Is it time to close the Ark? (Depravity is why we can’t evangelize, so let’s focus on seekers with beauty, encounter and family)

  • Thread starter Thread starter MarysLurker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MarysLurker said:
40.png
HopkinsReb:
Second piece of advice: show some actual concern for Protestants. Saying that Catholics should just abandon old Protestants and talking about us as if we’re simply muleheaded doesn’t help.
Click to expand...
I’d better define legacy Protestant. It does not mean “old Protestant.” It means Protestants with a legacy of anti-Catholicism.

You are not the T-Rex in the Jurassic Park logo because you aren’t saying the stuff he does.
Click to expand...
You said, and I quote:

“The time for debating and dialogue with Protestants is over.”

If you don’t want to be taken as saying that Catholics shouldn’t engage with Protestants, perhaps you should edit your post where it says exactly that.
 
In a recent Word on Fire show, Brandon Vogt and Bp. Robert Barron discuss how younger “nones” are leaving the church because they don’t intellectually assent to her teachings. I think “legacy Protestants” are often in the same boat. We need to engage in debate, but with charity. Of course you bring up a good point, that intellectual issues are not the root, moral ones are; but those intellectual obstacles do become a problem and sometimes clearing those away can help that person to accept grace and find faith.
 
Last edited:
Also, I started looking into Catholicism because of a little booklet called “Scripture Alone? 21 Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura” by Joel S. Peters that a Catholic gave me. I was fully expecting to be able to refute all the points in the book, but to my amazement, the logic was air-tight, and I couldn’t refute even one. So I started looking into Catholicism because of that.

There will always be a place for apologetics and debate (depending on what you mean by debate, I guess). Of course, there must also be love of Christ and neighbor, prayer, and beauty in liturgy and traditions, or apologetics on their own will only go so far.
 
Last edited:
MarysLurker said:
40.png
EnglishTeacher:
Also, I started looking into Catholicism because of a little booklet called “Scripture Alone? 21 Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura” by Joel S. Peters that a Catholic gave me.
Click to expand...
That’s exactly what we should do instead of debate. Here’s something to get you started, now do your own research. Seeking not debating.
Click to expand...
A pamphlet written to refute specific Protestant claims is debate. Not all debate is face-to-face on a stage.
 
HopkinsReb said:
A pamphlet written to refute specific Protestant claims is debate. Not all debate is face-to-face on a stage
Click to expand...
By debate I mean any attempt to personally refute a person’s position. In face, online or otherwise.

Encouraging seeking is not debate.
 
I’m not buying it.

When did the Good Shepherd stop looking for his lost sheep? When did he stop loving the sinner? When does his mercy end?

Never.

I suggest you look a little harder at what you can do for the sinner.
 
Last edited:
I think the primary way you have chosen to express your point is problematic. “Let’s end debate, close the ark, and set sail” makes it sound like we Catholics should no longer care to engage non-Catholics in conversation and that we should just pack up shop and leave the non-Catholics to fend for themselves.

From the other things you have said, it doesn’t appear that this is what you really mean. But that’s the way the thread title comes across.

Ultimately, we cannot argue people into conversion, but that doesn’t mean there is no place for civil debate. Different people are attracted by different facets. For some, walking into a beautiful cathedral is enough to win them over. For others, it is hearing Catholics debate on Catholic radio. There is no need to definitively close the door on one particular avenue for all people going forward in human history. That seems short-sighted and unnecessary. It is better to help the people that do want to debate to do so charitably and productively than simply tell them to cut it out.
 
Last edited:
The genius of the church was uniting beauty, truth and goodness. In ancient times these were separate: pagan religion was all about beauty, philosophy was about truth, civics was about goodness. The Jews were unique because they united moral law and beauty in worship, and Solomon was a brilliant philosopher; the church fathers included the wisdom of Greek philosophy in early apologetics and evangelization. Although faith is suprarational and above reason, we should not forget the worth of philosophical debate as an intellectual foundation for faith.
 
Last edited:
MarysLurker said:
Islam likely faces the exact same problems
Click to expand...
It becomes a problem only:

a) When we insist that the Exalted is a tribal god; and when we treat Him as such.

As you know, He is spirit, and as such has no parts. Wherever He is, He is there in His entirety; and He is everywhere.

He is here – entirely – in my room, as I write this post; and He will be there – entirely – in your room, as you read it. As far as He is concerned, there is only PickyPicky; only PetraG; only HopkinsReb; only English Teacher; only this man; this woman; this child; only you; only me.

He is not a tribal god. He is the God of individuals.

It becomes a problem only:

b) When we – as individuals – forget these words: ‘What does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?’ (Micah 6:8).

‘We have assigned a law and a path to each of you. If God had so willed, He would have made you one community, but He wanted to test you through that which He has given you, so race to do good: you will all return to God and He will make clear to you the matters you differed about.’ (‘Al-Ma’ida 48’).

We each have a path to tread; and a Companion to share our journey. Bon voyage!
 
MarysLurker said:
Right, but there is a big difference between a seeker and a Borg drone. Debating a legacy Protestant is like shooting a Borg drone. They keep changing their shield modulation (the subject) and it never ends.
Click to expand...
There is a point at which you let an individual who just wants to argue go find someone else to argue with, yes.

That is a long ways from “just forget about the non-seeker majority culture.”
 
Beryllos said:
I’m not buying it.

When did the Good Shepherd stop looking for his lost sheep? When did he stop loving the sinner? When does his mercy end?

Never.

I suggest you look a little harder at what you can do for the sinner.
Click to expand...
I’ve noticed in the negative responses to this post a very man-centered focus, as if the Catholic Church must extend Herself even more than She already has. I am understanding this post by @maryslurker as a call to re-orientate our focus back to the Church because it is becoming glaringly obvious that the more Catholicism caters to Protestants, the more protestant the Catholic Church becomes. Ending debate is not the same as denying seekers, as @maryslurker has made clear. Honest seekers will always be welcomed with open arms, but the Church has provided more than sufficient reason that She is the true Faith. The debate is over.
 
Last edited:
Lavenderson said:
I’ve noticed in the negative responses to this post a very man-centered focus, as if the Catholic Church must extend Herself even more than She already has. I am understanding this post by @maryslurker as a call to re-orientate our focus back to the Church because it is becoming glaringly obvious that the more Catholicism caters to Protestants, the more protestant the Catholic Church becomes. Ending debate is not the same as denying seekers, as @maryslurker as made clear. Honest seekers will always be welcomed with open arms, but the Church has provided more than sufficient reason that She is the true Faith. The debate is over.
Click to expand...
Wow! You said it so much better than I did!
 
Lavenderson said:
I’ve noticed in the negative responses to this post a very man-centered focus, as if the Catholic Church must extend Herself even more than She already has. I am understanding this post by @maryslurker as a call to re-orientate our focus back to the Church because it is becoming glaringly obvious that the more Catholicism caters to Protestants, the more protestant the Catholic Church becomes. Ending debate is not the same as denying seekers, as @maryslurker as made clear. Honest seekers will always be welcomed with open arms, but the Church has provided more than sufficient reason that She is the true Faith. The debate is over.
Click to expand...
Did you just say we’re becoming more Protestant by engaging in debates with Protestants?
(I thought the thread was about the futility of debating theological points with Protestants?)
 
PetraG said:
Did you just say we’re becoming more Protestant by engaging in debates with Protestants?
Click to expand...
Yes. Because focusing on the commonalities leads to discarding the essentials (such as Mary).
 
I agree that debating alone doesn’t evangelise. If it would, all pro-choice people would become pro-life after a debate. As much as I love Apologetics, it only serves to convert people if they were like me, non-denomination christians with an acceptance of all the dogmatic stuff. Every other group (atheists, deists, etc.) seems to base their faith more on will than reason, so, they won’t be converted solely by reason.
 
Last edited:
Neithan said:
we should not forget the worth of philosophical debate as an intellectual foundation for faith.
Click to expand...
But you can’t have a debate with someone who isn’t listening. If they like the Pill more than the Church, why bother? Why not go to those who will listen?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top