Any Catholic ever been out debated by a Protestant?

[ASwede]

Hello everyone!
You maybe think I kind of dumb but I don’t really understand the point of this conversation. I get a little bit sad when I read some of the posts conversation, and when I read about how some Catholic and Protestants have treat each other. Someone wrote that “Protestantism is pretty hollow”, but how can Protestantism be hollow when it is based on the same foundation as Catholicism; That the Love and Grace from Jesus Christ has saved me. Why can’t people just accept the differences and try to get focus on the important things? Isn’t the most primary in Christian faith to try to get closer to Jesus and let other people know how much Jesus love them and what Jesus have done for humanity? What is the point of arguing about details? If someone gets closer to Jesus with Catholic practices and another person gets closer to Jesus with Protestant practices, what’s the problem? Aren’t all Christians supposed to be one body?


Excuse me for my bad English. I hope you understand what I want to say?

 

[PRmerger]

Excuse me for my bad English. I hope you understand what I want to say?

Thanks for your comments, ASwede, and welcome to the CAFs! Your English is fabulous. Much better than my Swedish.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Thanks for your comments, ASwede, and welcome to the CAFs! Your English is fabulous. Much better than my Swedish.

My Swedish is nil but my pig-latin is wonderful

 

[PRmerger]

Why can’t people just accept the differences and try to get focus on the important things? Isn’t the most primary in Christian faith to try to get closer to Jesus and let other people know how much Jesus love them and what Jesus have done for humanity? What is the point of arguing about details? If someone gets closer to Jesus with Catholic practices and another person gets closer to Jesus with Protestant practices, what’s the problem? Aren’t all Christians supposed to be one body?

While I appreciate your sentiments, it does prompt a few responses.

Yes, Christians are joined, imperfectly, as the Body of Christ. To the degree that all Christians profess the True Faith, is the degree that they are joined. To the degree that some have divorced themselves from the Faith, given once for all to the saints, is the degree that we have disunity.

I think it’s an error to say that we need to ignore the differences. Firstly, where do we draw the line? There are some Christians who say that the writings of St. Paul are Satanic. Do you think we ought to let this go? There are some Christians who profess that white men are superior to black men. Should we let this go? What about some Christians who claim that God laughs when a homosexual dies?

 

[PRmerger]

My Swedish is nil but my pig-latin is wonderful

Heh!

I hope no one interpreted my comment to mean that I speak even a little Swedish. I do not. I can’t think of a single word I know in the Swedish language. Perhaps “ja”? Does that mean “yes” in Swedish? Or is that only in German?

 

[ASwede]

Thanks for your comments, ASwede, and welcome to the CAFs! Your English is fabulous. Much better than my Swedish.

Thank you! This forum have been a grate help for my faith past weeks

 

[ASwede]

I think it’s an error to say that we need to ignore the differences. Firstly, where do we draw the line? There are some Christians who say that the writings of St. Paul are Satanic. Do you think we ought to let this go? There are some Christians who profess that white men are superior to black men. Should we let this go? What about some Christians who claim that God laughs when a homosexual dies?

I think you have a point, or two
But if the differences take to much of our focus we maybe forget “the goal”. I think no one earns anything if we focus to much on small differences. I mean when Peter walked on the water with Jesus he managed to walk on the water when he had his focus on Jesus. But when he started to look on the circumstances he began to sink!

And I think we are able to to more as Christian Body if we focus on Jesus. But of course in some extreme case we can’t ignore the differences!

(“ja” is “yes” in both German and Swedish )

 

[PRmerger]

I think you have a point, or two
But if the differences take to much of our focus we maybe forget “the goal”. I think no one earns anything if we focus to much on small differences. I mean when Peter walked on the water with Jesus he managed to walk on the water when he had his focus on Jesus. But when he started to look on the circumstances he began to sink!

And I think we are able to to more as Christian Body if we focus on Jesus. But of course in some extreme case we can’t ignore the differences!

Fair enough, friend.

But who gets to decide what is a wee difference, and what’s a difference that we can say, “No, Christian. You cannot profess that because it is against the doctrines of Christianity!”

(“ja” is “yes” in both German and Swedish )

 

[bmonk]

Ive tried debating with my bro-in-law (former Catholic) now non-denominational Christian but when I try to give my position (ergo Church’s teaching) he raises his voice and tries to drown me out. At the same time he says “I like apples, you like orange” -whatever that means. Thus I can’t even put a counter defense.

I do give a caveat though (in my mind ) before talking that that the one who raises his voice is the defacto loser.

MJ

There is an old legal principle that may apply here:

“Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz shares with his students a strategy for successfully defending cases. If the facts are on your side, Dershowitz says, pound the facts into the table. If the law is on your side, pound the law into the table. If neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound the table.”

 

[bmonk]

Fair enough, friend.

But who gets to decide what is a wee difference, and what’s a difference that we can say, “No, Christian. You cannot profess that because it is against the doctrines of Christianity!”

This is where the Magisterium comes into play: they were given the authority to bind and to loose–which includes the authority to make a definitive judgment about what differences are allowable, and which are too important to accept without distorting the faith.

 

[IneedGod]

Great thread,
I don’t mean to interrupt but just have to say I agree with Martin Jordan in that
“They’ll know we are Christians by our love - Greatest song of all time”

 

[bmonk]

You are correct, my opinion is that Catholics permitted the addition of Saturday evening Mass for convenience. But if not for convenience, why is it permitted for a Saturday even Mass to fulfill Sunday Mass requirements. I have never gotten an answer from any Catholic other then convenience.
Basically, what appears to be the case is that you have from 4:00PM on Saturday to 11:59PM on Sunday to fullfill Mass, this is 32 hours, more then 1 day. The Bible clearly says Sunday. For the Catholic Church to permit Saturday for whatever reason is going beyond Biblical authority. It would make sense at least if Sunday Mass had to be complete before 4:00PM on Sunday, but as it is there is no apparent reason for it.

…

No, but all the Biblical examples mention the 1st day of the week, not sundown on the 7th.

…

Ok, then attending Mass after 4:00PM on Sunday would not fulfill the requirement then by that logic because Monday will have already started.

First: the Church still follows the Jewish practice of counting days from sundown to sundown. So, liturgically speaking, the day switches over at Vespers (Evensong), or dusk. Hence Saturday evening, liturgically speaking, is Sunday. More, Sundays and other solemn feasts have two Vespers, one on the eve of the feast, and one on the day itself.

Second, there is another canonical principle: what is burdensome must be taken strictly, while what is permissive is to be expanded as far as reasonably possible. How does that apply here? Well, a Mass near Vespers could be counted for the following feast, since that feast starts liturgically with the First Vespers. Saying the Mass must begin at or after 4:00 gives this a reasonable interpretation: near the time of Vespers. However, Sunday does not end liturgically until Second Vespers, or even Night Prayer (Compline), which means that Masses on Sunday Evening can also be for Sunday.

One exception to all this is when a higher-rank feast preempts the evening. So, for example, if Christmas occurs on Saturday, masses of Anticipation for Sunday are not allowed–since it is still Christmas in the evening.

The point is to allow as many as possible to fulfill their Sunday obligation–as Hebrews says, “We should not stay away from our assembly, as is the custom of some, but encourage one another, and this all the more as you see the day drawing near.” (10:25)

 

[Monte_RCMS]

A couple of days before Easter, two Jehovah Witness visitors rang the bell.

Well … I kept them there for 20 minutes … finally, they said they had to leave.

We went around and around on John 6:20-70, which I had memorized … they said it was not literal … cannibalism … I said that when all of the listeners turned away … Jesus did not say, “wait, just kidding”.

I said they should read Joan Carroll Cruz’s book, “Eucharistic Miracles”.

And they should read the early Church Fathers … so much writing has survived that they would need to add a room to their house to hold all the bookselves they would need.

And etc.

Their religion goes back to 1880; Catholicism goes back to 33AD … why are they ignoring all of the 1900 years of writing and scholarship?

I had fun; they left when they ran out of debate points.]

[All thanks, by the way, to the Catholic Answers bookstore.]

 

[solarguy17]

First: the Church still follows the Jewish practice of counting days from sundown to sundown. So, liturgically speaking, the day switches over at Vespers (Evensong), or dusk. Hence Saturday evening, liturgically speaking, is Sunday. More, Sundays and other solemn feasts have two Vespers, one on the eve of the feast, and one on the day itself.

Second, there is another canonical principle: what is burdensome must be taken strictly, while what is permissive is to be expanded as far as reasonably possible. How does that apply here? Well, a Mass near Vespers could be counted for the following feast, since that feast starts liturgically with the First Vespers. Saying the Mass must begin at or after 4:00 gives this a reasonable interpretation: near the time of Vespers. However, Sunday does not end liturgically until Second Vespers, or even Night Prayer (Compline), which means that Masses on Sunday Evening can also be for Sunday.

One exception to all this is when a higher-rank feast preempts the evening. So, for example, if Christmas occurs on Saturday, masses of Anticipation for Sunday are not allowed–since it is still Christmas in the evening.

The point is to allow as many as possible to fulfill their Sunday obligation–as Hebrews says, “We should not stay away from our assembly, as is the custom of some, but encourage one another, and this all the more as you see the day drawing near.” (10:25)

Wow, this is the first answer I have gotten from any catholic, leity or clergy, that actually gave a real reason other then “magisterium” or “convenience”. Thank you for the answer.
Now, I’m not gonna lie, I don’t agree with the answer but the fact I actually got an answer is nice.

 

[Peter_J]

Any Catholic ever been out debated by a Protestant?

…

Just curious has any catholic ever had this experience.

I think the difficulty with asking this question is that, in most debates, each side think that they out-debated the other side.

 

[fbl9]

I think the difficulty with asking this question is that, in most debates, each side think that they out-debated the other side.

Especially in the matters of religion.
For both debaters are entrenched into their position. And as such only the spectator can really decide who won. Most of whom are not “experts” on the topics. Now where does that leave us at?

 

[Ismael]

Any Catholic ever been out debated by a Protestant?

Probably… debates often depend on the debating skill of the debater even more than the truth value of the debater’s position.

usually in most debates, however, there is no real winner… at best one appears a bit better than the other.

After a debate a person ought to sort out every claim, argument and fact presented by the debaters

Claim: are the logica, reasonable and was (sufficient) proof presented for them (like Ehrman claiming there was a ‘conspiracy’ to hide the true Christ… which is a very bold claim with no historical support whatsoever)

Arguments: are they logical and consistent? Or are they logical fallacies (like red herrings and such, eg… people debating arguments for the existence of God and someone start yapping about pedophile priests or inquisition which is irrelevant to the discussion)

Facts: what facts are presented? Are they true facts? Are they complete facts?
(ie. Bart Ehrman often quote 400.000 ‘errors’ in the New Testament documents… but does not state that these are VARIATIONS (ie. like spelling errors or spelling variations) and 90% of the time they are meaningless… So Ehrman states a fact but half true…)