Catholic Apologetics Greatest Weaknesses

[Truthstalker]

Catholics,

Where do you see apologetics for the Catholic Church being weakest? Bear in mind that this is being asked by someone who you have every possible reason to believe will use those weaknesses against you, and he is not alone.

 

[utunumsint]

The temptation to do it out of pride instead of love along with the tempation to do it without prayer. We are instruments in God’s hands. Nothing more.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Rogerteder]

Catholics,

Where do you see apologetics for the Catholic Church being weakest? Bear in mind that this is being asked by someone who you have every possible reason to believe will use those weaknesses against you, and he is not alone.

Hell is hot and forever. Dont say you weren’t warned. Go read about Our Lady of Fatima. After you read about the miracle of the sun then tell me the Catholic Church is not the One True Church.

 

[VociMike]

Catholics,

Where do you see apologetics for the Catholic Church being weakest? Bear in mind that this is being asked by someone who you have every possible reason to believe will use those weaknesses against you, and he is not alone.

I’m curious, will you in turn offer your opinion on where Catholic apologetics is strongest?

 

[Newbie2]

I dunno, methinks being honest in our assessment should leave nothing to fear about our potential shortcomings being “used against us”.

The weakest area, I would say, is walking the talk. For example, we defend the Magesterium and the authority of the bishops in matters of faith. Yet in their human-ness, some of them have failed the Church, the priests involved, and most importantly their flock. I’m speaking, of course, of the priestly abuse scandal.

It’s kinda hard to defend such actions…

 

[jmcrae]

It’s kinda hard to defend such actions…

Nor is it necessary. There is nothing in the Catechism or the Holy Tradition that tells anyone to do such things - quite the opposite. We don’t follow men; we follow Holy Tradition. It is carried to us by men, just as the Ten Commandments were carried to the people of Israel by Moses (who, in his own person, was a convicted murderer) - in following Moses, they did not imitate or even approve of his sinful behaviours - rather, they followed what he was carrying - the Law of God.

It’s the same with us. We follow, not priests or Bishops, but the Holy Tradition that they are carrying on our behalf.

 

[PJM]

Catholics,

Where do you see apologetics for the Catholic Church being weakest? Bear in mind that this is being asked by someone who you have every possible reason to believe will use those weaknesses against you, and he is not alone.

The greatest weakness is not us. All of our doctrines, and dogmas are defendable. Everyone!

The difficulty arrises when one of, shall we say, lesser faith and understanding, will not accept the three precepts that we use in explaining and defending our Faith.

**Holy Scripture **as recorded in the first bible, which is the Catholic bible.

Sacred Tradition, because like our ancestors, not everything God intends to teach and share is “written down.”

Common Sense For example is Mary gave bith to Jesus, and Jesus is God, then Mary has to be “The Mother of God.”

The other diffucilities are perhaps an insufficient understanding of what we believe and why, by those who too, may not have a firm foundation.

The final reason, and to me the most fustrating one is an all-to-often lack of Chrsitian Charity, on our part, and at times theirs. This only serves to make us sin, appear as all talk and no-walk, and muddies up the potentail debate.

But their is nothing in RCC Faitn, Belief and Practice that cannot be explained, supported and Justified.

BUT, are we able to do it with Chairity and Clareity? That my friend in Christ, is the real question:thumbsup:

 

[Truthstalker]

I’m curious, will you in turn offer your opinion on where Catholic apologetics is strongest?

It’s strongest where I already agree with it.

Give me a few days to come up with a real answer.

 

[Truthstalker]

The temptation to do it out of pride instead of love along with the tempation to do it without prayer. We are instruments in God’s hands. Nothing more.

God bless,
Ut

I really, really like this answer.

 

[Truthstalker]

Hell is hot and forever. Dont say you weren’t warned. Go read about Our Lady of Fatima. After you read about the miracle of the sun then tell me the Catholic Church is not the One True Church.

Are you saying the miracle of the sun is the greatest weakness, or the strongest proof?

 

[JRKH]

I dunno, methinks being honest in our assessment should leave nothing to fear about our potential shortcomings being “used against us”.

The weakest area, I would say, is walking the talk. For example, we defend the Magesterium and the authority of the bishops in matters of faith. Yet in their human-ness, some of them have failed the Church, the priests involved, and most importantly their flock. I’m speaking, of course, of the priestly abuse scandal.

It’s kinda hard to defend such actions…

First let me say that I agree that an honest assessment of Catholic Apologetics is not fearful rather it should be helpful. I look forward to seeing how this thread goes.

Second, as to the weakest point I agree with the highlighted section. I have heard several converts say that one of the greatest impediments to conversions is catholics themselves. Not apologists, but just your general “catholic in the pew”. Too few catholics are properly grounded in their faith and as a result are unable and/or unwilling to defend or explain the faith to a non-catholic.
Even worse is the inability of most catholics to properly defend the faith against the lies and distortions of anti-catholics.

As to the actual nuts and bolts of apologetics, that is doctrine and liturgical practices i.e. sacraments, I don’t see any weaknesses.

If I am forced to name an area in apologetics that is troublesome it is the area of “events during and after the advent of the Protestant reformation”. I say this not because it greatly impacts the validity of the doctrines etc. of the Church, but rather because there are those who use it as a “red herring” distracting and confusing the discussion of real issues.
Like the peoples in the Middle-East, some people cannot let go of old hates even though there was enough blood shed on and by both sides to satisfy the most blood thirsty.
Let us all resolve, Catholic and Non-Catholic alike to look, not at the sins of our ancestors, but at the doctrines and teachings that seperate us. These are the discussions, taken in charity, that will bring us closer together.

Peace
James

 

[ericka1701]

Jim McRae, I really like your answer, and I wholeheartedly agree with it.

This may not be the greatest weakness, but it is one I see quite often, and that’s not meeting the other person on their level, and learning what the other persons’ beliefs and definitions of terms. In my own eagerness, I have started explaining “un-biblical” Marian Doctrine without discussing the “biblical” ones, for example, although there are many others. I have so much to learn.

In converting from Presbyterianism, I have realized that there are many similarities in beliefs, just that the terminology is different, or maybe it’s given lesser importance. That doesn’t say that every belief is the same and there are some that don’t mesh at all. It is important to find a starting point and not just beat someone over the head with a Catechism (not quite done that yet, but I’ve been close ) with the hopes that they’ll “get it”.

God Bless!
Ericka

 

[buffalo]

Most Catholics cannot defend their faith (apologetics). Apologetics from the pulpit and in elementary ed would be a great improvement.

 

[anon5216]

The greatest weakness is not us. All of our doctrines, and dogmas are defendable. Everyone!

The difficulty arrises when one of, shall we say, lesser faith and understanding, will not accept the three precepts that we use in explaining and defending our Faith.

**Holy Scripture **as recorded in the first bible, which is the Catholic bible.

Sacred Tradition, because like our ancestors, not everything God intends to teach and share is “written down.”

Common Sense For example is Mary gave bith to Jesus, and Jesus is God, then Mary has to be “The Mother of God.”

The other diffucilities are perhaps an insufficient understanding of what we believe and why, by those who too, may not have a firm foundation.

The final reason, and to me the most fustrating one is an all-to-often lack of Chrsitian Charity, on our part, and at times theirs. This only serves to make us sin, appear as all talk and no-walk, and muddies up the potentail debate.

But their is nothing in RCC Faitn, Belief and Practice that cannot be explained, supported and Justified.

BUT, are we able to do it with Chairity and Clareity? That my friend in Christ, is the real question:thumbsup:

The old testament books are definitely a weak spot.

God as described there in many places, (not all - it isn’t a single book by a single human author after all), sounds much more like a fallen angel misleading some corrupt and/or corruptible humans than the God described by Jesus.

 

[Rogerteder]

Are you saying the miracle of the sun is the greatest weakness, or the strongest proof?

strong proof and I am warning you about eternity

 

[JRKH]

Jim McRae, I really like your answer, and I wholeheartedly agree with it.

This may not be the greatest weakness, but it is one I see quite often, and that’s not meeting the other person on their level, and learning what the other persons’ beliefs and definitions of terms. In my own eagerness, I have started explaining “un-biblical” Marian Doctrine without discussing the “biblical” ones, for example, although there are many others. I have so much to learn.

In converting from Presbyterianism, I have realized that there are many similarities in beliefs, just that the terminology is different, or maybe it’s given lesser importance. That doesn’t say that every belief is the same and there are some that don’t mesh at all. It is important to find a starting point and not just beat someone over the head with a Catechism (not quite done that yet, but I’ve been close ) with the hopes that they’ll “get it”.

God Bless!
Ericka

YES - Terminology

Of course this is a weakness on both sides of the discussion. We both assume that we understand the meanings of certain terms when in fact each side has their own take, or nuance as to how things fit into God’s revelation.

I have found this particularly true when discussing with Lutherens. Often times here on the board it seems we find ourselves talking “Past” each other on issues of Faith, Grace, Justification, Works etc. Given suffciant posts it becomes clear that we are so close in our theology and understandings, but it is terminology and focus that is the real issue.
This is one reason, and important one, against Sola Scriptura. If we humans, who devised the languages that we use as means of communciation, cannot make ourselves clearly understood, how much more difficult is it for the average individual to find his/her way through a translation of ancient texts without the help of others and in particular an authoritative Body.

Here again, we find that the “weakness” is not with Catholic Apologetics but rather with Catholic Apologists and Apologists of all stripes. We need to be patient, and loving in our work for we work in Love.
As St Paul tells us in 1 COR 13:4-7
Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Maybe This Should be the Apologist’s prayer.

Peace
James

 

[Truthstalker]

Interesting responses. I wasn’t sure what to expect, which is one reason I started this thread.

I’m tempted, of course to tell you what I think the greatest weaknesses of Catholic Apologetics are, but that would be difficult to do without being perceived as being in attack mode. Let me leave it that some of them have been mentioned, but as the question was directed at Catholics, my answers would be off-topic and might inhibit discussion.

That does not restrict me, however, from responding to responses or asking questions concerning responses. I will say a few things that I agree with. I agree that terminology gets in the way, and that is particulary true in early Reformed theology. I think the gap has continued to grow between us among conservatives and there is a fuzzy ecumenism among liberals that both conservative Catholics and evangelicals view with at best alarm. Both the Catholicism of the pew and that of the evangelical line of chairs differ from the official pronouncements of the respective churches, and that is a problem. Both sides suffer from their own members and the other sides.

I like JRKH’s last post. I tend to be of the opinion that the reformation was 500 years ago and we need to get over it, fix the damage and move on. That does not mean ignore it but it does suggest we stop defining ourselves in terms of the reformation and instead look at the entire history of Christianity if we want to define ourselves on a historical basis, which in and of itself may be a mistake. The issues of the reformation seem to take a small place in the 1994 catechism.

To me the real fight in the Catholic church is not between the Church and Protestants, but rather in terms of internal problems, with syncretism, apathy and theologies such as feminist and social-justice theologies. And so, as I post this, perhaps I am pointing out what I think may be the greatest problem, in contradiction to my earlier statement, and that is that you spend way too much time in the wrong debate. Conservative Protestants are a lot closer to the official position of the Catholic Church than many Catholics.

 

[Ridgerunner]

To me the real fight in the Catholic church is not between the Church and Protestants, but rather in terms of internal problems, with syncretism, apathy and theologies such as feminist and social-justice theologies. And so, as I post this, perhaps I am pointing out what I think may be the greatest problem, in contradiction to my earlier statement, and that is that you spend way too much time in the wrong debate. Conservative Protestants are a lot closer to the official position of the Catholic Church than many Catholics.

just passing through. But with this statement, particularly the last sentence, I wholeheartedly agree.

 

[JRKH]

Interesting responses. I wasn’t sure what to expect, which is one reason I started this thread.

(Snip)

To me the real fight in the Catholic church is not between the Church and Protestants, but rather in terms of internal problems, with syncretism, apathy and theologies such as feminist and social-justice theologies. And so, as I post this, perhaps I am pointing out what I think may be the greatest problem, in contradiction to my earlier statement, and that is that you spend way too much time in the wrong debate. Conservative Protestants are a lot closer to the official position of the Catholic Church than many Catholics.

While I cannot disagree with your statement re: various movements and agendas within the Church, I don’t think that this should impact the field of Apologetics. Apologetics, as I see it, needs to defend and explain the Official Church Teachings and that’s it.
The difference between what you see as “internal problems” in the Catholic Church and similar issues in Non-Catholic Churches is this. When Non-Catholics get into theological dissent, they just split up with one group going here and the other going there. Thus it can seem that Non-Catholics don’t have these same sorts of “issues” in their churches. Catholics, because we believe so strongly in the Church, want to stay and effect change within the Church.
As for the position of many catholics re: official church teaching, that is an issue between them and their confessor. From an apologetic viewpoint, individual opinion has little bearing. It is the Official Teachings that are important.

I will however grant that poorly catachized catholics can do a lot of harm that properly catachized catholics have a hard time undoing.

I think this is an excellant thread topic. Thanks for bringing it up TS.

Peace
James

 

[cpayne]

Catholics,

Where do you see apologetics for the Catholic Church being weakest? Bear in mind that this is being asked by someone who you have every possible reason to believe will use those weaknesses against you, and he is not alone.

First, apologetics for Protestant Christians: The Assumption of Mary, the Coronation of Mary, and intercession through Mary.

I do believe all of these are defensible, not only by tradition but also by scripture. At least these things can be shown not to be contrary to Scripture. HOWEVER–speaking from experience–for many Protestants these are just really, really hard to accept. Not only do they not see them in the scriptures, they also find them difficult to understand. For example, why the importance of them, why the stress on Mary, etc. This is where I see a lot of Catholics and Protestants “talking past” each other: Catholics honestly cannot understand the Protestant problem with Mary, and Protestants honestly cannot understand the Catholic “obsession” (as they see it) with Mary.

Second, apologetics for non-Christians: it seems for many non-Christians it is a long, hard trek from believing in God (okay, let’s say we defend God’s existence reasonably well) to becoming a Christian (okay, let’s say we defend the claims of Christ pretty well) to becoming a Catholic. That is, for a lot of people it is difficult to go from non-belief in God, to belief in God, to belief in Christianity, to belief in the Catholic Church.

Usually I don’t try to get non-believers from A to Z all at once. Usually I try to get them from A to about D. Then we pick up from there.