Jack T. Chick:Anti Catholicism at it's worst

[Xenos]

Church Militant:

Y’know…you might just be right.
You ARE right about the style of attack here. Real cute…
All this stuff about “not being Christ-like” had me wondering why it’s okay for others to come in and talk smack about the Church, but we are unchristian if we make any effort to defend what we believe? That’s carp… They do the very same thing on other forums and I won’t even go there because the only time I made even the slightest defense I got suspended. They were FAR less tolerant than we are here. :ehh:

BTW…can you PM me w/that other screenname?

Sorry guys, my first time here; no othre name. Surely no one else could write with the :

Brilliant
Unadulterated
Logical
Lighthearted

style that I use.

Blessings,

 

[Xenos]

Church Militant:

Well, that particular rhetoric has been around a long time. The problem is that people who believe it tend to become like the “Know-Nothings”. Our country is highly paranoid right now.
There never has been any Catholic attacks on American liberty

I’m just glad that a guy “as intelligent” as you is here.

Guys, I really don’t here much of this stuff. THis would be a very complicated thread if we went here.

 

[Xenos]

Imprimartin:

Xenos,

As a couple of posters have mentioned, There will always be catholics and protestants alike who aren’t always charitable. In one of your posts, you claim that your point about rude catholics proven by their own words. It’s true that two wrongs don’t make a right and so even if you were to insult catholics (and I’m not saying you did), it doesn’t give catholics the right to insult back.

However, another thing that I noticed is that you take issue when catholics say that we are the “true” christian church. I’m not sure you believe in a “true christian church” but in any case, you seem to be applying a test to see if this is true.

You basically said, If you are part of the “true church”, why are you acting so badly (sinning against me)? As if acting badly is THE test to show whether someone belongs to the true christian church.

Do I understand you correctly?

Martin

Martin,

I probably would not at this time define “true Church” in the same way you do.

How people behave is not THE test of whether they are part of that Church. But, by definition, the Church is supposed to be different than the rest of the world. If a group that claims to be the Church is not any different, doesn’t it make sense to assume that it is not the Church?

 

[Xenos]

Imprimartin:

Xenos,

As a couple of posters have mentioned, There will always be catholics and protestants alike who aren’t always charitable. In one of your posts, you claim that your point about rude catholics proven by their own words. It’s true that two wrongs don’t make a right and so even if you were to insult catholics (and I’m not saying you did), it doesn’t give catholics the right to insult back.

However, another thing that I noticed is that you take issue when catholics say that we are the “true” christian church. I’m not sure you believe in a “true christian church” but in any case, you seem to be applying a test to see if this is true.

You basically said, If you are part of the “true church”, why are you acting so badly (sinning against me)? As if acting badly is THE test to show whether someone belongs to the true christian church.

Do I understand you correctly?

Martin

Martin,

My post was not about rude people of any stripe. It was more specific. Catholics were treating me the same way JTC treats you.

 

[Xenos]

rayne89:

A couple of points if I may join this conversation (well maybe more than a couple )

• Am I to understand that the way you would know the True Church is if ALL the people who were members of it acted perfectly sinless?
• Christ’s church is easy to find, all you have to do is look at history. Yes some people may act overly prideful and that is unfortunate. We all have fallen natures and it shows up in different ways but you don’t need people to find the truth here, just trace back the roots of early Christianity. Does it make sense that church founded by the first generations after Christ would have it wrong and it would take 1600 years to get it right?
• Look at what has happened to the protestant churches when they decided they needed no earthly authority. How prideful is it to start a knew denomination/church if there is a disagreement.
• Catholics that truly know their faith are often on the “front lines” of the battle. Trust me if you think we’re bad you really haven’t known bigotry as a Chistian unless you’ve walked in Catholic shoes.
• Anti Catholic literature to me means things that are blatant lies about the church. No matter how many times we say No we don’t worship Mary, No we don’t think we can “work” our way to Heaven, No we don’t re-sacrafice Jesus at every Mass - those outside the Church insist they know more about what we believe than we do.
• Sometimes it is tough to give a charitable Christain response when you hear the same misrepresentations of the church over and over and over…

-That being said, it’s not an excuse to be rude because someone else is, or to insult because someone else did but to say that you can’t believe the Catholic church is the true church because all Catholics aren’t perfect is not a good enough excuse for me.

Rayne,

Thank you for this post.

I promised another person that I would answer here about CA tracts.

You may find it hard to believe, but much of what I read here about Evalgelical belief is also in error. An example is that the term “Sola Scriptura” is misdefined, and then that misdefinition is attacked. Most Evangelicals have probably never heard the term. Many (like people here) can’t even spell it. You might check out a good Evangelical Bible encyclopedia for the right definition)

Some of what you write about starting new denominations falls into that area as well. On the substance, there is not as much difference as one might think.

By their nature, tracts are short and very brief. They do not cover detail in any sense. That is not the purpose of a tract. A detailed carful study of the facts is needed, in light of the lack of detailed accurate work. Further, a tract is indended to convince, not to prove.

No, I do not expect perfection in anyone. But, particularly in a forum dedicated to apologetics, I expected those present to be offering a defense that would draw people to their faith, not drive people from it. Perhaps it is helpful to people to know that the methods that they were using does the latter.

I have not found the historical connection between the first century church and the present catholic church to flow as logically as you have found it to.

I am sure that you would agree that there were emense problems at certain phases of the Catholic Church.

Also, let me tell you that I have talked to Catholics who do worship Mary and do think that they have to earn their way to heaven. I also know (second hand) of a priest in Peru who is also the villiage witch doctor. Now, don’t get angry, I am not trying to point out any refletion on the catholic church by that; its just that obviously some catholics don’t understand their faith. Just like some Evangelicals don’t.

Much of what people call anti-catholic (and I think that you have a more fair definition that I have heard on CA), is actually love and concern for you. I would encourage everyone to be a little more charitable in these conversations.

Now, finally, the responses here are not the reason why I am not at this time a Catholic. It is just one of the many problems that I see.; but, who knows… God answers those who fervently seek Him.

Also, remember that we have very many areas of agreement…

Thank you for being so kind.

 

[Church_Militant]

Xenos:

Surely no one else could write with the :

Brilliant
Unadulterated
Logical
Lighthearted

style that I use.

Blessings,

Inarguably correct…

 

[La_Chiara]

Xenos:

By their nature, tracts are short and very brief. They do not cover detail in any sense. That is not the purpose of a tract. A detailed carful study of the facts is needed, in light of the lack of detailed accurate work. Further, a tract is indended to convince, not to prove.

But have you really read the CA tracts, and found the passages cited in the Bible? I’ll bet not. Indeed, I’ll bet if you read just three of them, you will either be impressed or are close-minded.

Xenos:

Also, let me tell you that I have talked to Catholics who do worship Mary and do think that they have to earn their way to heaven. I also know (second hand) of a priest in Peru who is also the villiage witch doctor. Now, don’t get angry, I am not trying to point out any refletion on the catholic church by that; its just that obviously some catholics don’t understand their faith. Just like some Evangelicals don’t.

Okay, should we share the second-hand nonsense we know about Evangelicals, Jack Chick, and other non-Catholics? Shall we start a thread on that? And you have to promise not to get angry.

Xenos:

Much of what people call anti-catholic (and I think that you have a more fair definition that I have heard on CA), is actually love and concern for you.

Love and concern? :whacky:

 

[Church_Militant]

Xenos:

Martin,

I probably would not at this time define “true Church” in the same way you do.

How people behave is not THE test of whether they are part of that Church. But, by definition, the Church is supposed to be different than the rest of the world. If a group that claims to be the Church is not any different, doesn’t it make sense to assume that it is not the Church?

Xenos,
The fact is that the behavior of any church’s members is NO test of the truth of that church but only a measure of that individual person’s current effort to follow Christ at that time.

Truth is truth regardless of anyone’s capacity to follow that truth. Case in point: there are many moral, nice people within cults such as the JWs or LDS but their doctrinal errors disqualify the truth they espouse. The reverse is also true of Christians of all denoms.

Before anyone gets really bent outta whack, I wanna say that I personally consider a great many of the so-called “questions” that get posted by non-Catholics on these forums to be attacks. I don’t know if it’s that people fail to consider the way in which they phrase things or what but often it seems that they come on really strong.

I can understand that they disagree with the church’s teachings, but I also see no need for the level of aggression that they put into their posts.

I have difficulty understanding how one can say that the tracts & articles on this home page are not "in depth"enough, when they are at least as extensive and scholarly as most of the non-Catholic tracts and books that I’ve read. Better in some cases (Yeah, biased… ) because they go into scripture more in context both of itself as well as the history and living tradition of the early church. I would strongly suggest that those who have serious enquiries about the faith invest in the books of Scott Hahn, Karl Keating, John Cardinal Newman and the many other fine authors of authentic Catholic material. I’m no theologian and few of us are, so if you get poor answers from this home page…I can’t imagine how one would expect to get better answers here on these forums.
That’s like being unhappy with the teacher’s answers and going to her first grade students for better info.

Nothing will make me less sure of my faith in the Catholic Church (for many reasons), but I love to discuss it and to try to help anyone who still holds to Protestantism understand the reasons why I abandoned it & came home to Catholicism.

As I said to begin with: Truth is truth.

 

[Church_Militant]

Originally Posted by Xenos
Also, let me tell you that I have talked to Catholics who do worship Mary and do think that they have to earn their way to heaven. I also know (second hand) of a priest in Peru who is also the villiage witch doctor. Now, don’t get angry, I am not trying to point out any refletion on the catholic church by that; its just that obviously some catholics don’t understand their faith. Just like some Evangelicals don’t.

Xenos, Gimme the names and addresses of these alleged people & I’ll hitchhike all the way to their door to discuss it w/em. This is total garbage…I heard this very same trash from a non-Catholic friend of mine and spent about 2 hours on the phone pointing out the holes in it.

NO Catholic, NOWHERE, who knows his faith would say we worship the Blessed Virgin. I heard that witch doctor story and a couple of others and all I will say is two words…URBAN LEGENDS. Bring me verifiable documentation of this and we’ll talk about after I get off the phone with said priest’s bishop. Allegations like this are JUST LIKE Jack Chick’s comics…garbage.

 

[Church_Militant]

Originally Posted by Xenos
Much of what people call anti-catholic (and I think that you have a more fair definition that I have heard on CA), is actually love and concern for you.

Sorry dude…
I can’t tell…

 

[Xenos]

La Chiara:

But have you really read the CA tracts, and found the passages cited in the Bible? I’ll bet not. Indeed, I’ll bet if you read just three of them, you will either be impressed or are close-minded.

Okay, should we share the second-hand nonsense we know about Evangelicals, Jack Chick, and other non-Catholics? Shall we start a thread on that? And you have to promise not to get angry.

Love and concern? :whacky:

Just for the record,

I note that you did not respond to my post to you.

Secondly the examples I gave were very carefully nuanced with qualifiers to show no malice toward Catholocism. I have been to South America. Things are different there. Why must you read malice into everything? WHy must you respond so rudely to posts that are expressed politely?

BTW, I said second Hand. Urband Lgends ae more hands that that. I know my source, and find it unimpeachable.

The context of my quote was clearly to state that was a problem with those people, not with the Church itself. Did you not catch that?

 

[Katholikos]

Xenos:

Martin,

I probably would not at this time define “true Church” in the same way you do.

There is only one correct definition of the True Church, and that is Christ’s. We know from Sacred Scripture:

[1] that Jesus founded His Church and commissioned the Apostles to lead it and teach it (Mt 16:18-19, 28:20, et al.); therefore it existed when the Apostles walked the earth,

[2] that Jesus said the powers of death would not prevail against His Church (Mt 16:18), and he promised to be with the Church ALWAYS (Mt 28:20),

[3] that the Church speaks for Christ (Lk 10:16),

[4] that the Church pre-dates the New Testament and is its author
(see all the writings of the NT and the Encyclopedia of Early Christianity),

[5] that the Church formed the Bible (see the History of the Church by Eusebius of Caesaria and the various council decrees),

[6] that the Church will endure until the end of time (Mt 28:20).

Jesus told us not to expect a perfect Church, but that there would tares among the wheat.

This is a description of the Catholic Church, and no other.

How people behave is not THE test of whether they are part of that Church. But, by definition, the Church is supposed to be different than the rest of the world. If a group that claims to be the Church is not any different, doesn’t it make sense to assume that it is not the Church?

The doctrine that the church is made up of only of the “saved,” “the redeemed,” the “holy ones” – is a Protestant heresy.

bible.ca/interactive/worship-22-only-church-saved.htm

Judas Iscariot was one of the Twelve, and he was hand-picked by Christ Himself.

The Church is a hospital for sinners and a training ground for saints. Thank God, there is room in such a Church for me!

JMJ Jay

 

[Xenos]

Church Militant:

Inarguably correct…

I assume from this that you DO have a sense of humor. I’m not sure yet.

 

[Xenos]

Church Militant:

Originally Posted by Xenos
Also, let me tell you that I have talked to Catholics who do worship Mary and do think that they have to earn their way to heaven. I also know (second hand) of a priest in Peru who is also the villiage witch doctor. Now, don’t get angry, I am not trying to point out any refletion on the catholic church by that; its just that obviously some catholics don’t understand their faith. Just like some Evangelicals don’t.

Xenos, Gimme the names and addresses of these alleged people & I’ll hitchhike all the way to their door to discuss it w/em. This is total garbage…I heard this very same trash from a non-Catholic friend of mine and spent about 2 hours on the phone pointing out the holes in it.

NO Catholic, NOWHERE, who knows his faith would say we worship the Blessed Virgin. I heard that witch doctor story and a couple of others and all I will say is two words…URBAN LEGENDS. Bring me verifiable documentation of this and we’ll talk about after I get off the phone with said priest’s bishop. Allegations like this are JUST LIKE Jack Chick’s comics…garbage.

Excuse me, didn’t I say that they had missunderstood their faith?

Militant, why can’t you agree to agree even when we do agree?

It is vey hard to cary on a discussion when you challenge me when we are in agreement.

Now, I’ve been to South America. Certainly you are aware that there are some difficulties in Catholic Church there that we don’t see here. That doesn’t say the church is wrong, and I didn’t use the example to say that the church was wrong. I used it to say that these people didn’t understand their faith. That’s what YOU said. Why do you see a problem? South america is a different world, my friend, with many different problems.

I also said some evangelicals don’t understand what they believe. Did you miss that?

Tell me, Militant, If an Evangelical talks to a catholic that doesn’t understand his / her faith, who leads that Evangelical to believe that Catholics worship Mary, what is he supposed to think? If he really loves the Lord, and catholics, he might run out to try to convince people that the church is wrong (As you would agree IF the church taught that it doesn’t] it would be wrong). Thereby, he would be trying to reach them out of love.

Now, obviously, the first step should be to find out what the chruch really teaches. Some don’t know how to do that; some would not think it necessary. But the intial action was out of love.

Now,I can understand you don’t see any love in Jack Chick. Just like I don’t see any in you. But you notice, I don’t attack Martin or Rayne just because you attack me. I don’t dig through what they write, and attack part of what they say, ignorifying the qualifiers and modifiers that show that what they say I am attacking was clearly not meant to be an attack at all.

As far as the tracts, the problem is, as I stated, that they set up strawmen arguements and burn their own strawman. Like you and La Chiara have just done. Quoting Scripture is not enough. You have to know how to study Scripture. It is really not that hard.

Now, my friend Militant. Would you do me a favor? Go get a glass of sweet tea, sit down and relax for a few minutes,then re-read our psots, and tell me if you see my point. You don’t have to agree, just see if you can tell that I am not an anti-catholic (at least, by Rayne’s definition.

Thanks for your time, and have a good evening,

 

[Xenos]

Church Militant:

Originally Posted by Xenos
Much of what people call anti-catholic (and I think that you have a more fair definition that I have heard on CA), is actually love and concern for you.

Sorry dude…
I can’t tell…

And that, militant, is one of the saddest statements that I have ever read in my life (and I read alot).

 

[La_Chiara]

Xenos:

Just for the record,

I note that you did not respond to my post to you.

Secondly the examples I gave were very carefully nuanced with qualifiers to show no malice toward Catholocism. I have been to South America. Things are different there. Why must you read malice into everything? WHy must you respond so rudely to posts that are expressed politely?

BTW, I said second Hand. Urband Lgends ae more hands that that. I know my source, and find it unimpeachable.

The context of my quote was clearly to state that was a problem with those people, not with the Church itself. Did you not catch that?

1. I am responding to your post. But you didn’t respond to my question. Which 3 CA tracts did you read thoroughly?
2. I read “malice into everything” and “respond rudely to posts that are expressed politely”? So I am rude and you are polite? Seems to me, it is you who is doing the judging and personal attacks. I won’t respond in kind.
3. So you can’t share your source who alleges that Catholics worship Mary and that a Catholic priest is Peru is the village witch doctor BUT that source is “unimpeachable”. And we are supposed to be satisfied with that as support for your claims?

 

[Xenos]

Katholikos:

There is only one correct definition of the True Church, and that is Christ’s. We know from Sacred Scripture:

[1] that Jesus founded His Church and commissioned the Apostles to lead it and teach it (Mt 16:18-19, 28:20, et al.); therefore it existed when the Apostles walked the earth,

[2] that Jesus said the powers of death would not prevail against His Church (Mt 16:18), and he promised to be with the Church ALWAYS (Mt 28:20),

[3] that the Church speaks for Christ (Lk 10:16),

[4] that the Church pre-dates the New Testament and is its author
(see all the writings of the NT and the Encyclopedia of Early Christianity),

[5] that the Church formed the Bible (see the History of the Church by Eusebius of Caesaria and the various council decrees),

[6] that the Church will endure until the end of time (Mt 28:20).

Jesus told us not to expect a perfect Church, but that there would tares among the wheat.

This is a description of the Catholic Church, and no other.

The doctrine that the church is made up of only of the “saved,” “the redeemed,” the “holy ones” – is a Protestant heresy.

bible.ca/interactive/worship-22-only-church-saved.htm

Judas Iscariot was one of the Twelve, and he was hand-picked by Christ Himself.

The Church is a hospital for sinners and a training ground for saints. Thank God, there is room in such a Church for me!

JMJ Jay

Jay,

Please go into more detail for me on #4.

Also, what does the Word translated “Church” mena in the original laguages?

 

[Xenos]

1. I am responding to your post. But you didn’t respond to my question. Which 3 CA tracts did you read thoroughly?

1. I read “malice into everything” and “respond rudely to posts that are expressed politely”? So I am rude and you are polite? Seems to me, it is you who is doing the judging and personal attacks. I won’t respond in kind.
2. So you can’t share your source who alleges that Catholics worship Mary and that a Catholic priest is Peru is the village witch doctor BUT that source is “unimpeachable”. And we are supposed to be satisfied with that as support for your claims?

 

[Xenos]

1. I am responding to your post. But you didn’t respond to my question. Which 3 CA tracts did you read thoroughly?

1. I read “malice into everything” and “respond rudely to posts that are expressed politely”? So I am rude and you are polite? Seems to me, it is you who is doing the judging and personal attacks. I won’t respond in kind.
2. So you can’t share your source who alleges that Catholics worship Mary and that a Catholic priest is Peru is the village witch doctor BUT that source is “unimpeachable”. And we are supposed to be satisfied with that as support for your claims?

1. I did not see your post about which 3 I had read thoughly. I’ll get back to you on that one. Its been a while.
2. Please, tell me where I have been judging. Quote an example from my posts in context, please.

I will copy in my post, of which I thought that you did not answer, Perhaps you can copy back in the answer that you gave.

---

Now, perhaps you can help me. Show me where I attacked Catholics generally; and that what you rightly call attacks on me were justified by anything I wrote.

In this thread, I began by saying I agreed that JTC was wrong (I think I used a stronger word), but that many Catholics were in essence doing the same thing that JTC does. I further pointed out that the responses I received proved my point.

My comment about being welcome was a specific response to a specific question about why I was here; you have taken it out of context in an attempt to prove that I was making anti-catholic statements. You have created an offense where one clearly never existed.

Don’t you think that with the small number of posts I have made that calling them: “unrelentingly critical of all things Catholic” is just a little hyperbolic? That doesn’t even address the content of the said posts, which make it harder for yo yo defend what you have said (at least in my opinion, it does).

I am certianly not judge and jury; I did not condemn anyone as best I can recall. My question was meant to mean, “How can I know that you have the fullness of the truth, when you are not measuring up to the truth that I can see now?” Would you care to argue that those responses that I refered to were characteristic of Jesus Christ?

With all respect, the fact that others may have treated you that way does not justify attacking others.

As far as the CA tracts, by their very nature they are more simplistic than I am am looking for. I will deal with this in an answer to the post by rayne98.

Blessings,

---

You are possibly assuming I am someone else,and responding to things I have never said.

1. My source for the witchdoctor is a friend who has spent 50 years in Peru.

The example doesn’t matter; it was give in the context of the fact that these people don’t understand their faith. Even if these are urban legends, it doesn’t change the fact that they are urband legends about people who don’t understand what they should believe. Assume that they are urban legends if you choose; it doesn’t change anything of what I wrote.

Whether I agree with you or not, you know what you believe. SO where is the vicious attack?

Now, for goodness sake, why don’tyou join Militant. Drink a sweet tea, reread all of this, and see that I have had no ill intent toward you at all.

I just like the challenge of discussing these things politely with others. Unless of course, you just want to sit around with others that agree with you totally and attack others without trying to find out what they are really saying. I would hope that isn’t what you enjoy. That would be sort of sad, don’t you think??

 

[Imprimartin]

Xenos:

Martin,

I probably would not at this time define “true Church” in the same way you do.

How people behave is not THE test of whether they are part of that Church. But, by definition, the Church is supposed to be different than the rest of the world. If a group that claims to be the Church is not any different, doesn’t it make sense to assume that it is not the Church?

First of all, can we all stop comparing who is ruder than who? Or who is more hostile than who? This line of conversation can only lead to a bad place.

There was one point that I believe is pivotal in Xenos’ posts and that is, he takes issue when catholic call themselves a member of the “true church”.

Xenos, your response above shows that you misunderstand me. I haven’t given you the catholic (and therefore my) definition of the “true church” yet. I was simply wondering if that was your definition.

I can also see that you have given some sort of definition that the members of the true church should be not “the same” as the rest of the world. If (some? all? a minority? Majority?) members were the same as the rest of the world, then the church that they belong to could not possibly be the “true church”.

And it looks like Militant has responded to you (post #68) on how NOT to identify the “true church” by basically saying that the actions of the members of the “true church” have no bearing on “true church” status. The members could be great sinners and yet still be members of the “true” church.

And then Katholikos, showed (post #72) how to identify the true church using certain criteria. Did you read those posts? What did you think?

Martin