How do you take on anti-catholic protestants that:

  • Thread starter Thread starter PiousTemplar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PiousTemplar

Guest
How do you take on anti-catholic protestants in an argument when they quote hundreds and hundreds of out of context sources? It would take several books to refute them all! Has any one else had experience with dealing with this?

Example attacks by anti-catholic Protestants:

“Sinners receive pardon by the intercession of Mary alone.” St. John Chrysostom

“All those who seek Mary’s protection will be saved for all eternity.” Pope Benedict XV

Pope Pius IX in 1854 “Let all the children of the Catholic Church … Proceed to worship, invoke, and pray to the most blessed Virgin Mary, mother of God. ”

From Bishop Liguoris’ “The Glories of Mary”, APPROVED by the vatican! CHAPTER III.

SECT. 1. Hail, our hope ! Mary is the hope of all 115

SECT. 2. Mary, the hope of sinners 187

For God has committed to Mary the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is his will, that we obtain everything through Mary.” - Pope Pius XII

They all require a huge explanation of their true meaning, which is not possible in the ‘Throwing verses at each other’ type of argument that some protestants try to use. What do you do?
 
PiousTemplar said:
How do you take on anti-catholic protestants in an argument when they quote hundreds and hundreds of out of context sources? It would take several books to refute them all! Has any one else had experience with dealing with this?

Example attacks by anti-catholic Protestants:

“Sinners receive pardon by the intercession of Mary alone.” St. John Chrysostom

“All those who seek Mary’s protection will be saved for all eternity.” Pope Benedict XV

Pope Pius IX in 1854 “Let all the children of the Catholic Church … Proceed to worship, invoke, and pray to the most blessed Virgin Mary, mother of God. ”

From Bishop Liguoris’ “The Glories of Mary”, APPROVED by the vatican! CHAPTER III.

SECT. 1. Hail, our hope ! Mary is the hope of all 115

SECT. 2. Mary, the hope of sinners 187

For God has committed to Mary the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is his will, that we obtain everything through Mary.” - Pope Pius XII

They all require a huge explanation of their true meaning, which is not possible in the ‘Throwing verses at each other’ type of argument that some protestants try to use. What do you do?
Click to expand...
Jesus came to us through Mary. When on earth, Jesus could not say NO to His Mother. Why would He not do the same in heaven? You’re not likely to change the minds of those determined not to be open to what you say. Other than what I’ve already said of Mary, I’d just not argue with them.
 
It is hard!!! Protestants see things like that and don’t even try to internalize it at all. I can see how they think that we believe She is the only way to Heaven. But what they dont realize is that these things we read really mean to walk beside Her toward Her Son. It doesn’t mean we ignore Jesus by any means!!
One thing that used to bother me was a quote from Our Lady of Mount Carmel (I think): “One day, through the Rosary and Scapular, I will save the world!” I can totally see how this would bother Protestants. It sounds conceited, almost, for Our Lady to claim such a thing. As if Jesus is taken out of the equation. BUT, the Bible is in the Rosary and much of it focuses on important life events of Jesus. This brings us close to Our Lord by meditating upon His life, His struggles and His triumph! And as far as the Scapular, it’s a badge of devotion to Our Lady. And She doesn’t promise us a guarantee to go straight to Heaven. She just promises to plead on our behalf to keep us from Hell. Very different!
I don’t know that everyone will understand, even after much explanation. All I know is, I doubt Our Lord will say to me “you’ve been a good daughter, but you loved my mother a little too much. I cast thee to Hell!” I do think it upsets and saddens Out Lord when people don’t give Her the respect She deserves. He loved Her, so I love Her…period!
 
If they are truly “anti-catholic” there is little that you can do. They will stick to their guns no matter what you try to do.

Quotes out of context - you can try to put them into context…But that often takes time and is not always convenient.

You might try congratulating them on having read so much of the writings of the Early Church and ask if you can borrow their copy of the writings of St John Chrysostom, or the collected writings of Benedict the XV. I’ll wager they don’t own them…Then where did they get the quotes they are using? Do they know in what context these things were said etc…?

I’ve run into this a couple of times where folks will pull out certain canon’s of Trent in an effort to prove some point - usually related to “faith alone” or justification or what not. However when I ask them to read (assuming they are willing) the explanations leading up to a particular canon, and explain the specific wording of a canon their argument tends to fall apart. Not that I convert them, but at least they gain some understanding and respect for the teachings of the Church.

However, this only works if the person is willing to really listen to you and to read what you ask them to. If not, then there is nothing you can do.

Peace
James
 
One approach is confident and charitable deflection.

Smile, point out that Mary is unarguably unique in salvation history, remind them that there’s a danger in trying to proof text one’s way to understanding, and then say “one day, we’ll break the books out and go through the topic in an ordered and thorough manner, but right now I am interested in how your work is going, family is doing, hobbies are developing,” continuing your generous and sincere smile.
 
PiousTemplar said:
How do you take on anti-catholic protestants in an argument when they quote hundreds and hundreds of out of context sources? It would take several books to refute them all! Has any one else had experience with dealing with this?

Example attacks by anti-catholic Protestants:

“Sinners receive pardon by the intercession of Mary alone.” St. John Chrysostom

“All those who seek Mary’s protection will be saved for all eternity.” Pope Benedict XV

Pope Pius IX in 1854 “Let all the children of the Catholic Church … Proceed to worship, invoke, and pray to the most blessed Virgin Mary, mother of God. ”

From Bishop Liguoris’ “The Glories of Mary”, APPROVED by the vatican! CHAPTER III.

SECT. 1. Hail, our hope ! Mary is the hope of all 115

SECT. 2. Mary, the hope of sinners 187

For God has committed to Mary the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is his will, that we obtain everything through Mary.” - Pope Pius XII

They all require a huge explanation of their true meaning, which is not possible in the ‘Throwing verses at each other’ type of argument that some protestants try to use. What do you do?
Click to expand...
This sounds like a personal frustration of yours. I’ve found that it helps to remember their genuine perspective and remember where they’re really coming from with their anti Catholic “stuff”.

Some of them are raised that way by parents and further indoctrinated that way by their parents church. Anti catholicism has become part of their religion. It’s not really all their fault that they’re anti Catholic.

Others are more at fault. They have a somewhat bigoted nature. They need to feel superior to other Christians and look down their noses at them. If they aim their pointed fingers at Catholics (the largest denomination on the planet) they naturally get to feel superior to the largest group of Christians on the planet. Because of it’s size, the Catholic Church is both a tempting target for them, and an easy target to hit. They’ve also got lots of anti Catholic literature in the form of Jack Chick’s comic books to arm themselves with. That kind of stuff is very easy to get online and they can read and feel smarter than Catholics, which seems more important than being honest about Catholicism.

And a lot of anti Catholics are just ex Catholics who seem very insecure and conflicted about their departure from the Church. They end up on a life long mission to justify their departure and they often seek confrontation with Catholics. These types glom onto Jack Chick’s comic book anti Catholicism even more. They embrace anything that helps them justify their departure and they will intentionally lie about Catholicism if it helps create a good reason for their departure from the Church. I’ve been told by an ex Catholic who fell into anti Catholicism that the Church never even taught her that Christ rose from the dead. These types have often become so insecure and uptight over their departure that they seem to become unbalanced because that woman should have known that no Catholic on the planet would believe such a lie. Expecting a Catholic to believe that shows a definite disconnect from reality. Another example is when I hear an ex Catholic tell me that Catholics worship Mary…any Catholic OR ex Catholic on the planet knows that isn’t true and has no reason to think that a Catholic would believe it.

Remembering those things might help with what seems to be a frustrating thing for you.
 
I am a student of Psychology, as I suspect others here might also be. The key to any theological attack is to remember that these are what we call in psychology “process” [attacks] and not so much “content” [attacks]. These only appear to take issue with content; the real aim of any attack is to humiliate you for your beliefs, which the attacker may or may not know are true. Their aim is to convert you to their mindset. Submission, humiliation, surrender by force instead of by choice, are tactics of “process” in the arsenal of the attacker. Attacks draw you in very cleverly by aiming for your pride. The best way to refute them is to ignore it all, to study the attacker and not become absorbed with his beliefs which can in no wise harm you unless you consent to partake of some folly of his. Really, what they want id for you to admit publicly that you are a sinner in need of salvation many of these attackers are Americans who believe the open plains are where we confess our sins, that the nation state is an open-land church]. Once they’ve got that from you, it usually satisfies them for awhile. They also are famous for resenting priests and their power to forgive sins in reconciliation. Likely the doctrine of Apostolic Succession rattles the self-styled leaders of the attackers who might actually feel some ostracism because of it. That is pitiable, in my opinion. Finally, you need to be personally strong and not engage these attackers in unstructured debate: The KJV of the bible puts every verse in a separate paragraph of its own, lending, in my opinion, propensity to this tactic of out of context quoting. You might try giving a gift of a more reasonable translation, one more balanced in its conformity to what we call linguistic patterns.

Finally, turnabout is fair play. Many of these attackers are weakly formed Christians, as we know because the strong are wise and the wise seek more to understand than to be understood (Saint Francis of Assisi). Many do not receive Eucharist because of its association with our Church: yet Christ makes communion a condition of discipleship. Asking them when they have taken Eucharist last, or how their pastor prepares communion is thus a good way to take control of the conversion process yourself. At the very least it kills conversation and will give you some respite.

I know your pain and would like to advise more, but these threads have rules of civility.

Peace to you.
 
Michael19682 said:
I am a student of Psychology, as I suspect others here might also be. The key to any theological attack is to remember that these are what we call in psychology “process” [attacks] and not so much “content” [attacks]. These only appear to take issue with content; the real aim of any attack is to humiliate you for your beliefs, which the attacker may or may not know are true. Their aim is to convert you to their mindset. Submission, humiliation, surrender by force instead of by choice, are tactics of “process” in the arsenal of the attacker. Attacks draw you in very cleverly by aiming for your pride. The best way to refute them is to ignore it all, to study the attacker and not become absorbed with his beliefs which can in no wise harm you unless you consent to partake of some folly of his. Really, what they want id for you to admit publicly that you are a sinner in need of salvation many of these attackers are Americans who believe the open plains are where we confess our sins, that the nation state is an open-land church]. Once they’ve got that from you, it usually satisfies them for awhile. They also are famous for resenting priests and their power to forgive sins in reconciliation. Likely the doctrine of Apostolic Succession rattles the self-styled leaders of the attackers who might actually feel some ostracism because of it. That is pitiable, in my opinion. Finally, you need to be personally strong and not engage these attackers in unstructured debate: The KJV of the bible puts every verse in a separate paragraph of its own, lending, in my opinion, propensity to this tactic of out of context quoting. You might try giving a gift of a more reasonable translation, one more balanced in its conformity to what we call linguistic patterns.

Finally, turnabout is fair play. Many of these attackers are weakly formed Christians, as we know because the strong are wise and the wise seek more to understand than to be understood (Saint Francis of Assisi). Many do not receive Eucharist because of its association with our Church: yet Christ makes communion a condition of discipleship. Asking them when they have taken Eucharist last, or how their pastor prepares communion is thus a good way to take control of the conversion process yourself. At the very least it kills conversation and will give you some respite.

I know your pain and would like to advise more, but these threads have rules of civility.

Peace to you.
Click to expand...
Good post. Good show----looking foward to more of your posts. Welcome to CAF, by the way.👍
 
Michael19682 said:
I am a student of Psychology, as I suspect others here might also be. The key to any theological attack is to remember that these are what we call in psychology “process” [attacks] and not so much “content” [attacks]. These only appear to take issue with content; the real aim of any attack is to humiliate you for your beliefs, which the attacker may or may not know are true. Their aim is to convert you to their mindset. Submission, humiliation, surrender by force instead of by choice, are tactics of “process” in the arsenal of the attacker. Attacks draw you in very cleverly by aiming for your pride. The best way to refute them is to ignore it all, to study the attacker and not become absorbed with his beliefs which can in no wise harm you unless you consent to partake of some folly of his. Really, what they want id for you to admit publicly that you are a sinner in need of salvation many of these attackers are Americans who believe the open plains are where we confess our sins, that the nation state is an open-land church]. Once they’ve got that from you, it usually satisfies them for awhile. They also are famous for resenting priests and their power to forgive sins in reconciliation. Likely the doctrine of Apostolic Succession rattles the self-styled leaders of the attackers who might actually feel some ostracism because of it. That is pitiable, in my opinion. Finally, you need to be personally strong and not engage these attackers in unstructured debate: The KJV of the bible puts every verse in a separate paragraph of its own, lending, in my opinion, propensity to this tactic of out of context quoting. You might try giving a gift of a more reasonable translation, one more balanced in its conformity to what we call linguistic patterns.

Finally, turnabout is fair play. Many of these attackers are weakly formed Christians, as we know because the strong are wise and the wise seek more to understand than to be understood (Saint Francis of Assisi). Many do not receive Eucharist because of its association with our Church: yet Christ makes communion a condition of discipleship. Asking them when they have taken Eucharist last, or how their pastor prepares communion is thus a good way to take control of the conversion process yourself. At the very least it kills conversation and will give you some respite.

I know your pain and would like to advise more, but these threads have rules of civility.

Peace to you.
Click to expand...
Wow - Thanks for the excellent explanation. Ever considered writing books? 😃
I need to learn off you on how to get so in-depth and descriptive in discussion! 😛

God Bless.
 
Once I heard a sermon from a Protestant minister that said that before engaging in any argument or dispute with someone to “consider the spoils”, or what is to be gained from the
debate.

Thus, I don’t see anything to be gained by arguing with zealots, outside or inside the Catholic faith. If you were arguing for over a bill to ban abortion, war, global warming, or some other threat to society, that would be different.

Otherwise, it just drains your energy, and keeps you from pursuing God’s plan for your life.

In the Bible, Jesus’ response to angry mobs was often to just walk away. They could not touch Him and He did not waste His time with them.
 
Interesting thread because I’m trying to do this about a different subject – tradition.

I’m sending my cousin and her minister husband a book on Catholic tradition. I’m trying to get them to read it and respond to it.

I’m on rev. 2 of the letter I want to send, and I’m thinking of taking a more direct approach, of calling out their over-simplified, preaching to their choir mentality. I’m not really social with these people, to say the least. Of course I want to be sociable – I really want a reply from them.

I think it’s going to be hard to approach someone over the internet, plain and simple.

I suspect that this person actually didn’t read St. Bonaventure. What a blessing it would be if they did. I am inclined to think that remark was from some talking-points memo of some sort.​

I was briefly acquainted with a Lutheran minister, who was retired. He gave me a spare copy of one of his seminary books. It had a bunch of rants against the Catholic Church, of just this sort. The book author said, CAN YOU IMAGINE that the Pope expects people to read what he writes and to believe it:? – Well, DUH, this author wants people to read what HE wrote and BELIEVE IT, so, in the first place, what’s so extraordinary about the Pope doing that? It’s obvious that the remark is simply uneducated and hardly worthy of a response. Except that we have to follow Christ’s command and try to correct them.
 
If you are in a sincere conversation with someone who is seeking the truth, as you know, St. Peter says in one of his epistles that we should be ready to give a reason for our faith and hope.

The subject in the OP is really too complicated for a simple reply, to be sure. we can’t lose our cool and try to get too high-handed in making a reply.

The entire subject of Mary is shrouded in what the Church believes and teaches about Tradition. (See my thread on the book by Msgr George Agius in the scripture forum.)

It is confusing and misleading FOR SURE that our Church “approves” of private revelations and then even approves of people talking about them. You know, all the “Marian apparitions” in the world? We are not obligated as a matter of faith to submit to them. You know, there ARE Catholics who say they “worship” Mary, etc. even though that is condemned in the Church. We don’t “worship” Mary.

It can be very confusing to non-Catholics. What is the difference between a Catholic praying before a statue of Mary and Bhuddists burning incense and bowing down to a statue of Bhudda? It’s really hard to tell, to an observer, you know.
 
PiousTemplar said:
How do you take on anti-catholic protestants in an argument when they quote hundreds and hundreds of out of context sources? It would take several books to refute them all! Has any one else had experience with dealing with this?

Example attacks by anti-catholic Protestants:

“Sinners receive pardon by the intercession of Mary alone.” St. John Chrysostom

“All those who seek Mary’s protection will be saved for all eternity.” Pope Benedict XV

Pope Pius IX in 1854 “Let all the children of the Catholic Church … Proceed to worship, invoke, and pray to the most blessed Virgin Mary, mother of God. ”

From Bishop Liguoris’ “The Glories of Mary”, APPROVED by the vatican! CHAPTER III.

SECT. 1. Hail, our hope ! Mary is the hope of all 115

SECT. 2. Mary, the hope of sinners 187

For God has committed to Mary the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is his will, that we obtain everything through Mary.” - Pope Pius XII

They all require a huge explanation of their true meaning, which is not possible in the ‘Throwing verses at each other’ type of argument that some protestants try to use. What do you do?
Click to expand...
PiousTemplar,

The first thing is prayer. The second is to study scripture and the catechism, and the third thing you must do is understand the cultural/social context of the quotes. Anti-Catholic Protestants are some of the most hard headed people you will ever encounter. No argument is ever good enough. We need to realize, as hard as it is, that there will always be a segment of people with whom reasoning is simply not possible. I love hearing and arguing (in a friendly manner) with well-educated Protestants. Lutherans and Reform Protestants (Presbyterians, Calvinists, etc) can be a pleasure to listen to sometimes,even when they attack Catholic beliefs because at least they do it with reasonable arguments which can help Catholics understand Protestantism as a legitimate faith, not the lazy diatribe of anti-Catholic Evangelicals and Pentecostals.

Another thing, language. Words like worship, glorify and invoke need to be taken in context. Worship does not mean adore, yet today that is mostly how we use it. To glorify also does not mean to adore, neither does praise. 17th and 18th century pious language should not be taken as doctrinal formulations. This is something that most Protestants cannot culturally understand.

Just pray and strive to know the faith better. That is all you can do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top