Credible Catholic Sources

  • Thread starter Thread starter Blue_Serenity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Blue_Serenity said:
I think what happens is we mix emotion with Truth and turn others off to whatever point we’re trying to make. :o I guess it’s what makes us human, though, and why we have “debates”. 😃
Click to expand...
Hmmm…

I personally think it’s MORE interesting when people are “heated” (what were those little flamey-things at pentacost) about what they’re talking about.

Do you suppose any of the Apostles would have made it a “ground rule” that there would be no FLAMING at pentacost? 🙂

“Heatedness” is nearly always a cue to define things more narrowly, to get down to core beliefs, and defining those things that we can agree to disagree about.
 
Much of the problem derives form those who aren’t really seeking to authentically learn about Catholicism, but are searching from some “sound bite” they might use to argue against Catholicism. It’s best probably to assume that the practicing Catholic knows more about his own beliefs that the non-Catholic or ex-Catholic.
Click to expand...
This is an excellent point. (🙂 Thank you, Dave!)
As a non-Catholic, arriving here, I soon realized that there were some very knowledgeable people here…and that these knowledgeable people greatly love & strive to serve the Lord.
But there seem to be people who show up, sure that one post from them, & the whole world will:eek: follow them…
These folks tend to assume that nobody at CAF knows anything at all about what they believe. So, if you run into a little 😉 testiness on occasion, you can most always know that there is a history there.

(I realize, as I write this, that I arrived on the home site of Catholic Answers, not knowing that there was a forum here…Maybe that helped?? Reading some of the articles over there first, before I ever posted for the first time??)
 
Blue_Serenity said:
It seems like every time a Protestant posts a source, whether it be a link or a book or whatever, Catholics shoot it down, saying it’s not credible.
So, I’m asking all Catholics here just what is a credible source to you? Are there certain authors that you trust for certain issues or what?
I’m getting frustrated when I read threads where Catholics ask Protestants for proof and then shoot down their source.
Catholics, enlighten me!
Click to expand...
I would like to see a specific example of what you are talking about (Catholics asking Protestants for proof and then shooting down their source.)

The usual mistake Protestants make when debating with Catholics is making the “strawman” argument where they misrepresent what the CC actually teaches and then argue against this misrepresentation. For example, many Protestant websites say that Catholics believe we are saved by works. This is not and never has been the official teaching of the CC. I am assuming the strawman argument against the CC is the example you are talking about.

To avoid making a strawman argument and to learn what the CC actually teaches, you should go to official Catholic sources. Some of these of are: The Catechism (CCC), papal encyclicals, Code of Canon Law, and Church Council documents. The CCC is probably the easiest one for most people to use, and it includes quotes from encyclicals, canon law, and council documents as well as the ECF’s and Holy Scripture. All of these sources can be found online.

Catholics who quote the CCC in their arguments are not expecting Protestants to accept it as authoritative. They are presenting it only as a way to present what the CC teaches.

Also, I think it’s only fair for Catholics to go to Protestant sources if we want to represent what they (Protestants) believe. However, this is a little more difficult since there are so many different denominations, and they all believe somewhat different things. Still, it would be good if we Catholics would use more Protestant sources to represent Protestant teaching so we don’t make the same mistake of the strawman argument. It definitively goes both ways.
 
Another mistake Protestants make when debating Catholics is the way they present Church history, which is often very biased against the CC and usually focuses on Church corruptions and scandals. Here are some Church history books written from the Catholic perspective:

EARLY CHURH and CHURCH FATHERS:

Four Witnesses, Rod Bennett

amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/002-7731750-1740019?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=rod+bennett&Go.x=5&Go.y=7

Faith of the Early Fathers, William A Jurgens

amazon.com/Faith-Early-Fathers-Three-Set/dp/0814610250/ref=sr_1_2/002-7731750-1740019?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173244762&sr=1-2

CONTINENTAL EUROPE AND ENGLISH CHURCH HISTORY:

How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, Thomas E Woods

lewrockwell.com/woods/woods40.html

A History of the Protestant Reformation in England and Ireland, William Cobbett

catholiccompany.com/product_detail.cfm?ID=8493

Triumph: The Power and Glory of the Catholic Church, H W Crocker III

amazon.com/Triumph-Catholic-Church-000-Year-History/dp/0761529241

The Stripping of the Altars, Eamon Duffy

amazon.com/Stripping-Altars-Traditional-Religion-1400-1580/dp/0300108281/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-7731750-1740019?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173244451&sr=1-1

Several books by Christopher Dawson

amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/103-5567940-9078240?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Christopher+Dawson&Go.x=6&Go.y=12

Several books by Hillaire Belloc

amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/002-7731750-1740019?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=hillaire+belloc&Go.x=8&Go.y=12

Also, the Catholic Encyclopedia has a lot of good information about CC history:

newadvent.org/cathen/index.html
 
When trying to cite Catholic Source use Catholic authors. Not Ex-Catholics. Most Ex-Catholics have a misconception, and misunderstanding of the Church that is why they left in the first place.

That is why many Catholics here are skeptical when Non-Catholic Christian post a quote that appear to be official but it turns out to be from an Anti-Catholic source like carm.org/ - Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry. Many of these authors here have no idea what they are talking about when speaking about the Catholic Church.
 
First, I am a Bible believing Christian, so denomination is not as critical to me as faithfulness to the Word of God.

Regarding protestantism, Baptist is actually not protestant in that Baptist was not a part of the reformation. Baptist were originally called Ana-Baptist by the Catholic church in the early ages. Ana-Baptist meant in Latin, “re-Baptizer.” When the Word of God says to believe and be baptized, the baptism is just an outward sign of the inner conversion. Baptist were their all along, but were the Bible believers. They did not call themselves Baptist, the Catholic Church did. Catholicism began in the 4th century by Constantine. Leo II, I believe was the first pope and established popery in the 6th century. Constantine mixed paganism with Christianity and renamed many Roman gods as saints. That is the best info I have found on the history.

To research this there is a booklet and a timeline chart called the Trail of Blood. If you plug in Trail of Blood Chart on Google there are a ton of links. This is one I just grabbed just now amongst the other.

users.aol.com/libcfl/chart.htm

The Bible says to “Test all things; hold fast what is good.”
1 Thessalonians 5:21
 
kimball1 said:
Baptist were their all along, but were the Bible believers. They did not call themselves Baptist, the Catholic Church did. Catholicism began in the 4th century by Constantine. Leo II, I believe was the first pope and established popery in the 6th century. Constantine mixed paganism with Christianity and renamed many Roman gods as saints. That is the best info I have found on the history.
Click to expand...
There is so many historical errors in your post concerning the Catholic Church.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, the disciple of St. John the Apostle, and ordained bishop by St. Peter said in the year 107-110 A.D.

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church of God the Father, and of the beloved Jesus Christ, which has through mercy obtained every kind of gift, which is filled with faith and love, and is deficient in no gift, most worthy of God, and adorned with holiness: the Church which is at Smyrna, in Asia, wishes abundance of happiness, through the immaculate Spirit and word of God.

Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop.

*See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever **Jesus Christ *is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

So no. Leo II is not the first Pope. The first Pope is St. Peter.

List of the Pope.

newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

Emperor Constantine was still a Pagan and did not convert to Christianity until his death bed. He was issued the eddict of Milan which ended Christian persecution. He was concern with the unity of Christian so he called for the Council of Nicea.

Pope St. Sylvester I (314-335) reign during the time of Emperor Constantine.

A heresy Arianism was preached throughout Christianity. Arianism belief asserting that Christ was not God like the Father, but a creature made in time. This was condemn in Council of Nicea in 325 A.D by the Church.

Constantine did not issue any word concerning the doctrine of Christianity.
 
kimball1 said:
First, I am a Bible believing Christian, so denomination is not as critical to me as faithfulness to the Word of God.
Regarding protestantism, Baptist is actually not protestant in that Baptist was not a part of the reformation. Baptist were originally called Ana-Baptist by the Catholic church in the early ages. Ana-Baptist meant in Latin, “re-Baptizer.” When the Word of God says to believe and be baptized, the baptism is just an outward sign of the inner conversion. Baptist were their all along, but were the Bible believers. They did not call themselves Baptist, the Catholic Church did. Catholicism began in the 4th century by Constantine. Leo II, I believe was the first pope and established popery in the 6th century. Constantine mixed paganism with Christianity and renamed many Roman gods as saints. That is the best info I have found on the history.
To research this there is a booklet and a timeline chart called the Trail of Blood.
The Bible says to “Test all things; hold fast what is good.”
1 Thessalonians 5:21
Click to expand...
I am sure you sincerely believe what you just said above, but the booklet Trail of Blood by J M Carroll is not historically accurate. I think any Baptist Church historian would agree with this.

The following article, “The Trail of Blood-Baptist Successionism” is by Steve Ray, a Catholic (former Baptist).

catholicconvert.com/Portals/0/TrailOfBlood.doc

According to Ray, the main problem with the thesis presented in the Trail of Blood is this:

“Carroll identifies many divergent groups throughout history, claiming them as baptistic. These groups are a montage of unrelated sects and heretics, including the Albigenses, Cathari, Paulicians, Arnoldists, Henricians and more. The Cathari and Albigenses taught that Christ was an angel with a phantom body whose death and resurrection were only allegorical and the Incarnation impossible since the body was evil, created by evil. They also rejected the resurrection of the body and the existence of hell. Since the Catholic Church took the New Testament literally, the Church was viewed as corrupted and doing the work of the devil.”

The historical fact is: There is no evidence of the Baptists prior to the Reformation.

The Church we find in the New Testament is the Catholic Church. We find the sacraments (baptism, anointing of the sick, ordination, Eucharist), Church hierarchy, Apostolic succession and Church unity. Look at Acts 15. We clearly don’t see anything like Protestantism where people were going out starting their own denominations and going by the Bible alone (of course, they couldn’t have; there was no Bible as we know it until the 4th century.)

You claim that Constantine mixed paganism with Christianity. If you want to find out if this is true, you must determine what the Church was like before Constantine. We have an abundance of testimony from the early Church Fathers (ECF’s) before Constantine. Were there “pagan” beliefs there all along? Find out for yourself. Their writings of the ECF’s are available online here:

newadvent.org/fathers/
 
kimball1 said:
First, I am a Bible believing Christian, so denomination is not as critical to me as faithfulness to the Word of God.
Constantine mixed paganism with Christianity and renamed many Roman gods as saints. That is the best info I have found on the history.
The Bible says to “Test all things; hold fast what is good.”
1 Thessalonians 5:21
Click to expand...
Here are a few articles from the CA library that deal with the claim that the CC is pagan:

Is Catholicism Pagan?
catholic.com/library/is_catholicism_pagan.asp

Pagan Influence Fallacy
catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0003chap.asp

Jesus and the Pagan Gods
catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0605fea2.asp

Did the Catholic Church Have Its Origin in Paganism?
A Protestant pastor tells This Rock how he got involved in the issue and how his understanding of the issue has changed.
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0505fea4.asp
 
First, I am a Bible believing Christian, so denomination is not as critical to me as faithfulness to the Word of God.
Click to expand...
Regarding protestantism, Baptist is actually not protestant in that Baptist was not a part of the reformation. Baptist were originally called Ana-Baptist by the Catholic church in the early ages. Ana-Baptist meant in Latin, “re-Baptizer.” When the Word of God says to believe and be baptized, the baptism is just an outward sign of the inner conversion. Baptist were their all along, but were the Bible believers. They did not call themselves Baptist, the Catholic Church did. Catholicism began in the 4th century by Constantine. Leo II, I believe was the first pope and established popery in the 6th century. Constantine mixed paganism with Christianity and renamed many Roman gods as saints. That is the best info I have found on the history.
Click to expand...
To research this there is a booklet and a timeline chart called the Trail of Blood. If you plug in Trail of Blood Chart on Google there are a ton of links. This is one I just grabbed just now amongst the other.
Click to expand...
users.aol.com/libcfl/chart.htm
Click to expand...
Here is an example for you Blue. Look at the above quote from this thread and you’ll see an example of what we’re talking about. The above is the kind of thing that we usually get as Catholics. You’re smart Blue so I’m sure you don’t even have to start doing research to automatically see the historical problems with the above post.

The above post is why Catholics dismiss Protestant sources almost out of hand. I realize Blue that you may look at this kind of post and think “Well that’s just silly anybody can see that”. But to us (Catholics) we get this sort of stuff almost dailey. Does that help you to see where we’re coming from?
 
rtconstant said:
Here is an example for you Blue. Look at the above quote from this thread and you’ll see an example of what we’re talking about. The above is the kind of thing that we usually get as Catholics. You’re smart Blue so I’m sure you don’t even have to start doing research to automatically see the historical problems with the above post.

The above post is why Catholics dismiss Protestant sources almost out of hand. I realize Blue that you may look at this kind of post and think “Well that’s just silly anybody can see that”. But to us (Catholics) we get this sort of stuff almost dailey. Does that help you to see where we’re coming from?
Click to expand...
Yes, that post lost it’s credibility to me, especially when I read the word “popery”. :rolleyes:
I see where you’re coming from if all you get is made-up propaganda to go off of. :rolleyes: 😉
 
Blue_Serenity said:
Ok, what about this website?
christiananswers.net/evangelism/beliefs/catholicism.html
Click to expand...
They are also Anti-Catholic and take many of the writings from the Catechism out of context. The source is not reliable. The only reliable sources are those written by Catholics, Catholic University Professors who have scholarly knowledge about history and doctrines of the Church.

Some will say, I was a Catholic. These Ex-Catholics don’t have much credibility either. Most Catholics who left are purely catechize in the faith, and even if they had the zeal, they left because they simply did not agree with the doctrine of the Church. Ex-Catholics also tend to be extremely Anti-Catholic in there zeal.
 
Mannyfit75 said:
They are also Anti-Catholic and take many of the writings from the Catechism out of context. The source is not reliable. The only reliable sources are those written by Catholics, Catholic University Professors who have scholarly knowledge about history and doctrines of the Church.
Click to expand...
What about this topic from the website:
Is the Bible truly the final authority in all matters of faith and morals?
In **Revelations 22:18-19 **it clearly states:
**I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book,
and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book. **
How is this not reliable?
 
Blue_Serenity said:
What about this topic from the website:
Is the Bible truly the final authority in all matters of faith and morals?
In **Revelations 22:18-19 **it clearly states:
**I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book,
and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book. **
How is this not reliable?
Click to expand...
When reading this passage, one must read it in the minds of the author, as well as the time it was written.

When the Book of Revelation were all the Books together in the Bible? Nope. They were manuscripts and were not formalized until 382 A.D.

What John is referring to is that No one can add and remove anything in the Book of the Revelation.

The Book of Rev was written around 90-100 A.D. The manuscripts of the NT were scattered throughout the Christian community… and there were even 8-10 other Gospel Books at the that was circulating.
 
Mannyfit75 said:
When reading this passage, one must read it in the minds of the author, as well as the time it was written.

When the Book of Revelation were all the Books together in the Bible? Nope. They were manuscripts and were not formalized until 382 A.D.

What John is referring to is that No one can add and remove anything in the Book of the Revelation.

The Book of Rev was written around 90-100 A.D. The manuscripts of the NT were scattered throughout the Christian community… and there were even 8-10 other Gospel Books at the that was circulating.
Click to expand...
Do you believe, though, that scripture can not contradict itself?
 
Mannyfit75 said:
The only reliable sources are those written by Catholics, Catholic University Professors who have scholarly knowledge about history and doctrines of the Church.
Click to expand...
That’s not true. There are certainly Protestant, Orthodox and secular scholars whose work is reliable.
 
Blue_Serenity said:
Do you believe, though, that scripture can not contradict itself?
Click to expand...
It doesn’t contradict itself.

The only thing that the Catholic Church added in the Bible was the 27 NT. During the time of the Apostles, the Scripture was only refer to as the OT.

Indeed, we don’t add anything in the Book of Revelation.
 
rr1213 said:
That’s not true. There are certainly Protestant, Orthodox and secular scholars whose work is reliable.
Click to expand...
You mean if I wish to seek Catholic resource I should ask a Protestant and Orthodox? Nuh-Ah. Only Catholic Sources are more reliable when one wants to know what Catholic believe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top