Is Ravi Zacharias antiCatholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Aydan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Okay, maybe I should have rephrased that. The Catholic Church never killed heretics. Sure individual Catholics did but individual Catholics have done horrible things. They aren’t perfect.
But, anyway, the fact that Christ was created automatically says that he is not eternal. Eternal meaning without beginning and without end. Arius himself states that, “God has not always been the Father; there was a moment when he was alone, and was not yet Father.” (Church in the Christian Roman Empire, I, 80). That is a pretty huge departure from Christian theology and pretty essential. As we say in our Creed, Christ was begotten, not made. A distinct difference in Catholic theology.
The Catholic Church sure didn’t think they were being picky when they condemned Nestorianism. Christians believe that Christ has one nature but two persons. Nestorians claim that Christ has two natures. Another distinct difference in Catholic (and Christian) theology. Pretty essential since it would drastically change how we think of Christ.
Donatism is an interesting point since they didn’t primarily deny any doctrine. As you said they denied that priests who have fallen into mortal sin can administer valid sacraments. And they also believed that you had to be baptized again if you came over to their sect. The thing is, you still can’t say that not all Christians before the Orthodox and Catholic split were not Catholic. For all intents and purposes it was. Even with the Donatists since they didn’t deny anything other than the validity of the sacraments preformed by a sinful priest. That’s like saying that if there were only Catholics and members of the Society of Pius X, then Catholics were not the only Christians.
So the Catholic Church never killed any heretics. So when apologies have been made for it they were made not on behalf of the Church they were made on behalf of wicked individuals? Did those evil Catholic murderers get disciplined by the Church for their actions?
 
As far as I know the Catholic Church has never intentionally killed anyone. It did authorize the Crusades but that is a different argument. The Church has handed over folks to the state to try as they will but that is not killing. There have been disciplining by the Church against wicked Catholics that have done notorious deeds but the Church can’t condemn every single evil action by every single Catholic. The Church has done some questionable things (torturing folks during the Inquisition although it is not all it is chalked up to be) but I don’t think killing is one of them.
 
Hi Tom, have you ever wondered why all history teachers dont agree on all events in history?

Peace!!!
 
Im sure there are many other places i can read about what others have said what the council documents say but that wont do me any good. Can you refer to where in the actual documents you glean this from?

I have not read any of this document before.

Peace!!!
 
Last edited:
I really have no need to. As a matter of fact your response gives me resolve as it is all too common and has been prophesied.

Now if i wantted to find something the Catholic Church may not have said - that i would google and be busy for a long time. 👍

Peace!!!
 
Oh, whoops, I did get that backwards. Sheesh. You are correct about the person/natures. My mistake. But it still doesn’t change the fact that both Nestorius and the Monophysites denied an essential aspect of Christianity. If you don’t agree on who and what Christ is, then you can’t really call yourself a Christian. Since Christianity centers around Christ (seriously, it has the word Christ in it) who he is is extremely important. To Christians, disagreement on who the savior of the world is is not “little”.
The Catholic Church considers the Eastern Orthodox (sometimes called the Eastern Church) Christians, as well as the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome. I think only linguistics separates the Oriental Orthodox Churches from Rome so they technically believe that Christ is one person with two natures unlike the original heresy.
But the main point is that for all intents and purposes, Catholics were the only Christians before the Great Schism because of the fact that most heresies denied essential Christian teachings or because some heretics were so small in number. The only heresy that I can see in which there might be a problem to this statement is Donatism. They only denied that priests who fell into mortal sin could not administer sacraments which is not essential to Christianity. However, that was the only thing they disagreed with the Catholic Church on. They were so close to Catholicism yet so far.
 
Oh no. Sorry, that would be weird. I was speaking about the prophecies such as “wolves in sheeps clothings in MT and also Jer 23:16 about attacking the church in general. Your information is based off others interpretation of interpretations.

Im not saying Hus wasn’t convicted of heresy as that would be the church’s responsibility to its adherents. Im saying what happened after that is a distortion which is what the above prophecies is about.

Peace!!!
 
I have seen that video before and from the other videos I have seen, I would say he is mildly anti-catholic. This is only a subjective conclusion though, but from my viewpoint, he looks like a good debater and philosopher, but not really a historian, and knowing history is essential for understanding Catholicism. Apologists like William Lane Craig, J. Warner Wallace , Frank Turket are all non Catholic which suprises me.
 
I dont consider Hus to be the wolf in sheeps clothing either. What has been written about the happenings thereafter the declaration of him being a heretic, well not so much.

Peace!!!
 
Actually the Council of Constance didn’t depose all three Popes. It only deposed one. One agreed to withdraw his claims and Pope Gregory XII agreed to resign so that the confusion could be destroyed. Thus, Martin V was elected.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top