I received this in an email from a protestant. I was hoping someone could help.

  • Thread starter Thread starter CatholicKnight3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CatholicKnight3

Guest
*The Vatican in their Doctrine of Lea has been clear from the beginning they were not Christians. They were and are Catholics. Do not confuse the two. The Vatican which has never done away with the Doctrine of Lea which gave them such power as to burn Jews and Christians at the stake for their faith - did so in order to protect their own teachings which were not and are not based on the Bible. The teachings of the Roman Church are not found in the bible and therein it is not a Christian religion.

The history of the Vatican was that they ordered the tongues of Christians who preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ - to be nailed to the roofs of their mouths so they could no longer spread the Gospel. That is the history of the Roman religion.*

Is there any refutation that is concise to these claims? If anyone can help, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
 
CatholicKnight3 said:
*The Vatican in their Doctrine of Lea has been clear from the beginning they were not Christians. They were and are Catholics. Do not confuse the two. The Vatican which has never done away with the Doctrine of Lea which gave them such power as to burn Jews and Christians at the stake for their faith - did so in order to protect their own teachings which were not and are not based on the Bible. The teachings of the Roman Church are not found in the bible and therein it is not a Christian religion.

The history of the Vatican was that they ordered the tongues of Christians who preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ - to be nailed to the roofs of their mouths so they could no longer spread the Gospel. That is the history of the Roman religion.*

Is there any refutation that is concise to these claims? If anyone can help, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
Click to expand...
Never heard of it, I heard of the protestant Larry Lea.
Larry Lea’s most embarrassing moment may have been when ABC ran videotape of the televangelist persuading viewers that when his house burned to the ground he was left virtually homeless, losing everything he and his family had but the clothes on their backs. When Prime Time cut to Lea’s other, unmentioned home - a mansion filled with furniture and other valuables - his fate was sealed. Donations dropped off, churches canceled his appearances, and for many Lea became persona non grata. His ministry crippled and floundering in up to $800,000 in debt, Lea left Tulsa and in February assumed the pastorate of friend Jerry Barnard’s Christian Faith Centre in La Mesa, California. According to staffers at Barnard’s office, Lea’s organization – now called “The Prayer Ministry” – is on the rebound and looking like “the old Larry Lea.”(Christian Research Institute)
Click to expand...
 
A couple of observations:

(1) I’ve never heard of the so-called “Doctrine of Lea,” and I see that neither has Google. Ask your friend what he’s talking about, and to document it from Catholic sources. Don’t assume a defensive position, and seek to refute his claims, but just gently ask questions and ask *him *to demonstrate his assertions.

(2) Similar to the above, ask your friend to document any historical claims he’s making, such as this idea that the Church “o*rdered the tongues of Christians who preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ - to be nailed to the roofs of their mouths so they could no longer spread the Gospel.” Simply ask him how he knows that, *and if he has specific examples that he can cite from reputable sources.

(3) Your friend claims that Catholics are not Christians. Ask your friend some basic questions on this point, just to prompt him to think a bit about things from a Catholic perspective.
  • How do you define “Christian”?
  • Where did you get that definition and why are you able to bind other people’s consciences to it?
  • Would you say that your definition is infallible, and thus all people should believe it if they are interested in truth, or is it merely your own opinion which only you yourself can rightfully be bound to?
  • If your definition is infallible, what makes it so?
  • If a Christian is a person who holds to certain doctrines which are essential to salvation, how do you objectively discern between essential and non-essential doctrines?
  • Similar to the above, are you able to bind other people’s consciences to this list of essential doctrines, and if so, why?
  • Where did Christ tell us that, in order to be a follower of His, and thus a true Christian, we should read the 27 books of the canonical New Testament, and discern the proper doctrines essential to salvation therefrom?
  • If Christ didn’t tell us this, then who did?
  • Most important of all: how do you know that the 27 books that make up the New Testament are canonical and inspired by the Holy Spirit? Why is Jude and 3 John inspired, for example, and what objective criteria do you use to establish this fact? Are the criteria you use truly objective, or are they sort of arbitrary, and basically assuming the canon first, and only then creating criteria for it?
I would then respond to each of his perspectives on these questions by saying “that’s interesting; and here’s what I believe as a Catholic about these things, and this is why.”

I would also recommend that you listen to this audio file: calledtocommunion.com/2010/08/episode-14-from-presuppositional-pca-to-rome/

EDIT: Incidentally, by “bind other people’s consciences,” I mean “convincing people of good will who want to do God’s will, that thus and such truly has been revealed by God, and is something He wills for us to assent to.”
 
agnes_therese said:
The most concise refutation would be to ask for historical proof.
Click to expand...
👍 Right. There’s nothing to talk about if there isn’t a concrete starting point. And right now all you have to go from is some blanket assertions without reference to any concrete details. I, too, have never heard of this “doctrine of lea” nor does this person even go through the trouble of defining the term.
 
What is wrong with people these days that they send each other emails instead of TALKING?

Why don’t you talk to your friend?
 
1ke said:
What is wrong with people these days that they send each other emails instead of TALKING?

Why don’t you talk to your friend?
Click to expand...
😛 Indeed. Though the OP doesn’t use the word “friend” nor describe his relationship with the person. I take that to mean that the person emailing him is more likely some random person he crossed paths with online rather than someone he actually knows in person. If true, that makes it all the more unlikely that his conversation with the person will go anywhere.
 
CatholicKnight3 said:
*The Vatican in their Doctrine of Lea has been clear from the beginning they were not Christians. They were and are Catholics. Do not confuse the two. The Vatican which has never done away with the Doctrine of Lea which gave them such power as to burn Jews and Christians at the stake for their faith - did so in order to protect their own teachings which were not and are not based on the Bible. The teachings of the Roman Church are not found in the bible and therein it is not a Christian religion.

The history of the Vatican was that they ordered the tongues of Christians who preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ - to be nailed to the roofs of their mouths so they could no longer spread the Gospel. That is the history of the Roman religion.*

Is there any refutation that is concise to these claims? If anyone can help, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
Click to expand...
Hi CatholicKnight3!

Very simple response: “I’ve never heard of the Doctrine of Lea. I’m pretty sure it doesn’t exist. Could you send me your source?”

Two important things I’ve learned when discussing over the internet is
  1. Define your terms carefully
  2. Provide and ask for sources
Doing so usually helps prevent an ugly argument and can actually be beneficial. Odds are both of you will learn something that way. Also be sure to words things in a polite and respectful manner.

Best of luck!
 
smichhertz said:
Hi CatholicKnight3!

Very simple response: “I’ve never heard of the Doctrine of Lea. I’m pretty sure it doesn’t exist. Could you send me your source?”

Two important things I’ve learned when discussing over the internet is
  1. Define your terms carefully
  2. Provide and ask for sources
Doing so usually helps prevent an ugly argument and can actually be beneficial. Odds are both of you will learn something that way. Also be sure to words things in a polite and respectful manner.

Best of luck!
Click to expand...
👍
 
I would inform him that he is now on notice that there is no such thing as a “Doctrine of Lea” and to continue saying such thing is to deliberately bear false witness against others.
 
Yeah, no such thing as Doctrine of Lea.

I never heard of tongues being nailed to roofs. St. Bernard stopped a pogrom against the Jews.

Neeeeeeeeeext!

-Tim-
 
1ke said:
What is wrong with people these days that they send each other emails instead of TALKING?

Why don’t you talk to your friend?
Click to expand...
Probably because the one who sent the email would be embarrassed to say such nonsense face to face. 🙂
 
Aside from this thread, the only mentions of the “Doctrine of Lea” I can find online are message board posts by a guy calling himself “Jeremiah,” who seems to be a rabidly anti-Catholic ex-Catholic. He refers to a book about historical Catholic persecution of Jews, but I cannot find other references to that book.

Usagi
 
smichhertz said:
Hi CatholicKnight3!

Very simple response: “I’ve never heard of the Doctrine of Lea. I’m pretty sure it doesn’t exist. Could you send me your source?”

Two important things I’ve learned when discussing over the internet is
  1. Define your terms carefully
  2. Provide and ask for sources
Doing so usually helps prevent an ugly argument and can actually be beneficial. Odds are both of you will learn something that way. Also be sure to words things in a polite and respectful manner.

Best of luck!
Click to expand...
I second this motion. As annoying as it can be, people that come up with “facts” and assertions that have no historical bearing, we have to remember to respond with charity. It doesn’t win any souls to get angry.

This particular person has made several claims. Try to stick to one subject or it can get really messy. Asking questions is the most important thing that you can do. Get a feel for how/why they believe what they believe.

Most likely, this person is pretty set in his idea that the Catholic Church is an inherently evil institution and once you derail his points, he’ll throw other things at you-anything he can.

Keep your cool and plant seeds! You most likely won’t fully change his mind in a day, however, you will plant seeds!
 
I don’t know… sometimes I think that the best response to these sorts of things… IF you are going to respond that is… is hysterical laughter. 😃
 
Based on the tenor of the e-mail, I doubt if you will be able to respond in way that will ultimately be helpful, BUT - -

Do ask for sources - even though if you find refutations for these things, he will likely dismiss them.

Personally I would leave the persecution business aside and concentrate on the teachings of the Church.
He has said that “The teachings of the Roman Church are not found in the bible and therein it is not a Christian religion.”
This is quite easy to refute. Send him a list of Catholic beliefs that ARE clearly in the bible…So clearly that even most protestants recognize this.

Now whether he will accept your evidences or not…that is another story. 🤷

Peace
James
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top