Anyone else seen this anti-Catholic site?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rand_Al_Thor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Rand_Al_Thor

Guest
Peace be with you!

Has anyone else come across this site before? I was extremely surprised at the Q&A section because they actually address a lot of the responses by Catholic apologists. I’m starting some e-mails with the man who runs this organization, so it should be fun to practice debating with someone who actually knows who the Church Fathers are. Of course, there are more than a few strawman arguments on the site, and all in all this stuff is starting to get too easy for me to refute (most of their answers don’t adequatly respond to the questions)!

justforcatholics.org/

Check it out and tell me what you think. There are a few answers that I just love and can’t wait to nail them on. Did you know that, if given the chance, the Vatican would take over the world? I was surprised to see this on a site that actually utilizes real sources because it sounds like it’s straight out of Jack Chick’s tracts.

In Christ,
Rand
 
HOGWASH!!! I only read one posted question, and the answer was, Catholic Priests stand in the way of our forgiveness. I quit reading after that and closed that page for good. Nothing as I see it can be accomplished there.
 
Yes I’ve seen it before. He’s a rabid anti-catholic spouting off a lot of rubbish.
Don’t waste your time with it .
 
In his article on “Church Fathers and Transubstantiation”, the author of the website writes:
Clearly, while Justin believed in the physical presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, he also believed that the elements remained bread and wine given in remembrance of Christ. Therefore Justin Martyr’s view on the Eucharist is dissimilar from the Roman Catholic transubstantiation, and as such he is anathemized by the Roman Church.
Click to expand...
(emphasis his).

What the?!?! The Catholic Church anathemized (sic) Justin Martyr? That’s news to me. This conclusion was made from the following quotation of Justin Martyr’s:
“Now it is evident, that in this prophecy [allusion is made] to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks” (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho).
Click to expand...
To say that Martyr’s view on the Eucharist is dissimilar to the Catholic Church’s because he also believes that it is done in remembrance of Christ, is clearly incorrect. Also, there is nothing in Martyr’s quote that says that the substance of the bread remains.
 
40.png
Atreyu:
To say that Martyr’s view on the Eucharist is dissimilar to the Catholic Church’s because he also believes that it is done in remembrance of Christ, is clearly incorrect. Also, there is nothing in Martyr’s quote that says that the substance of the bread remains.
Click to expand...
Anti-Catholics usually take any case in which a father calls the Eucharist “bread” or “wine” as an instance when the father didn’t believe in the real presence or transubstantiation. :o
 
Additionally, the typical A/C approach is to find a place before terms were officially defined and say that because certain words are used a particular understanding was not present. Case in point, the Eucharist. Accidents and substance are distinct philosophical terms which weren’t precisely defined in Catholic teaching until much later - it is an historical anachronism to say that because St. Justin Martyr used the word “substance” he meant the opposite of what wasn’t defined until centuries later. Clearly, he believed that the species somehow became the Body and Blood of Christ, but the bread and wine didn’t cease to appear as bread and wine (i.e., they didn’t turn into a hunk of meat and a cup of AB+). James White does the same thing in some of the debates on the Mass - it’s a clever trick, so stay on guard. It remains, however, exactly that - a trick.

A good refutation is to look to the ECF and how they described the Trinity before the dogmatic definition came to pass - they say there are three persons, one person, three natures, one nature, modes of operation, etc. - the reality was being expressed in different terms. Could one then say that the Trinity wasn’t believed until after the dogmatic definition because opposing (and at that time undefined) terms were being used? Nope. The same reality was being expressed differently. The argument undercuts their theology just as quickly, so it is an invalid argument. Sometimes it’s benificial to point this out.

Just my :twocents:.

God Bless,
RyanL
 
Hey Rand Al’Thor. If you want a challenge, go to this link and check it out. The guy’s name is Rand Windburn and he is quite…well, he is…um…I guess I will leave it up to you. The website is ridiculous at best!

iconbusters.com
 
I emailed the guy who makes the website and then finished with:

"I give you all of Mt 25:14-46 to read and meditate on.
Oh I give you Mt 7:15-27

As for the length, I’m a Catholic not a Protestant. I don’t live my
life based on mere soundbytes of the bible."

His response was:

“You admit that you are spiritually dead (“I don’t live my life based on mere soundbytes of the bible”) for those who are alive in Christ live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.”

:rolleyes: The term mere soundbytes didn’t seem to reach his comprehention.
 
You know what’s sad. The site seems to have been made by a man who used to be Catholic. Now that is just so sad. 😦
 
40.png
steve99:
Yes I’ve seen it before. He’s a rabid anti-catholic spouting off a lot of rubbish.
Don’t waste your time with it .
Click to expand...
Easier said than done sometimes!! :whistle:
 
40.png
the-3rd-parent:
I emailed the guy who makes the website and then finished with:

"I give you all of Mt 25:14-46 to read and meditate on.
Oh I give you Mt 7:15-27

As for the length, I’m a Catholic not a Protestant. I don’t live my
life based on mere soundbytes of the bible."

His response was:

“You admit that you are spiritually dead (“I don’t live my life based on mere soundbytes of the bible”) for those who are alive in Christ live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.”

:rolleyes: The term mere soundbytes didn’t seem to reach his comprehention.
Click to expand...
Well if it was out of the mouth of God, wouldn’t he be dead for reading the bible and not talking to God.

But, guys seriously, Can’t we be a little more constructive than finding things to bicker about? Come on. I know that the guy is more than likely and ignorant series of bad words but, that means we should step up our living standard and not stoop down to his. I mean didn’t paul say in Romans 12:18-21 ,“If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.” So guys let God take care of Vengeance and let us take care of the food. 😉
 
true and I did write him an email of apology like five minutes ago.
 
40.png
the-3rd-parent:
true and I did write him an email of apology like five minutes ago.
Click to expand...
Okay, Good. Take the potato out of his tailpipe too. and We will be makeing progress. 😃 sorry.
But, yeah it’s good to apologize.
 
Say, I just checked out that ICONBUSTER site and I have never even imagined something so terrible as this. How any one can seriously consider such garbarge???

Makes me ashamed to be called “Protestant”… Although I hope that will not be too much longer as soon as I can straighten out some things.

Peace, Dave

maranatha!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top