obvious out-of-balance, hyper-focus on catholicism here.

I asked you an honest question - hoping that you'd honestly and credibly represent the Reformed position, and your reply is to deny that this out-of-balance exists when it is right here in black and white for all to see? I challenge anyone to click "Edit", then "Find on this page" and type "catho" start searching and making tick marks. Get a large piece of paper ready.

Tim... Please tell me you have a better answer than this. Please.

Tim - You are making a molehill out of a mountain.

I asked you an honest question. I wanted to know why your site had such a strong Catholic focus. I asked the question in this open forum because I assumed you had good reason. I had no reason to email you because I had no reason to assume you would deny the obvious.

But... you did deny it.

But... you now admit it:

"I agree that there is a greater focus on Catholicism than cults and see no reason to defend that."

But who's asking you to defend it? I asked for a simple explanation assuming you had one.

At the end of the day, it would be more appropriate (and Biblical) to be consistent, and to answer your readers’ questions honestly.

No, not a molehill... but a mountain - actually two mountains:

1) An unaccounted-for focus on Catholicism (still unanswered), and

2) A writer who both denies it ("I believe you'd find only a tiny minority of the posts on this site have anything to do with Catholicism") and admits it ("I agree that there is a greater focus on Catholicism than cults") all within the space of 24 hours.

But at least you do offer one solution to all of this: You told me that I'm "free to stop coming by". Only those that agree with you are welcomed. Since I believe that kind of a response is a blogging no-no, I'll hang around awhile - at least long enough to see if I can get my original question answered:

Why is your site so focused on Catholicism in relation to other cults?

Quoth Frank, regarding Tim:
"Only those that agree with you are welcomed"

I'm not a reformer... should I leave now? :P

Hi Doug,

I appreciate your response. I've read your comments a few times and can say with all honesty that I'm not angry, and I'm not at all upset. But I truly appreciate your thoughts.

I do wonder about the value of the Reformed focus on being "not Catholic" though - as defined by Tim above. Like I said in my original post, I've been with the Lord for 25 years, have no Catholic background whatsoever, and I define my beliefs as "Biblical". I don't see the point in defining my beliefs as "not something"... like "not Catholic", or "not Mormon", or "not Jehovah's Witness, or "not Islam".

There are a lot of things I'm not. There are also a lot of things that Tim is not. I'm just wondering what the value is in Tim making such a point of being not Catholic. Why dwell on being not Catholic? It's like a doctor who defines himself as "not a butcher". Of course he's not a butcher...nobody is saying that he is... but he continues to define himself as "not a butcher" because way back in history doctors were butchers. Let go of the past.

Why not just define yourself as a Christian? If you want to get technical, call yourself "non-denominational". It's better than going out of your way to define yourself by what you're not. When you difine yourself by what you're not, you come away with a website that talks an awful lot about what your not, and you get postings like the one that congratulates Tim for having the most Catholic Hating Site on the net.

Sure, there is a lot of history behind the Reformed movement... but I wonder, when do I stop defining myself by what was, and start defining myself by what is?

And no, sharing that opinion about the Pope doesn't make it hateful... but I never said or thought that it was so I'm not sure why you asked.

However, the result of the continued focus on what he is not... comes across as a hyper-focus and bias against Catholicism. And it’s a shame because the out-of-balance focus reduces Tim's credibility (in my opinion).

I have also learned much from Tim's postings. That is why I respect him. That is why I asked my question to begin with. That is also why I was so surprised by his response, and by his letting me know that I am free to stop coming by his website.

I guess I hit a nerve.

Tim,

"If I had 1000 totals posts, 1 post on Catholicism and 0 on Mormonism, there would a greater focus on Catholicism than Mormonism...yet that would not be an unaccounted-for focus."

Yes, but you have a few more than 1, wouldn't you agree? In 5 minutes I counted hundreds.

"I was merely stating that if you dislike what I write or do not agree with my emphases you are free to stop visiting."

Right, and you are stating something that is so obvious - the fact that I don't have to visit here - that it comes across as you not wanting me here. Otherwise, why bring it up? If I told you that you were free to stop eating animals, you would wonder about my motivation for saying it - because I would have stated something so obvious that it didn't need to be stated.

"You know, it's funny. I wrote 30+ articles about the book of Proverbs but I don't see you telling me that I have an irrational focus on Proverbs..."

That's because your articles on Proverbs have value. Your over-emphasis on a single cult has no value that I can see. But, I realize that there may be something that I don't see. That is why I continue to ask the question.

"...the modern church needs to re-evaluate its stance on ecumenicism and Catholicism today."

Why-do-you-feel-that-this-is-so? My modern church knows that Catholicism is a cult. End of discussion. We don't spend a lot of time talking about it. Why do you?

Frank,

You keep referring to Catholicism as a cult - I'm curious how you understand that term. I would be the first to argue that Rome is not a true church, but I have never heard it called a "cult." A cult is usually defined as a movement that breaks off from an existent religious movement, to the extent that they are no longer representative of the latter's core beliefs (e.g. Mormonism out of Christianity). So I would say, yes the LDS is a cult (in a socio-religious sense), but I don't think the term accurately applies to Rome. I'm fine with "false church." =)

Secondly, what's your hang up with Tim defining himself as "Reformed"? You seem to think that it is just some thing in the past - but the heart of the Reformed tradition is that the church is to always be reforming according to the Word. I wish more people held to the Reformed tradition!

Thirdly, how can you casually dismiss any discussion of catholicism? That is incredibly naive on your part - there are over 62 million Roman Catholics in the US (the LDS has under 5 million). So cult or false church, there are tens of millions of people in this country who are mislead by a false gospel - we SHOULD be talking about Rome and trying to interact with her theology! I have a hard time understanding both your original problem with Tim's posts and your subsequent comments... not even sure what the mole is that you have made a mountain over.

I believe that Frank has asked a good, honest question, and that he has been treated poorly overall. I do not see any ill intentions on his part. I do not think he has been picking a fight here - yet somehow he's found one.