Defending the Faith- Please Help!

[Drew0426]

Could you all take a quick look at this article?

acts1711.com/rcc_bbl.htm

This has been distributed by a “Bible church” in my town, and a Fundamentalist friend just showed it to me.

It says a few things that are slanted strongly against Catholics, and some of it seems to take the Catechism out of context to try and give Catholics some sort of evil image. “Dogmas Declared by the Roman Catholic Church” catches my attention as very out of context, not to mention some of the things in the list are outright lies, based on what I’ve been taught about Catholicism. “Worship of crosses, images and relics authorized” catches my attention as false.

The “history” part in the very beginning is my greatest concern; how true is all of that?

I’m planning to gather a few Catholic friends, and confront the youth minister who has distributed this material, to hopefully see an end to it. I think this article passively encourages readers to harbor content for Catholics, and I’d like to see distribution of this material stopped.

When you were all reading, did you notice anything that was blatantly false? Such as “Catholics think Mary is a Diety” (I caught that simple one on my own…)

Did you find anything that exaggerates the truth in favor of the “Bible Christianity” side? Any of their trademark beliefs (Sola Fide/Scriptura) that lack genuine Scriptural backing?

Finally, what do I say to this man, other than “Please stop spreading lies about my faith?”

I’m praying hard on this matter, and I’d really like help from all of you. I’ve seen what this forum can say and do, and the intelligence of the arguments of its members is astounding. Please help.

 

[FirstCalled]

The history doesn’t have any glaring errors that I could find. I didn’t go over the scripture comparisons with the CCC. But everything in the CCC is cited with references to scripture, declarations at councils by the majority of bishops, as well as saint writings. You could look that up since they put the reference number.
I don’t put much stock in protestants interpretation of the bible. Because scripture didn’t fit their new ideas they took the deutorocanonical books out, and then some I believe.
They also do not have the power to interpret scripture, priests study it endlessly and are the proper interpreters.
I say let it go. They choose to ignore the proper authorities to interpret scripture, that’s what this comes down to. So they have come up with their own misguided ideas on their own. Those ideas are refuted in many writings and the catechism which can be a good resource if you need to pursue this.

 

[Pieman333272]

The history is wrong. And it fails to say what Christ’s Church is. It actually admits Protestantism is a human made church built on human doctrines. Anyway, at the end, it gives a timeline of Catholic beliefs which it claims are contradictory to the Bible. This is the weakest part. It doesn’t show what they contradict, and forgets that some views were held by tradition much earlier than when they were decreed. I also think it might get the 500 AD “Mass = second sacrifice” thing wrong too. I know I skipped a lot, but the Bibliography kills the whole thing - all but one source is baised, therefore easily discredited, and flawing the entire article. Don’t take it seriously, anyway.

 

[FirstCalled]

The history is wrong. And it fails to say what Christ’s Church is. It actually admits Protestantism is a human made church built on human doctrines. Anyway, at the end, it gives a timeline of Catholic beliefs which it claims are contradictory to the Bible. This is the weakest part. It doesn’t show what they contradict, and forgets that some views were held by tradition much earlier than when they were decreed. I also think it might get the 500 AD “Mass = second sacrifice” thing wrong too. I know I skipped a lot, but the Bibliography kills the whole thing - all but one source is baised, therefore easily discredited, and flawing the entire article. Don’t take it seriously, anyway.

The history is pretty standard. When it talks about Wycliffe and Luther those are clearly their ideas. The history is not blatantly incorrect.

 

[Drew0426]

The history is wrong. And it fails to say what Christ’s Church is. It actually admits Protestantism is a human made church built on human doctrines. Anyway, at the end, it gives a timeline of Catholic beliefs which it claims are contradictory to the Bible. This is the weakest part. It doesn’t show what they contradict, and forgets that some views were held by tradition much earlier than when they were decreed. I also think it might get the 500 AD “Mass = second sacrifice” thing wrong too. I know I skipped a lot, but the Bibliography kills the whole thing - all but one source is baised, therefore easily discredited, and flawing the entire article. Don’t take it seriously, anyway.

I’d like to let it go, but I hate seeing contempt spread in my small community so blatantly. It’s obviously full of error, but are the young people who read the article going to realize that? It will likely solidify any Catholic prejudice they may have, if not adding new. The young people exposed to this aren’t going to look at the sources cited as biased- I’m sure they’ll believe what they’re told, which is why I feel like I have to say something before “Catholics are Mary-worshiping, icon-worshiping, Scripture-refuting liars” gets stuck in their heads.

 

[Gaston]

Dear Friend,
I understand your dilemma. A number of inflammatory and accusatory statements have been made, from a largely myopic point of view. I find the statement interesting that you want to confront the youth pastor on this pamphlet. (?) I would not. What I found interesting is that the information provided ignores John, Ch 3, and how this ENTIRE chapter is devoted to Christ and the Eucharist, that the Catholic Church is entirely biblically based, and that there is a distinction between church teaching, and church doctrine. The entire “Protestant” side of the pamphlet quotes scripture, quite freely, as if the only side to the Catholic Church is the opinions of various literate Bishops. There is a tremendous amount of ignorance being generated here under the guise of enlightenment. The ignorance is only perpetuated by not knowing that individual bishops, are the presbyters, and even to day getting three presbyterians in a theological discussion gives five different points of views. That is why there were church councils, and the writings to define what exactly the church beliefs were. Truly, prior to the invention of the printing press, only the wealthy or rich could afford the luxury of learning how to read. Because “church” was seen as an occupation, entire families held on to church property and possessions. (Today we see the same process generated by Robert Schuller and the “Chrystal Cathedral,” or by Franklin Graham, or by Joel Orenstien. L. Ron Hubbard had the same idea when he decided to start “Scientology.”).
As a lay man, I can only look with awe at the documentation used to rationalize the youth ministers thesis, and basic premise, and I am appalled at the lack of knowledge generated by lack of A) the biblical basis of the Catholic Mass. B) The gross distortion of Mary. C) The pamphlets failure to understand the sociological/historical setting of "The Church vis-a-vie the Roman sociological setting of an empire, whose elites were enamored by “The Catholic Christian Faith” because not only did it preserve the family, but granted a form of family life even in the after life, eternal life. Or even giving a “reason” why the Catholic Church was persecuted. Hint: It was more than not wanting to sacrifice to the emperor. and D) The lack of understanding that Peter, was commissioned by Christ the be the first Pope, and that the Gates of Hell would rage, and fail. That Church is the Catholic Church, and it has been Protestant stubborn, stiff-neck attitude that has denied this role that the Bishop of Rome possesses. This would include the writings of Calvin, et al, who seeking legitimizing their own ideas raged religious wars to prove that sola scriptura was written. Waging a war against a religion is, in effect to send the fires of Hell, (like waging war to preserve the peace). Even today, in places like Indonesia or Israel the Catholic Church (East Timor, and Arab Christians [who are Eastern-Catholic]) is being persecuted (the fires of Hell are raging against it) and our Protestant “Christian Brothers” are not doing a thing to stop this hemorrhage.
What you have in your hands is a full fledged frontal assault, but as I have said, there is a great deal of ignorance dressed as a scholarly work. It is a starched shirt, an empty shell, lacking in substanitive information to be an authentic work of serious inquiry or response, Just a VERY ANGRY pamphlet letting US know how dissatisfied he is with Roman Catholicism.

 

[Drew0426]

Dear Friend,
(Cut for spacing)

Thank you very much for all of that. I feel a lot more sure of the lack of substance in this pamphlet; you pointed out quite a few things I had missed, and I greatly appreciate the view of someone much older (that assumption is in no way an insult; I’m still in high school) and wiser than I am.

I’m not sure if you understand that the youth minister I’d like to confront did not write the booklet in question. He simply endorses it, and I feel like I need to at least attempt to stop distribution of this literature in my town. If the church feels like it needs a pamphlet outlining the differences between Catholic beliefs and theirs, then so be it. It, however, should not be full of bias and errors. I don’t like that a church is condoning such anti-Catholic, slanted work, and I feel like a peaceful confrontation may, at least, lead to the church using a more accurate article, with less bias.

I live in a small town, and I feel like a simple, peaceful confrontation may have enough weight to stop the spread of this naivety to its young, impressionable residents. It couldn’t make anything worse, could it?

 

[JM3]

I’m not sure if you understand that the youth minister I’d like to confront did not write the booklet in question. He simply endorses it, and I feel like I need to at least attempt to stop distribution of this literature in my town. If the church feels like it needs a pamphlet outlining the differences between Catholic beliefs and theirs, then so be it. It, however, should not be full of bias and errors. I don’t like that a church is condoning such anti-Catholic, slanted work, and I feel like a peaceful confrontation may, at least, lead to the church using a more accurate article, with less bias.

I live in a small town, and I feel like a simple, peaceful confrontation may have enough weight to stop the spread of this naivety to its young, impressionable residents. It couldn’t make anything worse, could it?

If you insist on confronting this youth minister, then I would suggest that you and your friends divide the document and refute it point by point before you confront him/her (from their bible and the Catholic Catechism and whatever books and documents that will convince him/her). Maybe you should start carrying your Catechism with you to answer students’ questions or attacks.

Just some thoughts.

 

[Drew0426]

If you insist on confronting this youth minister, then I would suggest that you and your friends divide the document and refute it point by point before you confront him/her (from their bible and the Catholic Catechism and whatever books and documents that will convince him/her). Maybe you should start carrying your Catechism with you to answer students’ questions or attacks.

Just some thoughts.

Exactly my plan! That’s why I posted here, first. I knew this forum would do an excellent job of refuting it. Thank you

 

[Julian0404]

A couple of points to bring to the table for discussion:

1. 70AD and Matthew 28 is NOT the beginning of the Catholic Church. The Church’s birthday is recognized as the FIRST Pentecost, which was 50 days after JESUS resurrection, which is where “pente” is derived from. When the HOLY SPIRIT descended upon the Apostles and they received the 7 gifts of the HOLY SPIRIT they forgot their fear, left the upper room and began preaching and teaching the faith, “now” understanding all things that JESUS had taught them. JESUS is resurrected. HE walks and teaches for 40 days. HE ascends into heaven (for the 2nd time - first time was HIS resurrection) Apostles pray for 9 days (the beginning of the “Novena”) and on the 10th after HIS ascension, which is the 50th day since HIS resurrection, the HOLY SPIRIT and Pentecost initiates the “public minsitry and birthday” of the Catholic Church.
2. One of the very best “proofs” of Catholicism is the unbroken lineage of Popes from Benedict XVI to Peter and JESUS, which is way before 70AD. Get a list of all the Popes in sequence to prove to them that the Catholic Church goes back directly to JESUS. This is important in that the history of the Catholic Church has some very bad Pope’s, but stll the Church has successfully survived and continued under the protection of the HOLY SPRIT since the first Pentecost.
3. A third point to make is the roots of the name “Catholic”. Immediately after JESUS died, HIS followers were called “Nazarene’s” to indicate that they were following JESUS who was from Nazereth. About 35AD the name was changed to “Christians”, which was a reflection of the fact that so many believers were using “The Christ” as a name for JESUS, so the Romans began identifying them as Christians. The Church was growing very rapidly despite many martyrs, so that in a letter St. Ignatius of Antioch use the adjective “catholic” meaning “universal” to describe the rapid growth of the Christian Church. That adjective became so popular that it became a Noun and from that point forward, the “name” for the Catholic Church.
4. A fourth point to make is that the Bible is a Catholic Book. It was written by men who followed the teachings of JESUS of Nazerth/The Christ/The Catholic Church - whichever name you wish to use, they belonged to the Church, so they were Catholic. The Bible was “approved” by Catholics. The Catholic Church determined which books were “true” and thus included them in the Bible and which books were questionable and left out of the Bible. Therefore, the Catholic Church does NOT refute or contradict any teachings within “our book”, the Bible - which they claim. Rather, it is their false interpretations that is confusing them.
5. Google the names of the protestant churches, especially the one that issued the letter, and you will learn the history of that church, i.e. the founder, the date of its founding and the reason why it “broke” from either the Catholic Church or another protestant church. This “refuting” of the truth and fracturing of the church needs to be compared to the lineage of Popes.

That should be a good start.

 

[JM3]

Jesus the Savior:

The Bible
(New American Standard Bible)

Titus 3:5
He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,
Ephesians 2:8-9
For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast.

The Roman Catholic Church
(Catechism of the Catholic Church)

RCC teaches that “by His death and resurrection, Jesus Christ has ‘opened’ heaven to us” (1026). Each person attains his own salvation by grace and by the Holy Spirit, good works (1477).

First, CCC 1477 is misquoted.

Second, Ephesians 2:10 says “For we are His workmanship, created by Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.”

Reference CCC 2003 - ‘Grace is first and foremost the gift of the Holy Spirit who justifies and sanctifies us.’

 

[JM3]

Jesus the Redeemer:

RCC teaches that Mary is the sinless co- Redeemer. “Without a single sin to restrain her, she gave herself entirely to the person and work of her son; **she did so in order to serve the mystery of redemption with Him…**being obedient she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race" (494).

CCC 494 - ‘…she did so in order to serve the mystery of redemption with Him** and dependent on Him, by God’s grace:**’

Using the Bible and the Catechism, you should be able to refute it easily.

 

[ProVobis]

1. A fourth point to make is that the Bible is a Catholic Book. It was written by men who followed the teachings of JESUS of Nazerth/The Christ/The Catholic Church - whichever name you wish to use, they belonged to the Church, so they were Catholic. The Bible was “approved” by Catholics. The Catholic Church determined which books were “true” and thus included them in the Bible and which books were questionable and left out of the Bible. Therefore, the Catholic Church does NOT refute or contradict any teachings within “our book”, the Bible - which they claim. Rather, it is their false interpretations that is confusing them.

I’m not quite sure about this. Protestants have as much claim on the Bible (or at least their vernacular versions) as Catholics do. They are Christians too. I don’t think there is an official version of the Bible outside of the Latin Vulgate or the Greek Scriptures (name escapes me right this second.) So any arguments over translations are just that, not about the Bible but about translations. Protestants tend to argue about scripture even amongst themselves so I don’t think they are necessarily targeting Catholics in perhaps promoting their own denomination.

But be careful here too. I’ve heard Protestant radio ministers (Dr. Boice, Dr. Sproul, et al) use Latin to explain certain passages, especially in the NT. However, they are probably a little more credible than the loose translators, if you will.

 

[Julian0404]

I’m not quite sure about this. Protestants have as much claim on the Bible (or at least their vernacular versions) as Catholics do. I don’t think there is an official version of the Bible outside of the Latin Vulgate or the Greek Scriptures (name escapes me right this second.) So any arguments over translations are just that, not about the Bible but about translations. Protestants tend to argue about scripture even amongst themselves so I don’t think they are necessarily meaning to attack Catholics in perhaps promoting their religion.

But be careful here too. I’ve heard Protestant radio ministers (Dr. Boice, Dr. Sproul, et al) use Latin to explain certain passages, especially in the NT. However, they are probably a little more credible than the loose translators, if you will.

I think we agree, my point is the same made by Prof Peter Kreeft in that while claiming the Bible the protestant churches truly do not teach, and forget the source of the Bible is actually from the Catholic Church. In some denominations, it goes so far as to use the Bible (the Catholic book) to declare the Catholic Church heretical or the “whore…”, which rests in the protestant reliance of the Bible as being inspired and the sacred teachings, but not connecting the dots, that it was the Catholic Church that “declared” it sacred, so you cannot have an “unsacred” church delcaring a book sacred.

 

[ProVobis]

I think we agree, my point is the same made by Prof Peter Kreeft in that while claiming the Bible the protestant churches truly do not teach, and forget the source of the Bible is actually from the Catholic Church. In some denominations, it goes so far as to use the Bible (the Catholic book) to declare the Catholic Church heretical or the “whore…”, which rests in the protestant reliance of the Bible as being inspired and the sacred teachings, but not connecting the dots, that it was the Catholic Church that “declared” it sacred, so you cannot have an “unsacred” church delcaring a book sacred.

True. Protestants even reject certain books of the Bible, such as Macabees, which in their Latin base suggest purgatory after death.

 

[Drew0426]

I think we agree, my point is the same made by Prof Peter Kreeft in that while claiming the Bible the protestant churches truly do not teach, and forget the source of the Bible is actually from the Catholic Church. In some denominations, it goes so far as to use the Bible (the Catholic book) to declare the Catholic Church heretical or the “whore…”, which rests in the protestant reliance of the Bible as being inspired and the sacred teachings, but not connecting the dots, that it was the Catholic Church that “declared” it sacred, so you cannot have an “unsacred” church delcaring a book sacred.

I bring the “Catholics canonized the Bible” argument all the time, but to no avail. The typical Protestant response I’ve encountered is “The Bible is the Word of God, not the word of Catholics.” or “Catholics interpret the Bible in more than a literal sense, therefore they’re adding to it.” or perhaps the most far-fetched “As soon as Catholics canonized the Bible, the Church started adding things and corruption took over”

What can I say to these?

 

[CaptainPicard]

Hi Drew,
I took a look at it. It’s a mix of false things mixed in with true statements that are framed in a way to make the Church look as bad as possible. For example, in the history section it says 500AD "The Mass instituted as a re-sacrifice of Jesus for the remission of sins ".

Perhaps there was some sort of declaration (it’s hard to say, there’s not any primary citation), but the Church doesn’t (and never did) believe the mass is a “re-sacrifice”, but a representation of the one sacrifice. It also makes it sound like this doctrine was invented in 500 AD, when in fact, the Church believed that the Eucharist was sacrificial in nature from the very beginning as many ECFs and the Bible itself attests to.
It’s one example of many. There’s so much on the page that it would just take so long to discuss all of it.
Anyway, I’m not sure how good of friends you are with this person, or how much free time you have, but maybe you could set up a sort of exchange. You’ll agree to read an article or book that he gives you and he reads something of comparable length that you give him. Then you could discuss it afterward. It would give you both a chance to learn about the other in a lot more detail than you’d be able to through discussion alone.
Also, as far as the issue of baptism is concerned, it might help him to know that many Protestants who believe in faith alone salvation, like Lutherans, Methodists, and traditional Anglicans, also believe in baptismal regeneration. He might be more comfortable knowing that it isn’t just the Catholic Church which believes it.
Ultimately, your friend probably views your attempts to talk to him about theology the same way you’d view an LDS individual’s attempts to talk to you about theology. So that’s what you’re going up against!

 

[Gaston]

Thank you very much for all of that. I feel a lot more sure of the lack of substance in this pamphlet; you pointed out quite a few things I had missed, and I greatly appreciate the view of someone much older (that assumption is in no way an insult; I’m still in high school) and wiser than I am.

I’m not sure if you understand that the youth minister I’d like to confront did not write the booklet in question. He simply endorses it, and I feel like I need to at least attempt to stop distribution of this literature in my town. If the church feels like it needs a pamphlet outlining the differences between Catholic beliefs and theirs, then so be it. It, however, should not be full of bias and errors. I don’t like that a church is condoning such anti-Catholic, slanted work, and I feel like a peaceful confrontation may, at least, lead to the church using a more accurate article, with less bias.

I live in a small town, and I feel like a simple, peaceful confrontation may have enough weight to stop the spread of this naivety to its young, impressionable residents. It couldn’t make anything worse, could it?

 

[laszlo]

Jesus the Savior:
Titus 3:5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,
Ephesians 2:8-9 For **by grace **you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast.

RCC teaches that “by His death and resurrection, Jesus Christ has ‘opened’ heaven to us” (1026). Each person attains his own salvation** by grace **and by the Holy Spirit, good works (1477).

The Bible always had to be read in its entirety

James 2: [14] What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him? [15] And if a brother or sister be naked, and want daily food: [16] And one of you say to them: Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; yet give them not those things that are necessary for the body, what shall it profit? [17] So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself.

 

[Gaston]

Dear Friend,
I understand your dilemma. A number of inflammatory and accusatory statements have been made, from a largely myopic point of view. I find the statement interesting that you want to confront the youth pastor on this pamphlet. (?) I would not. What I found interesting is that the information provided ignores John, Ch 3, and how this ENTIRE chapter is devoted to Christ and the Eucharist, that the Catholic Church is entirely biblically based, and that there is a distinction between church teaching, and church doctrine. The entire “Protestant” side of the pamphlet quotes scripture, quite freely, as if the only side to the Catholic Church is the opinions of various literate Bishops. There is a tremendous amount of ignorance being generated here under the guise of enlightenment. The ignorance is only perpetuated by not knowing that individual bishops, are the presbyters, and even to day getting three presbyterians in a theological discussion gives five different points of views. That is why there were church councils, and the writings to define what exactly the church beliefs were. Truly, prior to the invention of the printing press, only the wealthy or rich could afford the luxury of learning how to read. Because “church” was seen as an occupation, entire families held on to church property and possessions. (Today we see the same process generated by Robert Schuller and the “Chrystal Cathedral,” or by Franklin Graham, or by Joel Orenstien. L. Ron Hubbard had the same idea when he decided to start “Scientology.”).
As a lay man, I can only look with awe at the documentation used to rationalize the youth ministers thesis, and basic premise, and I am appalled at the lack of knowledge generated by lack of A) the biblical basis of the Catholic Mass. B) The gross distortion of Mary. C) The pamphlets failure to understand the sociological/historical setting of "The Church vis-a-vie the Roman sociological setting of an empire, whose elites were enamored by “The Catholic Christian Faith” because not only did it preserve the family, but granted a form of family life even in the after life, eternal life. Or even giving a “reason” why the Catholic Church was persecuted. Hint: It was more than not wanting to sacrifice to the emperor. and D) The lack of understanding that Peter, was commissioned by Christ the be the first Pope, and that the Gates of Hell would rage, and fail. That Church is the Catholic Church, and it has been Protestant stubborn, stiff-neck attitude that has denied this role that the Bishop of Rome possesses. This would include the writings of Calvin, et al, who seeking legitimizing their own ideas raged religious wars to prove that sola scriptura was written. Waging a war against a religion is, in effect to send the fires of Hell, (like waging war to preserve the peace). Even today, in places like Indonesia or Israel the Catholic Church (East Timor, and Arab Christians [who are Eastern-Catholic]) is being persecuted (the fires of Hell are raging against it) and our Protestant “Christian Brothers” are not doing a thing to stop this hemorrhage.
What you have in your hands is a full fledged frontal assault, but as I have said, there is a great deal of ignorance dressed as a scholarly work. It is a starched shirt, an empty shell, lacking in substanitive information to be an authentic work of serious inquiry or response, Just a VERY ANGRY pamphlet letting US know how dissatisfied he is with Roman Catholicism.

I understand the issue of age, no problem. Two issues about the King James version:
One is that it is based on Jewish Texts compiled in 90AD, which deleted books not written in Hebrew, this would include the Book of Macabees (originally written in Greek, the importance is that it makes a direct comment to eternal life, the Jews of 90AD were more
concerned in living another day, as they were about to go into diaspora) Chapters on the Book of Daniel, that spoke about the Son of Man, and changes in various references to Mary, The Virgin Mother of God. All to rationalize their ideas on God. Lastly, who were the men who made up the Hebrew Bible (Scripture)? Secondly, Because the books of the New Testament, suggested by Saint Athenaious (I misspelled his name) (The Bishop of Alexandria, founded by St. Mark, an Apostle on Par with Peter), in 350AD was accepted by “the Church” as being THE BOOKS used in Jerusalem at the time of Christ, the King James version of the New Testament was constructed to rationalize their positions based on the anger they felt against Rome. Since 1537 their commentaries have all had the bias of rationalizing the truth, and that is: Christ established the Catholic Church, and Peter as the first head. No matter what. A basis of Calvinism is to have Perpetual Reformation, much like the blood letting in Communist Countries (only in churches: as if to define who the purified faithful are), which I feel is genuinely unchristian. But it does serve the purpose of self-perpetuating the fragmentation and multiplicity of the Protestant churches, against Christ’s last request: “That they all be one.”