Catholic Apologetics Greatest Weaknesses

[ericka1701]

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.

The same can also go for the Eucharist and the Real Presence. Trying to explain why I genuflect in front of the tabernacle and why only Catholics can receive the Eucharist to my parents was like pulling teeth (see my previous post about smacking someone over the head with a Catechism). Luckily they believe in a spiritual presence of Christ in the communion, and that it’s not just a symbol, so at least I got to the point of “I understand what you’re saying, and I won’t take Catholic Communion, but I still won’t genuflect”… it’s a start though.

As far as the conversion of an atheist versus a non-Catholic Christian, I’ve personally seen a former atheist go from believing in God and Christ and join the CC within a year. Non-Catholic Christians will sometimes have to “undo” their faith formation from other denominations, and that can be a really unnerving situation, especially coming from denominations that aren’t very happy with the Catholic Church (I converted from Presbyterianism myself, and I can attest to this). The first Hail Mary I said with some duress since I heard many times in my 20 years as a Presbyterian that it was a vain, repetious prayer, and Mary, though virgin when she conceived Jesus through the Holy Spirit, was a sinner just like everyone else (although now I LOVE to say the rosary as often as I can). I can’t tell you how long it took me to pray through the Saints. I sometimes will slip and debt instead of trespass for the Our Father, and I have to really watch that I don’t add the doxology at the end. I was also taught that Catholics were cannibals for believing in the Real Presence, that the reason Protestantism and Reformation was needed was because the Catholic Church had underwent a great “bastardization” over the course of the centuries and Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Knox were needed to save the faithful. It’s a wonder I converted at all, and it’s no wonder that it took me 5 years after the start of my learning about the Catholic faith to finally convert. I just wanted to share some of my own personal experiences to let others know some of the obstacles that may be faced in speaking with others from ecumenical bodies.

The former atheists (or Christians who never went to church) I’ve personally encountered usually didn’t have such prejudices either for or against Catholicism once they renewed their belief in the Holy Trinity. A good defense for Apostolic Succession, Sacred Tradition and a history lesson is sometimes the miniminum that’s needed for that person to decide to convert.

Of course, since we all are individuals, it’s not always so cut and dried. That’s where I encourage others to see where the other person is coming from and take care of those misconceptions before moving onto the more indepth topics. I know in my case, I needed to start with the milk (maybe even water) before I could even think about moving on to vegetables (and I’m now hopefully working up to meat).

God Bless!
Ericka

 

[Newbie2]

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.

Well, that’s what apologetics is all about, defending the faith, no? Unfortunately, our (lay and clergy) shortcomings are seen as part of our faith both from outside and inside, correctly or not. It’s part of apologetics to help straighten out what’s (seen as) important or not, and focus on what you correctly point out is what we’re supposed to be following.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Catholic Apologetics Greatest Weakness is knowing we are 100% infallibly correct. That can hurt in two ways. One is that we can come across as if bullying since we are so certain and just want to flood the non-Catholic with too much information and ECF history that puts them in a defensive posture (“hey that’s not in my bible - where did that come from!”). The other thing is that our absolute assurance of correctness can blind us to the human need to empathize with how non-Catholics view their own world and make it impossible for us to develop a trust relationship from a familiar ground they are accustomed to. To get around this problem we have to be a jack-of-all-trades (but expert at none) to know a lot of the many different flavors of Protestantism so we can explain things that map to concepts and terms that are familiar with before we can slowly start moving them up the mountain to “the higher ground”. I also think that some Protestants who genuinely start to see how rational and very deep Catholicism is get scared to death that they have been living in a simple world and now there is all this OT prefiguring, and deep theology that is really quite mature (afterall we are 2000 years old). Human trust tends to be incrementally won - though some times it can be spontaneous if the charisma is there. So Catholic Apologetics need to expose the depth of Catholicism to incrementally in bits and pieces and resist the urge to get into quick scripture-fling skirmishes that just make everyone go on defense.

From the above I would say that its much easier for a Catholic to win over a heathen non-Christian with no belief system than a Protestant (of any particular denom) that has become heavily addicted to the freedoms and liberties of “private interpretation of scripture”. That freedom gives them a false sense of control and infallability that is hard to get through frankly.

James

 

[Jlcastagna]

From the above I would say that its much easier for a Catholic to win over a heathen non-Christian with no belief system than a Protestant (of any particular denom) that has become heavily addicted to the freedoms and liberties of “private interpretation of scripture”. That freedom gives them a false sense of control and infallability that is hard to get through frankly.

James

I whole heartedly agree James, once a Protestant has made themselves Pope, Magisterium, and Christs beloved Disciple all at the same time its almost impossible to convince them that they are not. Then the spiral begins.

The usual flow goes:
Prot: accusation - rejection - strawman
Cath: charitable response - charitable response - frustration

Prot: strawman - rejection
Cath: frustration - hit them with ECF’s and scripture (which they’ve already improperly interpreted)

Prot: various or non responses

May God bless and protect us,
JLC

 

[Teflon93]

Wherever the pride of the non-Catholic is strongest.

 

[Ender]

The old testament books are definitely a weak spot.

Given the arguments used against Catholicism I think this observation is accurate. I’m not sure that the OT books actually constitute a weakness but I do think that interpreting them properly is not necessarily straightforward. I am not a Bible scholar nor even particularly knowledgeable about - especially - the OT but there are questions that seem reasonable for which I have no answer.

Ender

 

[PJM]

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.

Interesting observation. Thanks.

But why do you think this is true?

The very purpose (the most important one, not the only one) of the OT, was to prophesy about the coming Messiah, Jesus Christ. The balance of the book is largely historical, recounting thousands of years of Hebrew history, and God’s attempts to develop a relationship with mankind.

From God saying to Adam. “Where are you,” to picking Noah and his family, to choosing Abram and renaming him Abraham, to God’s selections of Judges, Prophets and Kings. All efforts by God to develop a relationship with Him.

From about roughly the time of King David we see through The Wisdom books, a foothold of understanding God, and desiring a personal relationship with Him.

Keep in mind that thousands of years of Jewish history were passed on in stories, not so unlike the parables of Jesus. This was because of prevalent illiteracy and a lack of writing implements.

This caused some inconsistencies as one might suspect. However the OT was written to point to the NT, and it is Jesus Himself, who perfects, completes and fulfills the OT.

It entire bible remains the inspired Word of God, and simply because God allows his chosen race to actually relate what they knew and understood at the time, in no way lessons the Word of God. His Word is “inspired” not dictated. Look for the perfected and fulfilled truth in the NT, which does not deny the OT, rather only explains it and perfects it.

And you are quite correct, we are both corruptable and at times corrupted, because we do not accept God’s Word and Teachings and allow them to determine how we ought to live.

God bless you, hope this is of some help?

 

[PJM]

Interesting observation. Thanks.

But why do you think this is true?

The very purpose (the most important one, not the only one) of the OT, was to prophesy about the coming Messiah, Jesus Christ. The balance of the book is largely historical, recounting thousands of years of Hebrew history, and God’s attempts to develop a relationship with His created humanity, made in His very immage and likeness…

From God saying to Adam. “Where are you,” to picking Noah and his family, to choosing Abram and renaming him Abraham, to God’s selections of Judges, Prophets and Kings. All efforts by God to develop a relationship with Him.

From about roughly the time of King David we see through The Wisdom books, a foothold of early understanding of God, and a desire of a more personal relationship with Him.

Keep in mind that thousands of years of Jewish history were passed on in verbal stories, not so unlike the parables of Jesus. This was because of prevalent illiteracy and a lack of writing implements.

This caused some inconsistencies as one might suspect. However the OT was written to point to the NT, and it is Jesus Himself, who perfects, completes and fulfills the OT.

It entire bible remains the inspired Word of God, and simply because God allows his chosen race to actually relate what they knew and understood at the time, in no way lessons the Word of God. His Word is “inspired” not dictated. Look for the perfected and fulfilled truth in the NT, which does not deny the OT, rather only explains it and perfects it.

And you are quite correct, we are both corruptable and at times corrupted, because we do not accept God’s Word and Teachings and allow them to determine how we ought to live.

God bless you, hope this is of some help?

 

[PJM]

Given the arguments used against Catholicism I think this observation is accurate. I’m not sure that the OT books actually constitute a weakness but I do think that interpreting them properly is not necessarily straightforward. I am not a Bible scholar nor even particularly knowledgeable about - especially - the OT but there are questions that seem reasonable for which I have no answer.Ender

If you’d care to ask those question, we’d be happy to try and explain the answers:thumbsup:

Interesting observation. Thanks.

But why do you think this is true?

The very purpose (the most important one, not the only one) of the OT, was to prophesy about the coming Messiah, Jesus Christ. The balance of the book is largely historical, recounting thousands of years of Hebrew history, and God’s attempts to develop a relationship with His created humanity, made in His very immage and likeness…

From God saying to Adam. “Where are you,” to picking Noah and his family, to choosing Abram and renaming him Abraham, to God’s selections of Judges, Prophets and Kings. All efforts by God to develop a relationship with Him.

From about roughly the time of King David we see through The Wisdom books, a foothold of early understanding of God, and a desire of a more personal relationship with Him.

Keep in mind that thousands of years of Jewish history were passed on in verbal stories, not so unlike the parables of Jesus. This was because of prevalent illiteracy and a lack of writing implements.

This caused some inconsistencies as one might suspect. However the OT was written to point to the NT, and it is Jesus Himself, who perfects, completes and fulfills the OT.

It entire bible remains the inspired Word of God, and simply because God allows his chosen race to actually relate what they knew and understood at the time, in no way lessons the Word of God. His Word is “inspired” not dictated. Look for the perfected and fulfilled truth in the NT, which does not deny the OT, rather only explains it and perfects it.

And you are quite correct, we are both corruptable and at times corrupted, because we do not accept God’s Word and Teachings and allow them to determine how we ought to live.

God bless you, hope this is of some help?

 

[MarcoPolo]

Catholic Apologetics Greatest Weakness is knowing we are 100% infallibly correct.

I have encountered this problem as well. It would be sufficient and true to cite the authority of the Catholic Church, through which Christ guarantees His truth, as reason enough to believe various doctrine. But the temptation to say that to a Protestant will not result in effective apologetics. It is best to study and understand why the Church has developed a given teaching as it has. Then the next challenge is trying to synthesize it into something charitable and easy to understand when speaking to those who are skeptical of the Church or ignorant of things, such as like you said, typology.

 

[mark_a]

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 see inherent weakness due to the fact that it is more difficult to become knowledgable of the multitude of Protestantisms than it is for the multitude of Protestantisms to become knowledgable of their own view of the one Catholicism.

 

[Teflon93]

I see inherent weakness due to the fact that it is more difficult to become knowledgable of the multitude of Protestantisms than it is for the multitude of Protestantisms to become knowledgable of their own view of the one Catholicism.

This is a very good point utterly lost on Protestants. Protestantism is a hydra and our Protestant interlocutors quite often use this theological chaos to their apologetic advantage by a) insisting that any response be addressed specifically to whatever writhing head represents their individual belief; b) refusing to state plainly what it is they believe; and c) disavowing certain beliefs attributable to their fellows whenever convenient to do so.

Keep an eye on Protestants in the various Apologetics threads and you’ll see this play out endlessly. You can generally tell who they are from the profile information—they tend to use very nebulous terms for their faith - “Christian” or “Bible Believer” or “Protestant” rather than something definitive.

Ask for more specific information and they claim you are intruding on their privacy.

 

[JRKH]

I see inherent weakness due to the fact that it is more difficult to become knowledgable of the multitude of Protestantisms than it is for the multitude of Protestantisms to become knowledgable of their own view of the one Catholicism.

Nicely said.
This is similar to what I had posted to TruthStalker last night relating to his comment about division within the Church. Non-Catholic Christians, when they have serious dissention in their Chruch tend to split up rather than try to truly resolve the issues or to submit themselves to the Authority of their Church. Thus we wind up with myriad differing variations, of beliefs.

Yes Catholicism can be messy but we, at least try to, follow Jesus teaching to, “Tell it to the Church”, and then submit to the guidance of The Church. Protestants, Claiming SS cannot, “Tell it to the Church”. They choose not to submit to an authoritative body and thus go dancing off willy-nilly in all directions. What is worse is that they don’t even see it. Even when we show it to them in Black and White. (Mt 18:15-18)

Again I would state that, doctrinally there is little or nothing in Catholic apologetics that could be called weak. It cannot simply because it is protected by God. However there are weaknesses in apologists, and in our ability to clearly explain in charity to our seperated brethren.

Peace
James

 

[Ender]

If you’d care to ask those question, we’d be happy to try and explain the answers:thumbsup:

A humanist in another thread made the following objection about Christianity. In the OT, Joshua and the Israelites not only conquer their enemies but then put to death entire populations including women and children and they claim to be doing this in God’s name and with his help. So - did God assist in this slaughter, did he sanction it, or is that part of the OT simply wrong about God’s involvement?

I have no response to this question but I found it interesting and reasonable.

Ender

 

[JRKH]

A humanist in another thread made the following objection about Christianity. In the OT, Joshua and the Israelites not only conquer their enemies but then put to death entire populations including women and children and they claim to be doing this in God’s name and with his help. So - did God assist in this slaughter, did he sanction it, or is that part of the OT simply wrong about God’s involvement?

I have no response to this question but I found it interesting and reasonable.

Ender

These arguments can be difficult to get around, not beause there aren’t reasonable explanations, but rather because the person making the assertion has already made up their minds as to how “inconsistant” such things are in salvic history. They wish to apply later “cultural norms” to earlier and different times.

I am not an OT Scholar or apologist simply because these Old Covenent historical issues have little bearing on our salvic journey today.
We cannot say that the OT is “wrong about God’s involvement”, but we can say that we do not know why God ordered the killings. That God was leading His people, at their time, and in their world, to do what was necessary to fulfill His plan.
We can also allow that it is a good question as to why God would do this, but that it really doesn’t impact the New Covenent founded upon and by the Blood of Christ.

Ultimately the person we are speaking to needs to understand that he is reading history, and history can be troubling. Look at the attitude of people in the 1800’s toward other races. A famous American General is credited with saying that “The only Good Indian is a dead Indian”. Today we find such feelings horrendous. Yet we must grant that, if the American Indian nations were given there proper respect and dignity, the US would look very different today. Of course I’m not claiming God’s intervention here, but certainly Americans of all stripes in those days had no problem with displacing the Indians.
Many examples of what we would consider today as inappropriate behavior can be found in US history. Does this history negate the validity of our Governmental System or the Ideals upon which it is founded?

Just an Idea that might help put things into perspective.

Peace
James

 

[cajun_disciple]

Lack of scripture knowledge by the average Catholic. May not be #1, but it’s up there.

God Speed
CD

 

[PJM]

A humanist in another thread made the following objection about Christianity. In the OT, Joshua and the Israelites not only conquer their enemies but then put to death entire populations including women and children and they claim to be doing this in God’s name and with his help. So - did God assist in this slaughter, did he sanction it, or is that part of the OT simply wrong about God’s involvement?

I have no response to this question but I found it interesting and reasonable.

Ender

Here is an example (one of many) of which you speak.

Indeed these acts weredemanded and sanctioned by God!

This make God sound like an uncaring, unloving God of no Mercy.

Yet we know, we know that God is everything Good, so why did He order these killing’s?

I have put the answer for you in RED.

Numbers Chapter 31:

"Chapter 31
**
"1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 “Avenge the people of Israel on the Midianites; afterward you shall be gathered to your people.” 3 And Moses said to the people, “Arm men from among you for the war, that they may go against Midian, to execute the LORD’s vengeance on Midian. 4 You shall send a thousand from each of the tribes of Israel to the war.” 5 So there were provided, out of the thousands of Israel, a thousand from each tribe, twelve thousand armed for war. 6 And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand from each tribe, together with Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, with the vessels of the sanctuary and the trumpets for the alarm in his hand.** 7 They warred against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and slew every male. 8 They slew the kings of Midian with the rest of their slain, Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba, the five kings of Midian; and they also slew Balaam the son of Beor with the sword**. 9 And the people of Israel took captive the women of Midian and their little ones; and they took as booty all their cattle, their flocks, and all their goods. 10 All their cities in the places where they dwelt, and all their encampments, they burned with fire, 11 and took all the spoil and all the booty, both of man and of beast. 12 Then they brought the captives and the booty and the spoil to Moses, and to Eleazar the priest, and to the congregation of the people of Israel, at the camp on the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho.
13 Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the congregation, went forth to meet them outside the camp. 14 And Moses was angry with the officers of the army, the commanders of thousands and the commanders of hundreds, who had come from service in the war. 15 Moses said to them, "Have you let all the women live? 16* Behold, these caused the people of Israel, by the counsel of Balaam, to act treacherously against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and so the plague came among the congregation of the LORD. 17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. 18 But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. "

So, now we can understand why. The Jew’s were too weak, too easily tempted, to allow their Heathen, Bahl worshiping neighbors to live and contemidate the Jew’s bussing relationship with God.

So God out of love, and a desire** to be loved in return, ordered them to be erradicated. Something every parent knows, HARD LOVE!**

Vey good question:tiphat: If you have more question’s we’d like to hear them too.
**

 

[ericka1701]

Lack of scripture knowledge by the average Catholic. May not be #1, but it’s up there.

God Speed
CD

This is a part of it, too. Also, what each group constitues as scriptual knowledge. Most Evangelicals I’ve encountered have memorized almost the whole bible verbatum and can quote book, chapter and verse for almost any passage, but I feel don’t have that much understanding of context. Most Catholics I’ve met don’t really “know” the bible as far as where it is specifically located, but perhaps has a better understanding of the context in which it’s to be taken.

That’s my tuppence.

God Bless!
Ericka

 

[kotek]

I have listened to and read quite a few Catholic-Protestant debates, gone to forums where discussion and “debate” take place and offer these critiques of Catholic Apologists.

1. In debates it seems that whenever the Catholic is being backed into a corner the Catholic will come out with “how do you know the Bible is inspired?” or “how can you be sure of the Canon of Scripture?”. which leads to point
2. Catholic Apologists seem obsessed with trying to “disprove Sola Scriptura”. I think this is a bad approach for two reasons A. It makes it look like, the way its discussed by the Catholic, that for Catholics the Bible is unnecessary and that Catholics don’t take the Bible seriously B. It can potentially backfire. Many Protestants who hear these debates might be convinced that the Catholic has effectively disproven Sola Scriptura; BUT they may reason that since the Bible is unreliable and that the Catholic Church is certainly not of God because an institution with such a poor record of immorality, human rights violations, brutality, persecution, wicked evil immoral leadership could never have God in it. So the result is that they not only not become Catholic but they abandon Christianity completely.
3. Most Catholic Apologists when confronted with historical facts that disprove their position try to distort those facts and make them say what they do not rather than admit that they are wrong and the Church could have made a mistake.
4. Most Catholic Apologists are out of touch with current Catholic Biblical, Theological, and Historical Scholarship.
5. Arrogance and condescending attitudes.

The only Catholic Apologist I like is Father Mitch Pacwa.

 

[anon5216]

Here is an example (one of many) of which you speak.

Indeed these acts weredemanded and sanctioned by God!

This make God sound like an uncaring, unloving God of no Mercy.

Yet we know, we know that God is everything Good, so why did He order these killing’s?
…

I have yet to be convinced that the “God” who demanded the genocide of his so called creations was really God.

I have yet to be convinced that the various ancient Jews who related these stories were all qualified to properly discriminate the sources of supernatural communications. Not to mention be honest about them. The concept of falsely claiming “God is on my side and He told me / sanctioned my ____________________…” is by no means a recent invention.

The contortions theologians have to go through to reconcile certain old testament stories are stretched beyond believability to any outside objective observer who hasn’t already bought into the “single, unified, inerrant structure of the Bible” concept.

One passage of these ancient writings being convincingly shown to be divinely inspired does not in any way prove that other passages from other writers (or even the same writer at a different time) were also divinely inspired.

Each book must stand or fall on its own - (from this outside observer perspective).