Least persuasive argument used by Catholics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter commenter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
commenter said:
I am interested in what are the worst arguments readers have seen from Catholics affirming Catholicism. Not professional apologists, some of the worst ones are used by amateurs like me, who reason with their uninformed gut feelings.

Here are some nominations:
“30,000 Protestant denominations”. This argument has been used 30,000 times on CAF. I don’t say it is invalid. I say it is unpersuasive. I can’t imagine some dedicated Methodist or whatever reading that, and saying “30,000 now? My gosh, I thought it was only like 10,000. But on the basis of this new data, I must reconsider unified Rome’s claims”. Yup.

“Luther taught the North Pole was in the South” (or that he made some other outrageous error, or did some deceitful act, to show weakness of character, paranoia, regret starting the Reformation, etc, etc.)
The Lutherans on CAF, for instance, know Luther better than I know my wife. JonNC knows Luther’s horse better than I know her; the word “her” referring back to the word “horse”, not “wife”. No Lutheran, not one in 500 years, has been influenced towards Rome by such arguments.

What are the least persuasive arguments you have heard?
Click to expand...
Forgive my late comment, and thank you for the kind words.
I find the least persuasive, the argument that if the Pope/ Catholic Church is wrong/ in error, then Christ is a liar, because the gates of Hell have prevailed over the Church, etc. etc. I’ve seen it pop up here at times.

Jon
 
Isaiah45_9 #209
Says on the pope and wielding absolute power –
“yes he does”.
Click to expand...
However, absolute power = complete and without restriction or qualification

Only those who confuse reality with assumptions say that the Pope has absolute power – as though he is God.

The Pope has, by Christ’s mandate, final authority in defining teaching on faith and morals, challengeable by no one, which is absolute responsibility, which is what Cardinal Ratzinger certified, NOT power. **This absolute responsibility involves the supreme power of jurisdiction and of teaching.**The Pope is bound heavily by the divine constitution of the Church. A couple of examples of restrictions, of what a Pope cannot do:
Modify in any way any point of the revelation Christ gave to the Church. He can only guard against attack and false interpretation.
Abolish the universal episcopate.

Thus the Pope does not have absolute power without restriction or qualification.

Apart from the error that the Pope has absolute power, the other grave error that Isaiah45_9 promulgates is that
We (Catholics) changed after the Great Schism and it wasn’t until the 1,400’s that the Pope was given supreme, universal, immediate, absolute jurisdiction over the whole Church.
Click to expand...
As we have seen that is totally false as there has no been, and cannot be, any such change, and some new “jurisdiction over the whole Church” hatched in the 1400’s!

The pope’s authority came directly from Christ (post #162) and is the absolute responsibility involving the supreme power of jurisdiction and of teaching – the final authority on faith and morals.
 
Peter_J said:
As unconvincing as when Protestants say that the papacy was an ex nihilo creation some-number-or-other of years ago? :hmmm:
Click to expand...
Absolutely. The idea that some moment in history is magically separate from everything before (and around) it is just plain daft.
 
commenter said:
What? I didn’t make honorable mention yet? (I mean honourable mention).
Click to expand...
Sorry, there’s a teeny, tiny (HUGE) preferential bias in there about people who study the sorts of things which I study.
I’m not only your typical arrogant amateur Catholic apologist, I’m your typical American, too, we’re the most arrogant).
Click to expand...
I’d put you in the “highly assertive” box rather than the “arrogant” box, personally.
 
JonNC said:
Forgive my late comment, and thank you for the kind words.
I find the least persuasive, the argument that if the Pope/ Catholic Church is wrong/ in error, then Christ is a liar, because the gates of Hell have prevailed over the Church, etc. etc. I’ve seen it pop up here at times.

Jon
Click to expand...
Actually this thread is not only accumulating old unpersuasive arguments, it’s generating some new nominations. I keep expecting to see some of my own arguments nominated. (Did I ever mention recent additions to the NT canon by the Protestant Left prove the need for the Magist-) oops, maybe I did post that, but less than 40 times.

To claim your cash prize for the worst least persuasive argument, send your $20 entry fee to my new ministry, Arrogant Apologetics, Box…
 
Wait, so now there’s an AA an addition to CA and PA (Catholic Answers and Protestant Answers respectively)?

Next you’ll tell me there’s a BA (Baptist Answers). :o
 
commenter said:
Actually this thread is not only accumulating old unpersuasive arguments, it’s generating some new nominations. I keep expecting to see some of my own arguments nominated. (Did I ever mention recent additions to the NT canon by the Protestant Left prove the need for the Magist-) oops, maybe I did post that, but less than 40 times.

To claim your cash prize for the worst least persuasive argument, send your $20 entry fee to my new ministry, Arrogant Apologetics, Box…
Click to expand...
Actually, yours is a rather persuasive argument. We have a particular issue in our parish that I wish the Synod would act a bit more like a Magisterium / Ministerium on. :whistle:

Jon
 
Jon_S said:
The difference being there is no debate over what the church teaches. There is 1Catholic faith. Individuals are either in or out of the catholic faiths bounds.
Click to expand...
I understand this, but there is still mental division and maybe some open debate between Roman Catholics. Which brings me again to the fear of anathema for those who take the debate too far. This is why this is the least persuasive argument for me and others. There is division within the Roman Catholic Church. Just like there is division within other denominations. Man is full of sin, but I believe as long as the Biblical GOSPEL of Jesus Christ is not compromised within the denomination of your choice, there is no fear of anathema for the believer.
 
Peter_J said:
As unconvincing as when Protestants say that the papacy was an ex nihilo creation some-number-or-other of years ago? :hmmm:
Click to expand...
Yup, if something is unconvincing, it’s unconvincing, no matter who does it, says it or teaches it. Pointing out some error or inconsistancy in someone else does nothing to further your case.

It’s like a kid saying “But Jimmy did it”…and the parent saying “Well if Jimmy jumped off a cliff would you do it?”
 
JonNC said:
Actually, yours is a rather persuasive argument. We have a particular issue in our parish that I wish the Synod would act a bit more like a Magisterium / Ministerium on. :whistle:

Jon
Click to expand...
:amen:

The CTCR just isn’t the same.
 
ephesians2 said:
I understand this, but there is still mental division and maybe some open debate between Roman Catholics. Which brings me again to the fear of anathema for those who take the debate too far. This is why this is the least persuasive argument for me and others. There is division within the Roman Catholic Church. Just like there is division within other denominations. Man is full of sin, but I believe as long as the Biblical GOSPEL of Jesus Christ is not compromised within the denomination of your choice, there is no fear of anathema for the believer.
Click to expand...
The question of course being “What is the Biblical Gospel?”

That is the question that divides churches.

That’s the question that caused me to leave Evangelicalism for the “biblical gospel” that was most consistent through history all the way to the very early church. The biblical gospel held by the orthodox and Catholic Churches and I will toss a bone to a close second for conservative Anglicans and Lutherans.
 
Jon_S said:
The question of course being “What is the Biblical Gospel?”

That is the question that divides churches.

That’s the question that caused me to leave Evangelicalism for the “biblical gospel” that was most consistent through history all the way to the very early church. The biblical gospel held by the orthodox and Catholic Churches and I will toss a bone to a close second for conservative Anglicans and Lutherans.
Click to expand...
On behalf of such Anglicans, I thank you.

GKC
 
Jon_S said:
The question of course being “What is the Biblical Gospel?”

That is the question that divides churches.

That’s the question that caused me to leave Evangelicalism for the “biblical gospel” that was most consistent through history all the way to the very early church. The biblical gospel held by the orthodox and Catholic Churches and I will toss a bone to a close second for conservative Anglicans and Lutherans.
Click to expand...
My fellow Confessional Lutherans can speak for themselves, but I’ll thank you on my own behalf. 🙂
 
I realize that I am “way late” to this thread, but when I get handed some bunch of poopoo about the Church not being real, I ask the questioner this:

What was the Church that exsisted for fifteen hundred years before Luther took his paper and nailed it to the infamous door?

Normally, they stammer!!!😃
 
kozlosap said:
I realize that I am “way late” to this thread, but when I get handed some bunch of poopoo about the Church not being real, I ask the questioner this:

What was the Church that exsisted for fifteen hundred years before Luther took his paper and nailed it to the infamous door?

Normally, they stammer!!!😃
Click to expand...
I have no idea why. The Christian Church is the answer. The Roman Church is faith tradition that is apart of the Christian Church that Jesus Christ established here on here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top