Mike's in trouble!

10 views
Skip to first unread message

Kendall K. Down

unread,
Dec 2, 2021, 4:40:08 PM12/2/21
to
I came across this gem in Cafferata this evening:

"It is a sin for Catholics to attend other places of worship than their
own for the purpose of worshipping God there, because they know that all
other religions except their own are false."

Oh dear.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down


Stuart

unread,
Dec 2, 2021, 7:00:08 PM12/2/21
to
In article <sobe7q$93r$1...@dont-email.me>,
Kendall K. Down <kendal...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I came across this gem in Cafferata this evening:

> "It is a sin for Catholics to attend other places of worship than their
> own for the purpose of worshipping God there, because they know that all
> other religions except their own are false."

> Oh dear.

Did you not know that already?

--
Stuart Winsor

Tools With A Mission
sending tools across the world
http://www.twam.co.uk/


Kendall K. Down

unread,
Dec 3, 2021, 2:50:05 AM12/3/21
to
On 02/12/2021 23:51, Stuart wrote:

>> "It is a sin for Catholics to attend other places of worship than their
>> own for the purpose of worshipping God there, because they know that all
>> other religions except their own are false."

> Did you not know that already?

To be honest, I'm come across the same attitude in many other churches -
SDA, Baptist, sundry charistmatic, JW (goes without saying), and others.

Mike Davis

unread,
Dec 4, 2021, 1:00:07 PM12/4/21
to
On 02/12/2021 21:35, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> I came across this gem in Cafferata this evening:
>
> "It is a sin for Catholics to attend other places of worship than their
> own for the purpose of worshipping God there, because they know that all
> other religions except their own are false."

I'm *so* pleased that you are reading a Catholic Catechism, Kendall!
Unfortunately the notes that you are reading are about 130 years old,
and take an extreme (and ignorant) view of other Christian churches. One
that has been significantly revised by Vatican II 50 years ago.

Did I write directly to you you recently about this gentleman? (Because
I can find no record of my response to you in either my ukrc files nor
in my sent e-mails folder.)

I suggested that (Saint) J H Newman would be a better guide to Catholic
faith of the late Victorian era.

> Oh dear.

Oh dear, indeed!

My ecumenical work has been specifically directed by God, and my Bishop
is aware of what I do. - Or at least, I've told him and he hasn't
instructed me to stop!! ;-)

Blessings

Mike
--
Mike Davis


Kendall K. Down

unread,
Dec 4, 2021, 2:50:08 PM12/4/21
to
On 04/12/2021 17:57, Mike Davis wrote:

> I'm *so* pleased that you are reading a Catholic Catechism, Kendall!

I have Cafferata and Geirmann and have read both. Very useful when
arguing with Protestants about the Sabbath!

> Unfortunately the notes that you are reading are about 130 years old,
> and take an extreme (and ignorant) view of other Christian churches. One
> that has been significantly revised by Vatican II 50 years ago.

They are indeed about that old (though both were purchased by my father
in the 1940s in a Catholic book shop in Australia as representing
Catholic teaching at the time). The views expressed regarding other
churches were, I believe, standard Catholic teaching at the time (and,
as I have mentioned in another post, were reciprocated by Protestants
regarding Catholics and each other).

> Did I write directly to you you recently about this gentleman? (Because
> I can find no record of my response to you in either my ukrc files nor
> in my sent e-mails folder.)

I don't recall it, but I always welcome messages from you.

> I suggested that (Saint) J H Newman would be a better guide to Catholic
> faith of the late Victorian era.

Possibly - though less useful to a controversialist.

> My ecumenical work has been specifically directed by God, and my Bishop
> is aware of what I do. -  Or at least, I've told him and he hasn't
> instructed me to stop!!  ;-)

The subject line was written with my tongue firmly in my cheek.

Adam Funk

unread,
Dec 4, 2021, 3:20:06 PM12/4/21
to
On 2021-12-04, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 04/12/2021 17:57, Mike Davis wrote:
>
>> I'm *so* pleased that you are reading a Catholic Catechism, Kendall!
>
> I have Cafferata and Geirmann and have read both. Very useful when
> arguing with Protestants about the Sabbath!
>
>> Unfortunately the notes that you are reading are about 130 years old,
>> and take an extreme (and ignorant) view of other Christian churches. One
>> that has been significantly revised by Vatican II 50 years ago.
>
> They are indeed about that old (though both were purchased by my father
> in the 1940s in a Catholic book shop in Australia as representing
> Catholic teaching at the time). The views expressed regarding other
> churches were, I believe, standard Catholic teaching at the time (and,
> as I have mentioned in another post, were reciprocated by Protestants
> regarding Catholics and each other).
>
>> Did I write directly to you you recently about this gentleman? (Because
>> I can find no record of my response to you in either my ukrc files nor
>> in my sent e-mails folder.)
>
> I don't recall it, but I always welcome messages from you.
>
>> I suggested that (Saint) J H Newman would be a better guide to Catholic
>> faith of the late Victorian era.
>
> Possibly - though less useful to a controversialist.

Aha, you're admitting to being a controversialist!

:-P



>> My ecumenical work has been specifically directed by God, and my Bishop
>> is aware of what I do. -  Or at least, I've told him and he hasn't
>> instructed me to stop!!  ;-)
>
> The subject line was written with my tongue firmly in my cheek.
>
> God bless,
> Kendall K. Down
>
>


--
If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything.
--- Mark Twain


Kendall K. Down

unread,
Dec 5, 2021, 3:40:08 AM12/5/21
to
On 04/12/2021 20:03, Adam Funk wrote:

>> Possibly - though less useful to a controversialist.

> Aha, you're admitting to being a controversialist!
> :-P

The definition I had in mind is "someone who engages in debate".

Mike Davis

unread,
Dec 5, 2021, 6:40:07 AM12/5/21
to
On 05/12/2021 08:33, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 04/12/2021 20:03, Adam Funk wrote:
>
>>> Possibly - though less useful to a controversialist.
>
>> Aha, you're admitting to being a controversialist!
>> :-P
>
> The definition I had in mind is "someone who engages in debate".

Oh! I thought it was the opposite of a 'Universialist'!

Mike
--
Mike Davis


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages