Protestant Article needs Refuting

  • Thread starter Thread starter Marc_Anthony
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Marc_Anthony

Guest
Salve,

I’m debating a Protestant right now. She sent me this link:

cwrc-rz.org/articles/article-001.php

to prove her point after I sent her, like, 20 links. I already refuted it by saying basically that there is no reason this person’s interpretation of the Bible is any more valid than anybody else’s, so why should I beleive him over a 2000 year old infallible Church, but I would appreciate more specific refutations of certain points made in the article to use. Thanks a lot in advance.
 
Hit him on his right to interpret scripture, that’s your best bet.
The Word of God is used by heretics. I refer you to Eck. Enchiridion, chapter 4 on the authority of the Church on scripture and tradition.
"1. Christ did not write any book, nor did He bid the disciples or apostles to write one, yet He gave many precepts concerning the Church; hence when about to send apostles out to plant the Church, He did not say, “Go write,” but “Go into the whole world and preach the Gospel to every creature” (Mt. 24:14)…
2. The Church is older than Scripture, for when the Apostles began to preach, there was no written Gospel, no letter of Paul, and yet there was the Church dedicated by Christ’s blood, Thus the apostles without the Scripture of the New Testament chose Matthias [Acts 1;22ff], ordained seven deacons, [Acts 6:3]; Peter caused Ananias and Sapphira to die [Actts 5;1ff]. Even though the apostles were very diligent in sowing the Word of God, yet very few things are found written by them. It follows logically that they taught many more things than they wrote: the things taught are equal authority with the things written.
3. Scripture is not authentic without the Church’s authority for the canonical writers are members of the Church. Hence against a heretic wishing to contend against the Church’s constitution and custom one objects with the very weapons whereby he wishes to contend again the Church. He is going to quote the canonical Scriptures of the four Gospels, and the Pauline Epistles. Let the objection immediately be raised again him: how does he know that these scriptures are canonical except from the Church, for why does he believe the Gospel of Mark, who did not see Christ, to be canonical, and not the Gospel of Nicodemus, who saw and heard Christ as John testifies (Jn 3:1ff)? So why has the Gospel of Luke the disciple been received, and the gospel of Bartholomew the apostle been rejected, unless we humbly confess the authority of the Church with the Blessed Augustine, something Luther sometimes taught, that the Church could judge concerning the Scriptures.
Therefore it is thus clear that the Church is older than Scripture, and Scripture would not be authentic without the Church’s authority. Hence, Augustine, Against the Epistle called Fundamental, 5.6 [PL 42.176]: “I would not have believe the Gospel unless the authority of the Church had moved me to do so,” More below on Scripture at Chapter 4.
  1. Scripture teaches: “Remember to hallow the Sabbath day; six days shall you labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath day of the Lord your God,” etc. Yet the Church has changed the Sabbath into Sunday on it’s own authority, on which you have no Scripture…
    “But if our Gospel is hidden, it is hidden to those who are lost” ((2 Cor 4:3). If the Holy Scripture is so completely open, it is a wonder why the holy fathers, who read it so frequently, did not understand it for 1200 years, that if it was obscure to Augustine, Jerome, Bernard, Thomas how will it be open to Lutheran laymen?..
    Axiom 3: Heretics evilly reject any other judge than Scripture.
    In the Old Testament not the law but the high priest was judge. “if… a hard and doubtful matter…” (Dt 17:8), See above ch. 1. “When there shall be a controversy, (the priests) shall stand in my judgement, and judge…” (Es 44:24).
    And the Catholics also especially admit Scripture, but we differ from the heretics in our understanding of it; accordingly it is necessary for there to be another judge than Scripture, namely, the Church.
    By this example, taken from the modern heretics (who reject any other judge than Scripture) is shown how the Lutherans and Oscolampadians and Zwinglians contend over the sacrament of the Eucharist, as to whether here is truly and spiritually the body and blood of Christ, or only a figure and sign. Who among them will be judge? Who will ever bring them into harmony? Scripture or Church? Apart from these no other judge can be provided. It is not indeed upon Scripture…(which each contends to be the judge) that they lay their foundatioon–all the while in the self-same words of Scripture–and thus they do not admit Scripture as judge against their own doctrine, but make themselves judges over Scripture; Accordingly the Church will be necessarily judge, which believes that, when the bread and wine have, by the power of Christ’s words, been transubstantiated in this sacrament, they are the true body and blood of Christ, under the species of bread and wine.
    …
    Even the devil quoted Scripture against Christ, (Mt 4:6): “That he has given his angels charge over you” etc., but a true understanding he did not possess, as Jerome concludes in Against the Luciferians, and the Scriptures consist not in reading as the untutored crowd of the Lutheran heresy now suppose, but in understanding. Jerome, Ibid. Therefore Tertullian powerfully demonstrates in his book, On the Prescription of Heretics: it is wicked for them to be admitted to undertake the citation of Scriptures. All heretics fled to Scriptures ill understood by them.
    Augustine: Arius quotes 42 passages of Scripture in his own support.
    The Lutherans receive the Scriptures just as the Jews do the Old Testament, because they insist alone on the literal sense, and those things contrary to them they twist: hence they are inky theologians, according to the shell and the surface. Therefore it is a Jewish practice to impugn the Church by the Scriptures. Luther in his assertions says, “to the proud and impious, Scripture will always be occasion for greater blindness”: this saying boomerangs on the head of its author and of his followers.
 
First paragraph:
In order to understand the Roman Catholic religion one must begin with the Roman Catholic Sacraments. Roman Catholics are taught to trust in their priests who perform religious rituals called Sacraments. There are seven sacraments in the Roman Catholic religion. Since one is Holy Orders, for a celibate priesthood, and another is Holy Matrimony, no one person can take all the Sacraments. According to the Roman Catholic Catechism Sacraments are necessary for salvation:
Click to expand...
In order to understand the Roman Catholic religion one must begin with the Roman Catholic Sacraments. Roman Catholics are taught to trust in their priests who perform religious rituals called Sacraments.

This is so misleading. In order to understand the Roman Catholic religion one must begin with who Jesus is. Most evangelicals of this stripe are Nestorian but won’t admit it. But I don’t think that would help you. Refuting their heresy of penal atonement gets complicated. But whoever authored this trash has no clue as to what a sacrament is. “…no one person can take all the Sacraments…” is just plain false.

It is wrong to remove the substance of a sacrament to just the visible form, and reducing it to ritual.

Being Catholic means “seeing” the Divine Mystery present in created realities, things one can see, taste, smell, touch, and feel. Being Catholic means perceiving the infinite in the finite, the divine in the human, spiritual things in material things. Being Catholic means blinking one’s eyes in joyful amazement at finding the spiritual in the material, the Most High God in the ordinary. Being Catholic means finding eternal realities in everyday things. Being Catholic includes the delightful perception that everything God created is sacred.
Because Catholicism finds created realities to be sacred realities, it is no great leap to encounter the risen Christ in the seven official sacraments of the church: Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Reconciliation, Marriage, Holy Orders, and Anointing of the Sick. When others claim to have no difficulty finding God everywhere, it puzzles Catholics when they also object to finding the Divine Mystery in specific places — bread and wine, for example, in the words of forgiveness spoken by a priest, or in the committed love of a married couple.
  1. Catholicism actually *causes *the Divine Mystery to be present.
    Closely related to the sacramentality of Catholicism is the fact that Catholicism, primarily through the seven sacraments, actually *causes *the Divine Mystery to have an impact on those who receive the sacraments. Catholicism carries and gives the real presence of the Divine Mystery—the Risen Christ — to its members. This happens not just inwardly, on a subjective level, but objectively, in various observable events such as the Eucharist and the other sacraments.
    In other -words, God is not just present for Catholics as the invisible, totally transcendent , object of belief or faith. Rather, God is also imminent, here, present and accounted for. Therefore being Catholic means encountering the risen Christ in and through the church and its sacraments. This encounter does not happen merely in the subjective interiority of the person, it happens objectively, “out there,” in the world, in time and space, in an observable fashion.
    Sacraments are not magic, mind you. We do not control God by pronouncing the “right” words and performing the “right” actions. Rather, the risen Christ makes a gift of himself in and through the church — which is all of at all times, and in seven special situations we are able, through the freely given grace of God, to be present to this gift.
    The role of the ordained priest takes on added importance for Catholics because the priest is the one specifically designated at special times to focus the presence of the risen Christ for a distinct purpose in a distinct situation. Being Catholic does not mean needing a priest in order to find God present in the world or in oneself. By no means. But being Catholic does mean that there are special moments – the celebration of the sacraments – when a priest is required to “stand in” as it were, for the One Mediator between God and human beings, the risen Christ.
    by Mitch Finley
 
Here is a great article defending sacramentalism in general, by Dave Armstrong:
Evangelical Protestants of the “low church” or non-denominational variety especially, oftentimes exhibit an antipathy to matter as a conveyor of grace (or “blessing”). In other words, they tend to deny the sacramental principle. This hearkens back to the Docetic heresy, with traces of Nestorianism and Donatism. Non-Catholic and non-Orthodox Christians frequently express the notion that matter is a step down, a “reduction” of Christ’s Atonement: Matter vs. Spirit. Catholics (and Orthodox and many Anglicans and Lutherans) believe that the truth is quite the contrary, both prima facie and when examined in scriptural and reasoned depth. more at socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/12/sacramentalism.html

The second paragraph reveals another Protestant LIE. Sola Ecclesia is NOT a doctrine of the Church, but a misapplication of Church authority, a term invented by Protestants who cannot or will not, understand the relationship between Scripture and the Church. We use the term “infallible Magisterium” because private interpretation of scriptures is condemned by scriptures. Sola Ecclesia is actually contrary to Church teaching.

That’s about all I can stomache for one day. More later.
 
The linked article in just another one of those protestant interpretation of what they think what Catholicism is all about.

A double interpretation.
 
Something occurred to me while reading the first part of the linked article quoted by kepha1 in post # 3. This part here :
…no one person can take all the Sacraments…
Click to expand...
is a good example how in a debate we can sometimes get locked into using someone elses limited terminology. In fact, no one takes a sacrament. We *receive *a sacrament ; and/or celebrate a sacrament.

We take what we own or think we desrve; we receive a gift. One might argue first off that the person lacks any real objectivity for their criticism since they have no subjective knowledge of the sacraments, and thus as kepha1 observes " whoever authored this trash has no clue as to what a sacrament is."

Now, have one more look - kepha1 says “whoever authored this trash” and you Marc Anthony in the original post said, “…there is no reason *this person’s *interpretation of the Bible is any more valid…”

The Protestant you’re debating with doesn’t even identify “who” wrote the article and neither does the article itself identify “who” wrote the article. Maybe you could ask her if she can identify “who” actually wrote the article. The web site doesn’t provide a name.

It is unfortunate in debates with those who criticize us Catholics that we can’t find more things to agree on, but one sure-fire method of defusing an opponent’s argument is if you can dismantle their credibility. For this you need to go to the source - “who” wrote the article.

In the limited time I have available today , I noticed that someone named Robert Michael Zins seems to be the site’s/organization’s founder and that “…CWRC, A Christian Witness To Roman Catholicism, is a 501-C-3 entity working under the auspices of Reformed Bible Church of North Clarendon, Vermont, along with the guided care of an independent advisory board. There are also several Christian men who serve as consultants and as contributors to this ministry”

I would say someone among them - or a combination of them wrote the article. Perhaps you could ask your fellow debatee - a Christian, who obviously puts her religious trust in this entity of persons, why she would ever question your doing exactly the same with our holy Catholic Church. [It’s that same argument you stated in post#1 - just worded a little differently]

Finally, although they don’t call it that, you could probably get her to agree that the Baptism she herself received is a sacrament:

Give the one line definition that a sacrament is a sense perceptible sign which effects what it signifies.

Then when she admits being baptized, explain to her that this is also her definition - either that, or she believes that plain water in and of itself has a supernatural effect when we wash with it, rinse with it, or when we are immersed in it.

To emphasize the ignorance of the author(s) whose article link she sent, you might explain to her that you do not belong to the Roman Catholic Church; you belong to the Catholic Church - Roman Rite, and that in some of the various other eastern rites of the Catholic Church (in full communion with Rome), it is permissible for a married man to become a priest (but usually not a bishop) …grigaitis.net/articles/immersion.html

What requires the most skill of all, is our approach - it cannot be like theirs : The objective is not to attack their faith (as they do ours), but to attack their attacks on our faith.
 
I hate the way protestants call themselves “Christians” and never refer to Catholics as Christians.

Why refute it? Let them die in their lies.
 
I know this Protestant very well, and from what I know she was a poorly catechized Catholic who left the Church.

How do I know this?

I managed to convince her within ten minutes that Catholics and Protestants believe the same thing about faith and works v. faith alone. If she were a properly cathecized Catholic she would’ve known that.

So I’d rather not let her “die in her lies”. She’s a good person and her intentions are very good.

Thanks for all the stuff, it’s great, buit I’d still appreciate more!
 
Ah, Robert Zins… I knew I recognized this article’s words. I went rounds with him debating and the guy is a nut-case.

What’s more, he and his group are “Reformed Calvinists” – when I quoted Calvin on the Sacraments (Calvin believed in Sacraments, including the reception of grace via the “Eucharist” – though his Eucharist is not literal, mind you; Calvin’s notion of sacraments were different from that of Catholics or Lutherans, but he still saw them as vessels of grace), Zins told me, “Ah but here we believe Calvin erred…”

And I asked him, "Really? How do you know? He drew his views from scripture alone " He could only revert to cursing me as a Romanist slave, hellbound in need of his help.

A great resource is the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Zins says, “X” about the Church but none of it is correct.

BTW, he is also wrong about one not being able to receive all 7 sacraments. Remember, there are married clergy in other rites, and even we have seen converts to the Catholic faith become married clergy in the Latin Rite…

www.totustuus.com/ThisIsMyBody.pdf
 
Marc_Anthony said:
Salve,

I’m debating a Protestant right now. She sent me this link:

cwrc-rz.org/articles/article-001.php

to prove her point after I sent her, like, 20 links. I already refuted it by saying basically that there is no reason this person’s interpretation of the Bible is any more valid than anybody else’s, so why should I beleive him over a 2000 year old infallible Church, but I would appreciate more specific refutations of certain points made in the article to use. Thanks a lot in advance.
Click to expand...
"In order to understand the Roman Catholic religion one must begin with the Roman Catholic Sacraments. Roman Catholics are taught to trust in their priests who perform religious rituals called Sacraments. "

Actually in order to understand the Catholic religion one must start by making an effort to understand what is called The Principle of Sacramentality. Then you can understand the sacraments what they are signs and symbols of deeper spiritual realities. I have never ever met a protestant that understand this principle, sadly many Catholics do not understand it either…

Viva Cristo Rey!

Catholi Deacon
 
The Sacraments are not an end-all, nor are they our salvation. They are “spiritual nourishment” so to speak, in our walk with Christ. A big reason many Protestants diss the Sacraments is they believe in the “one-saved-always-saved” falsehood so they don’t see how the Eucharist or Confession can help you. They think we score points or aer required to “take” (using that guy’s words) the Sacraments or ELSE. No they are a joy, means of receiving graces in order to attain sainthood. We exercise our physical bodies and should eat healthy foods. The Sacraments are “food” for the soul. God is also beyond them, not bound by them.
 
Desertsailor said:
I hate the way protestants call themselves “Christians” and never refer to Catholics as Christians.

Why refute it? Let them die in their lies.
Click to expand...
Wow. Not terribly charitable towards our Protestant brothers and sisters.

In any case, I sent them an email. There have been and are married Priests, although these are somewhat exceptional circumstances.

Hard to take an article like that seriously when they the facts get in the way, especially in the first paragraph of the article.
 
NeedImprovement said:
Something occurred to me while reading the first part of the linked article quoted by kepha1 in post # 3. This part here :

is a good example how in a debate we can sometimes get locked into using someone elses limited terminology. In fact, no one takes a sacrament. We *receive *a sacrament ; and/or celebrate a sacrament.

We take what we own or think we desrve; we receive a gift. One might argue first off that the person lacks any real objectivity for their criticism since they have no subjective knowledge of the sacraments, and thus as kepha1 observes " whoever authored this trash has no clue as to what a sacrament is."

Now, have one more look - kepha1 says “whoever authored this trash” and you Marc Anthony in the original post said, “…there is no reason *this person’s *interpretation of the Bible is any more valid…”

The Protestant you’re debating with doesn’t even identify “who” wrote the article and neither does the article itself identify “who” wrote the article. Maybe you could ask her if she can identify “who” actually wrote the article. The web site doesn’t provide a name.

It is unfortunate in debates with those who criticize us Catholics that we can’t find more things to agree on, but one sure-fire method of defusing an opponent’s argument is if you can dismantle their credibility. For this you need to go to the source - “who” wrote the article.

In the limited time I have available today , I noticed that someone named Robert Michael Zins seems to be the site’s/organization’s founder and that “…CWRC, A Christian Witness To Roman Catholicism, is a 501-C-3 entity working under the auspices of Reformed Bible Church of North Clarendon, Vermont, along with the guided care of an independent advisory board. There are also several Christian men who serve as consultants and as contributors to this ministry”

I would say someone among them - or a combination of them wrote the article. Perhaps you could ask your fellow debatee - a Christian, who obviously puts her religious trust in this entity of persons, why she would ever question your doing exactly the same with our holy Catholic Church. [It’s that same argument you stated in post#1 - just worded a little differently]

Finally, although they don’t call it that, you could probably get her to agree that the Baptism she herself received is a sacrament:

Give the one line definition that a sacrament is a sense perceptible sign which effects what it signifies.

Then when she admits being baptized, explain to her that this is also her definition - either that, or she believes that plain water in and of itself has a supernatural effect when we wash with it, rinse with it, or when we are immersed in it.

To emphasize the ignorance of the author(s) whose article link she sent, you might explain to her that you do not belong to the Roman Catholic Church; you belong to the Catholic Church - Roman Rite, and that in some of the various other eastern rites of the Catholic Church (in full communion with Rome), it is permissible for a married man to become a priest (but usually not a bishop) …grigaitis.net/articles/immersion.html

What requires the most skill of all, is our approach - it cannot be like theirs : The objective is not to attack their faith (as they do ours), but to attack their attacks on our faith.
Click to expand...
Excellent point on receiving sacraments rather than taking. Just to point out however one may receive all seven sacraments, a married man may receive Holy Orders as a permanent deacon. Or a widower may also be ordained.
 
Marc_Anthony said:
Salve,

I’m debating a Protestant right now. She sent me this link:

cwrc-rz.org/articles/article-001.php

to prove her point after I sent her, like, 20 links. I already refuted it by saying basically that there is no reason this person’s interpretation of the Bible is any more valid than anybody else’s, so why should I beleive him over a 2000 year old infallible Church, but I would appreciate more specific refutations of certain points made in the article to use. Thanks a lot in advance.
Click to expand...
What your Protestant friend probably does not understand is the true nature of the Church Jesus established.

Since the Church on earth is the “fullness of Christ,” the prolongation on earth of the Word Incarnate, we should expect to find verified in her that combination of the human and the divine, the visible and invisible, which is the proper note of the Incarnation. It is peculiar to the mixed nature of man that he perceives the things of the intellect through the medium of the senses, the things of the spirit through things material, the invisible things of God through the things that are made. Hence God in his loving wisdom sent His Son in human flesh, that through Him we might be brought to the knowledge and love of the invisible God. This incarnational or sacramental dispensation he has willed to continue to the end of time, and it is in the Church of Christ that it is embodied.

As it is of the essence of man to be body and soul, as in Christ the visible human nature and the invisible Divinity were personally and indissolubly united, so in the Church of Christ there is the human and the divine, the visible and invisible. It is of the essence of the Church that her members live by the invisible, divine life of grace. It is equally essential to her that her members are visibly united by external bonds, subject to the same visible authority. The same conclusion - that the Church is essentially visible and invisible - follows from the general consideration one can make from the reading St. Paul’s epistle concerning Christ’s Mystical Body. We are not isolated in the work of our salvation; our redemption is social and organic in character. If we human beings are united with Christ and with each other in receiving the fruits of the redemption, then we form a visible society; for it is natural for men to be grouped together by visible means, to be governed by a visible authority. God deals with men according to their nature; and a society among men is naturally visible and external.
 
DCNBILL said:
Excellent point on receiving sacraments rather than taking. Just to point out however one may receive all seven sacraments, a married man may receive Holy Orders as a permanent deacon. Or a widower may also be ordained.
Click to expand...
I have several good friends who are married permanent deacons (had coffee with one after Mass this morning). I don’t think they would be too impressed to have learned that the permanent diaconate was not mentioned in my post…:ouch:

There are also some former Anglican priests who are married and who have been ordained as Catholic priests. It is quite rare , and done on a case by case basis.

ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/storyv2/CTVNews/20091031/catholic_anglican_091031?s_name=&no_ads=

amherstdaily.com/Faith/2009-08-10/article-378072/Former-Anglican-priest-ordained-as-PEIs-first-married-Roman-Catholic-priest/1

catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=31170&wf=rsscol
 
A few things that stood out to me:

“Christians, trusting in the Bible alone for salvation and sanctification, understand that heaven is given to lost sinners on the basis of faith alone in the finished work of Jesus Christ alone. Such faith consists in confidence that Christ alone, at His cross, suffered and died for all of the sins of His Church which is the Body of Christ. Such a faith completely trusts in the promises of God in Christ Jesus. One such assurance is eternal forgiveness of all sins and punishments based entirely upon the satisfaction of Christ’s death.”

This says that all sins are forgiven. Ask your friend if unrepented sins are forgiven. She will probably say no, and if she says one has to repent, that is a work which flies right in the face of the whole faith alone theory.

It also says that most of our Biblical justification for the Sacraments are based on “one or two misinterpreted or misapplied Bible Verses.” Throughout the 4 Gospels and Acts, there are more than enough verses that describe explicitly and subtly the Sacraments.

Another error, the mass itself is not a sacrament. The mass is a prayer in which we receive (great post BTW) a Sacrament.

Here’s a great paragraph that completely contradicts itself within a few sentences:

“However, due to the nagging sin that ever remains a part of our fleshly existence, there is a need of cleansing. This cleansing of sin is experienced throughout the Christian life by confessing our sins to one another and seeking reconciliation with God by confessing our sins to Him. There is no need for an earthly mediator.”

If there is no need for an Earthly mediator, why confess our sins to one another? Is that not what happens in a confessional? Last time I went to confession, that’s pretty much how it went down.
 
Marc_Anthony said:
Salve,

I’m debating a Protestant right now. She sent me this link:

cwrc-rz.org/articles/article-001.php

to prove her point after I sent her, like, 20 links. I already refuted it by saying basically that there is no reason this person’s interpretation of the Bible is any more valid than anybody else’s, so why should I beleive him over a 2000 year old infallible Church, but I would appreciate more specific refutations of certain points made in the article to use. Thanks a lot in advance.
Click to expand...
The first thing I would like her to establish before going into any great debate with her would be challenging the implied claim that Catholics are not Christian. Have her explain why they are not. If she believes there was never a point in time that Catholics were Christians, then ask her to establish any evidence of christianity from the time Jesus died up to the Reformation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top