On the term "anti-Catholic" (1 of 2)

  • Thread starter Thread starter centuri0n
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Are you saying the praying to dead people is not addressed in the Bible, or are you saying that Catholics do not pray to Mary and the Saints?
 
40.png
Tom:
Not anti Catholic any more than I would be anti Protestant saying Protestants deny the teachings of our Lord and saviour Jesus the Christ. Each statement is an attack, used to tear down, rather than build each other up in our Lord.
Click to expand...
Do you think that any reasonable Catholic today would advocate the “anti-Protestant” position you list here?
 
It is interesting that one does not hear an analogous term such as “anti-Protestant” though one frequently hears “anti-Catholic” and “anti-Semitic”. I believe that is because Catholics are not in the practice of criticizing Protestants. Catholics are apologists, which has more of a sense of defending (presumably against attacks). I have never heard a Catholic priest or a Catholic leader refer to Protestants in a derogatory manner. Non-Catholic Christians are only referred to–very charitably, in my mind–as “our separated brothers and sisters in Christ”. Yet how often have we heard Protestants, including ministers, refer to Catholics in derogatory or inflammatory terms?
 
40.png
stumbler:
Such a statement, made in isolation, is obviously so.
Click to expand...
The problem, unfortunately for this forum, is that this statement can be made in any context and be called “anti-Catholic”. It has been called as much in other thread(s) in debating the issue of whether Rome has added to the Gospel: to bring up the idea that the Protestant objection qualified Catholicism as a false Gospel is kne-jerkedly called “antiCatholicism” because such a thing has become a fad on the internet.

If the same hair-trigger set off the “anti-semitism” alert, the term would soon be laughed out of reasonable discourse – in the same way the term “racist” has ceased to mean anything because it has been abused by those who have used it to forward thier own cottage industries.
But let’s assume for the sake of the argument, that the non-Catholic making the statement has found some point of Catholic theology with which he disagrees. Is such a statement still reflective of anti-Catholic bias?
Click to expand...
Only if you strip the term of its connotation and blankly mug to the reader that you “don’t mean anything by it”.

Now on to your reductio …
Before I answer that, allow me to make a point using a reductio ad absurdum technique.

A foundational aspect of Protestantism is sola Scriptura. It results in multiple theological systems because it relies on private judgment.
Click to expand...
It is at this point that you veer off the path of a reasonable reductio – you inflict a non-logical conclusion on the case, and thuse ruin your chances of using the reductio technique to make your point.

Even if I were to concede that Sola Scriptura has actually resulted in competing theological systems (it has not: the theology of Presbyterians and the theology of Baptists has more in common than the theologies of Vatican II and Vactican I), the problem is that these differences are not logically necessary: they are only circumstancial. They have occured: they were not required by logic to occur.

Back to you:
Of the resulting “N” Protestant theological systems, at least “N-1” are wrong. Given this reality, the only logically-consistent statement that a Protestant apologist can make in this regard is: “All Christians preach a false gospel, except me (or my denomination).” Otherwise, by making sweeping statements about Catholics alone, the Protestant apologist has shown that he suffers from the obsession and denigration attributes that are characteristic of anti-Catholicism and further that he is unwilling to grant the same latitude to Catholics as he is to fellow Protestants.
Click to expand...
This reductio also ignores a gigantic misunderstanding about the nature of the differences between Protestantism and Catholicism – because the reason the distinction esist is, at its root, a disagreement on essential premises. It is not schismatic denominationalism which sets up a disctinction between the Protestant and the Catholic: it is a disagreement about the nature of Christ’s atonement, the postion of the believer in Christ, and the relationship of the believer to God Almighty. I might find myself at odds with the Methodist or the Lutheran over the nature of the Eucharist, or I might find myself at odds with the Presbyterian over infant baptism – but none of those things have anything to do with the Gospel which preaches Christ Alone, Faith Alone, and God’s Glory Alone.

On the other hand, to teach (under the umbrella of infallibility) that one cannot reject the assumption of Mary without being subject to God’s wrath and put out of the faith is an entirely different matter. To worship bread as God is a different matter.
 
… that again you dismiss an argument without addressing it at all. None of the links you provided address the issue of what the Bible calls the practice of praying to the dead.

Your links say a lot of things: they say nothing about this.
 
40.png
centuri0n:
It seems unreasonable, I think, to change the subject in this thread – as every poster so far has tried to do – away from the issue of how a term is being grossly misused to poison the Protestant well.
Click to expand...
Odd. The first person to raise Mary on this thread was you. Addressing an issue you raised hardly qualifies as an attempt to “change the subject in this thread.” So right off the bat, it appears you are mischaracterizing responses.

Then you say: “as every poster so far has tried to do.” Every poster? Obviously untrue again. Hmmm. Who’s “poisoning the well”? :hmmm:

If you want to learn something here, at a minimum you’ll need to turn down the rhetoric and focus more on logic and truth.
 
When some Protestants see Catholics praying before a statue they conclude it is idol worship. What do some Catholics conclude when they see a Hindu praying before a statue?
 
40.png
centuriOn:
Where you make the mistake is to say that the latter belief is based on some specific theological discussion. It is not: it is a round-house kick from a bigot who wants to slander, not a considered argument from someone who has reviewed the facts and is looking for someone to either dispell his objections or confirm his suspicions.
Click to expand...
Where you make a mistake is when a Catholic tells you they don’t worship idols, you say yes you do. Because of what you believe theologically, you can’t/won’t hear an answer, because you’ve already reached a conclusion. This goes beyond mere disagreement.

It would be understandable, if from your reading of scripture you come to different conclusions than us, even if after conversations you still disagree. However, where you become anti is when, like in the case of idolatry, Catholics say to God alone be the glory, and you say, but…YOU WORSHIP IDOLS!!!

In JMJ, Richard
 
O.K. this is going to be long, this is a wonderful example of an anti-Catholic.
40.png
centuri0n:
I know many Catholics find the statement “Catholicism practices idolatry in it reverence for Mary and the Saints” inflammatory – but why? Let’s consider the possibilities here:

(1) That Catholics do not actually pray to Saints and Mary, thus the claim has no basis. Well, this is false on its face: Catholics pray to Mary all the time, and while the praying to saints is not a universal practice in RCism, you have to admit that it is pretty wide-spread and strict not condemned as a practice by Rome. So the basis for making the claim exists.
Click to expand...
First of all yes we, or at least I, do pray to Mary. Mary is our mother in Christ. Jesus gave her to us as He hung on the cross. Read Rev. She is our mother, and attacks on our mother do bring anger. Surprised? The attacks on her certainly don’t reflect, “all generations will call me blessed” do they?

quote=centuri0n That even if Catholics do “pray” to Mary and the Saints, it’s not the same thing as when they pray to Jesus or the Father or the Holy Spirit. Well … ok … this is a very interesting set of definitions by the RC advocate, but how is it justified? The practice of “talking to dead people” is “necromancy”, and that’s idolatry as we receive the OT definitions of such things. I’ve read dozens of explanations about this, and it can never get past that – except by saying, “even though the Bible says ‘X’, the Magisterium says, ‘but not Y’, and that makes it all OK.” That’s pretty significantly dodging the issue.
[/quote]

Calling Mary and the saints “dead people” is infalmmatory as well as untrue. Did Jesus meet with two “dead people” in the garden during the transfiguration? You seem to conveniently forget that Scripture says He is a God of the living, not the dead. Is Moses a “dead person”? Mary, as each of the saints, acts as an intecessor. We ask her to pray for us, to intercede for us. You don’t have to search hard in the NT to see Jesus performing His first miracle at the request (intercession) of Mary. This is a wonderful gift our Lord has given us.

quote=centuri0n That even if the prayers to Mary and the Saints are not idolatrous prayers, there is only mediator between God and Man, who is Jesus Christ. The Book of Hebrews clearly – and unequivically – states that there is a perfect priesthood of which Jesus is the only member, and in that priesthood there is a perfect mediation which perfectly pays the price for sin and reconciles man to God.
[/quote]

All I can say to this is read the Scripture again, with an open heart. There is not one book of Scripture that does not contain intercession. God uses people, saints, angels, for intercession. To deny the gift that God gives you is to deny God Himself. Mary is not God, no Catholic believes she is. She is a wonderful example of how our love for Jesus should be. As far as an example, she is the perfect example. I can not be as perfect as Jesus, He IS God, but, I can be as good as Mary, she is just a human, not divine. At least I can attempt to be as good as her, she lived without sin, I unfortunately don’t come close. Honor you mother.
40.png
centuri0n:
To make the case which is made here – summarized by the statement “Catholics worship idols” – is plainly not to demonize but to correct for the sake of the Gospel.
Click to expand...
So sorry, first of all look up “worship” in the dictionary. it says “to honor, to regard with great even extravagant respect, honor or devotion” “worthiness, repute, respect” that is what we show, we do not “worship” Mary as a God, we worship her as our mother. Ever hear the saying “he worships the ground she walks on” it of course doesn’t mean “he” thinks she’s God does it?
 
Very well written post Tom! Yes, I also pray to Mary. By that I mean I ask for her intercession on my behalf or the behalf of others. This is not at all unlike our protestant friends who ask each other to pray for them or their friends. As you pointed out very well our God is the God of the living. Therefore we are not praying to a dead person.

Your ilustration of the living at the Transfiguration was excellent. I’ll be adding that example to my toolbox. Thank you!
 
40.png
Ken:
When some Protestants see Catholics praying before a statue they conclude it is idol worship. What do some Catholics conclude when they see a Hindu praying before a statue?
Click to expand...
I for one don’t conclude anything. I have no idea if the Hindu believes the statue is a God, or a piece of art.
 
… but to Mary goes a prayer, which is where we have the basis for our argument.

The issue is not what I think you think of the Father, Son and Spirit – because you say you are a Trinitarian. The issue is why a Trinitarian would offer a prayer – do you deny it is a prayer? – to a dead person when the only thing such a practice is called is “necromancy” and “idolatry” by the Bible.

This debate is frustrating because it is like debating gay marriage. For me – for any person promoting the Bible’s definition of sexual morality – the issue has nothing to do with what the other person feels: it has everything to do with what God has ordained as right and wrong. But the homosexual advocate wants to change the issue from “does the Bible say this is wrong” to “doesn’t my sincerity make my actions right”.

It doesn’t matter how sincere you are that your do not intend your prayers to Mary to blaspheme God: men are commanded not to pray to the dead.
 
Cent, my point was we can discuss our differences without the attack. I consider the tone of the argument as infalmmatory, not the subject. I would love to express my love for Mary to you, as well as the Scriptural references.
 
40.png
centuri0n:
… but to Mary goes a prayer, which is where we have the basis for our argument.

The issue is not what I think you think of the Father, Son and Spirit – because you say you are a Trinitarian. The issue is why a Trinitarian would offer a prayer – do you deny it is a prayer? – to a dead person when the only thing such a practice is called is “necromancy” and “idolatry” by the Bible.

It doesn’t matter how sincere you are that your do not intend your prayers to Mary to blaspheme God: men are commanded not to pray to the dead.
Click to expand...
Mary and the saints aren’t “dead people”.
 
We will have to continue this tomorrow, I have work to do. May the peace and love of our Lord, Jesus the Christ, be with you all.
 
40.png
centuri0n:
… but to Mary goes a prayer, which is where we have the basis for our argument.

The issue is not what I think you think of the Father, Son and Spirit – because you say you are a Trinitarian. The issue is why a Trinitarian would offer a prayer – do you deny it is a prayer? – to a dead person when the only thing such a practice is called is “necromancy” and “idolatry” by the Bible.
Click to expand...
First of all, you seem to be ignoring us as well when we state that ours is a God of the living. Isn’t this true? Do you equate physical death with spiritual death?

Second, perhaps there is a simple semantic problem with the word prayer. If you equate prayer with a spiritual communication reserved soley for use between a person and God then I can see your confusion. You must think that we think we are communicating to God when we pray to Mary! Trust me, we don’t believe that Mary is God. We hold her in special esteem and give her titles with which I am sure you disaprove, but we do not believe she is God. For us prayer is that communication for us on Earth to use with Heaven. All those in heaven, we believe, are alive and concerned about us still on our Earthly journey. Therefore it makes since to communicate with them and ask for their intercession, to God, on our behalf. Many non-Catholic protestant denominations encourage their members to pray for one another. We do that, too. We also ask those who have made it to heaven to pray for us as well.

Sorry for the confusion. Hope this helps clear things up.
 
40.png
centuri0n:
… but to Mary goes a prayer, which is where we have the basis for our argument.

The issue is not what I think you think of the Father, Son and Spirit – because you say you are a Trinitarian. The issue is why a Trinitarian would offer a prayer – do you deny it is a prayer? – to a dead person when the only thing such a practice is called is “necromancy” and “idolatry” by the Bible.

This debate is frustrating because it is like debating gay marriage. For me – for any person promoting the Bible’s definition of sexual morality – the issue has nothing to do with what the other person feels: it has everything to do with what God has ordained as right and wrong. But the homosexual advocate wants to change the issue from “does the Bible say this is wrong” to “doesn’t my sincerity make my actions right”.

It doesn’t matter how sincere you are that your do not intend your prayers to Mary to blaspheme God: men are commanded not to pray to the dead.
Click to expand...
The gays don’t care what the bible says. It is not important to a secular society. They are not changing the argument, they are rejecting it as an imposition of religious belief on society.
 
Your article is full of spoken and unspoken fallacies.
40.png
centuri0n:
So the phenomenon Hunter is describing here is not a matter of one-sided insular Protestant bigotry: it is a matter of mutual disregard which, after a century of overt war, turned to the quiet warfare of personal relationships.
Click to expand...
Regardless of how Hunter uses the term, it has not been shown to bear a relationship to how Catholics use the term. This is a type of argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy.
Clearly, Hunter thinks the dispute over theology is the root cause . . . but does he qualify all Protestant theology as anti-Catholic? Hardly.
Click to expand...
This is the fallacy of the false dilemma.
It is the acceptance of the Bible as the unitive heritage of men who fear God that resolves their differences. That hardly sounds like a Catholic perspective: it sounds significantly Protestant.
Click to expand...
Yet it is the very basis that Catholic apologists use when approaching Protestant apologists. By framing it as an either/or situation, you’ve used the False Dichotomy fallacy.
I am certain that one can hold Protestant views of Catholicism without being a bigot.
Click to expand...
Here is another fallacy. No one here has argued that believing Protestantism automatically makes one anti-Catholic. By framing your conclusion this way you are relying on the Straw Man fallacy.

There are others, but you catch my drift.

By framing the argument behind so many fallacies, it becomes absurd. Can Jack Chick rightfully and fairly be described as “anti-Catholic”? According to your reasoning, no.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top