Normal turn of events?

[bradwill911]

I’ve been in an email exchange with an ex-Catholic (I know, he’s still a Catholic), anti-Catholic apologist and our conversation has taken a bizarre turn. First, he came at me with the typical “whore of Babylon” stuff and the sola fide/scriptura stuff. I try to answer the best I can with Scripture, CCC, Church Father, and other references and instead of the usual, anticipated Mary/Saints/Eucharist/Reconciliation discussions, he’s turned the discussion to other things. He has basically started to say that the Catholic Church is wrong because we think Muslims and other non-Christian religions can be saved without Christ. This was a strange turn of events and he even provided me with a quote from Lumen Gentium. I went back to the document and it was not only misinterpreted, but it was actually misquoted. He said he got it straight from the document, but later admitted that he got it from an anti-Catholic website.

Is this common? It’s one thing if you want to argue against the Catholic Faith honestly, but the scary thing is that he could easily be having these arguments with a Catholic who doesn’t know his faith and this person can lose their faith based on lies. Any advice from those of you who have been doing this for awhile?

Thank you and His Peace be with you all,

Brad

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I’ve been in an email exchange with an ex-Catholic (I know, he’s still a Catholic), anti-Catholic apologist and our conversation has taken a bizarre turn. First, he came at me with the typical “whore of Babylon” stuff and the sola fide/scriptura stuff. I try to answer the best I can with Scripture, CCC, Church Father, and other references and instead of the usual, anticipated Mary/Saints/Eucharist/Reconciliation discussions, he’s turned the discussion to other things. He has basically started to say that the Catholic Church is wrong because we think Muslims and other non-Christian religions can be saved without Christ. This was a strange turn of events and he even provided me with a quote from Lumen Gentium. I went back to the document and it was not only misinterpreted, but it was actually misquoted. He said he got it straight from the document, but later admitted that he got it from an anti-Catholic website.

Is this common? It’s one thing if you want to argue against the Catholic Faith honestly, but the scary thing is that he could easily be having these arguments with a Catholic who doesn’t know his faith and this person can lose their faith based on lies. Any advice from those of you who have been doing this for awhile?

Thank you and His Peace be with you all,

Brad

That is many time the norm. They do not have the actual document or book so they take quotes from other anti-Catholic websites. They intentionally mis-quote and misinterpret. Which is why we should have a copy to correct this. I have many times actually sent copies of the Catechism to different Baptists and anti-Catholics . I doubt that they used them.

 

[Godfollower]

It’s truly amazing how often the anti-Catholic apologists/websites/etc. misquote relevant documents. A lot of it comes from blindly following other anti-Catholics, more or less in good faith (Loraine Boettner wrote a book a few decades ago about Catholicism that, to put it kindly, vastly misrepresented the Church and its teachings but looks like a scholarly work if you want to attack the Church, and many Protestants use it as a reference); some, however, do it deliberately. We have to assume in any given case, of course, that the misquoting is innocent. But you should always check what they say; there are even a few out there who have deliberately mistranslated the Bible to further their theological ends.

 

[NHInsider]

It’s truly amazing how often the anti-Catholic apologists/websites/etc. misquote relevant documents. A lot of it comes from blindly following other anti-Catholics, more or less in good faith (Loraine Boettner wrote a book a few decades ago about Catholicism that, to put it kindly, vastly misrepresented the Church and its teachings but looks like a scholarly work if you want to attack the Church, and many Protestants use it as a reference); some, however, do it deliberately. We have to assume in any given case, of course, that the misquoting is innocent. But you should always check what they say; there are even a few out there who have deliberately mistranslated the Bible to further their theological ends.

Boettner is indeed astounding (he has fake footnotes - that is, very real-looking footnotes to documents that either do not exist or do not say what he cites) - and very well-deseminated. Harry (?) Ironside is another, perhaps not quite so egregiously fake but full of quasi-history and heavily quoted by anti-catholics.

I think the best approach is to challenge the quotation and suggest (gently) that bearing false witness is not a good representation of the Lord they claim to serve.

 

[Godfollower]

Boettner is indeed astounding (he has fake footnotes - that is, very real-looking footnotes to documents that either do not exist or do not say what he cites) - and very well-deseminated. Harry (?) Ironside is another, perhaps not quite so egregiously fake but full of quasi-history and heavily quoted by anti-catholics.

I think the best approach is to challenge the quotation and suggest (gently) that bearing false witness is not a good representation of the Lord they claim to serve.

Yes, that’s exactly correct. Remember, most people with whom you’re discussing this stuff won’t know that the books they’re citing are wrong. Pointing out gently that they are relying on incorrect material won’t win the current argument – but that isn’t the point of apologetics anyway. All that will happen is that they will realize (quickly or slowly, depending on the person) that their foundation is shaky and they need to reexamine their position.

Then, later, maybe they’ll start to realize the truth.