Understanding Roman Catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sirach14
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Sirach14

Guest
A few years back I debated ex-Catholic Rick Jones, author of “Understanding Roman Catholicism”. Jones tells everyone if they want to know what the Catholic Church teaches to read his book.
I expected to read a book with some scholarship, and a knowledge of what the RCC teaches.
Jones has failed on both accounts. I found the book to be on a sixth grade level. Maybe this was my predjudice. Read a few excerpts of the book for youself, and you decide.
I believe that Jones welcomes debate.
chick.com/reading/books/160/160cont.asp
 
While the lies propogated in this book should give me pause to worry…as there are those who would be led astray by it…I actually had to smile a few times. I just looked at a few chapters…but the scholarship is more than laughable. He distortes Catholic teaching beyond imagining…
This is the first time I’ve seen an anti-Catholic claim that the Church teaches that all Catholics shall be saved.
 
Well, the first thing I noticed was that it was on the Chick publications web site. I thought twice, but I read a couple of exerpts as you suggested. What ignorance, complete ignorance. I will not bother to address anything there because I don’t think that there are many people looking for accurate info on the Catholic Church from Chick Publications. This amounts to Trash, pure trash.:tsktsk:
 
Aaaaaarghh…

If his story about being raised Roman Catholic is true (which his constant use of the term “Roman” Catholic makes me doubt), then he was poorly catechized, that’s for sure. It does bother me that such goofballs are out there spreading that garbage. The answer—and antidote, and vaccination—is catechesis, catechesis, catechesis.
 
40.png
Sirach14:
A few years back I debated ex-Catholic Rick Jones, author of “Understanding Roman Catholicism”. Jones tells everyone if they want to know what the Catholic Church teaches to read his book.
I expected to read a book with some scholarship, and a knowledge of what the RCC teaches.
Jones has failed on both accounts. I found the book to be on a sixth grade level. Maybe this was my predjudice. Read a few excerpts of the book for youself, and you decide.
I believe that Jones welcomes debate.
chick.com/reading/books/160/160cont.asp
Click to expand...
I read just a few pages and found these arguements illinformed and, as you seemed to suggest, childish. I feel sorry for people who are niave enough to jump in this guys boat.

Michael
 
Who is The Final Authority?
Click to expand...
Before we begin our examination of specific Roman Catholic doctrines, we must determine who will be the final authority.
Click to expand...
Here we encounter our first major discrepancy. The Bible maintains that it is the one and only final authority, while Catholicism teaches that three final authorities exist. The 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church declares:
“It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.” (Pg. 29, #95)
Click to expand...
According to this passage, the Scriptures, church tradition (teachings handed down through the ages), and the Magisterium (the task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God) are all equal in importance. (See also Pg. 25, #82.)
Click to expand...
Where?
I know of no place in all the Bible where it makes such a claim.
 
There are ex-Catholics who read something like this Jones tract and think that what is stated is true. No amount of trying to convince them otherwise has any effect. It is a real concern that this is yet another in the Chick Publications stable of lies and poor scholarship. After reading bits and pieces of this tract I felt as though I had been reading an entirely different Catechism.

Most of the things that came to my mind have already been mentioned by others who have replied to this thread:
  1. Jack Chick Publications is the publisher.
  2. The assertions of what is in the Bible without any verses as support for the assertion.
  3. The distortion of the Scripture, the CCC and the Vatican II documents.
I did not look to far, because I could almost imagine how the Virgin Mary has been handled.

The sad part is that there are people out there who actually believe everything that comes from Chick Publications. A sadder fact is that there really are ex-Catholics who do make these false claims in real life and over the Internet.

MaggieOH
 
If I’m going to learn what Mormons truly believe, a good place to start would be the Book of Mormon.

If I’m going to learn what Jehovah Witnesses believe, I better read the Watchtower.

My response to those that would claim this garbage actually represents catholic belief would be…if you truly want to know what catholics believe, then read the Catechism.

Surely, if they go ahead and read the Catechism they will run into some stumbling blocks, but at least any discussion from that point on would be based on reality - not this phony version of catholicism.
 
Why do people want to believe, much less propagate, such misinformation and malignant nonsense?
 
I think it is a tactic that makes it easier to protect their own followers from challenges to THEIR belief system.

If they can set up catholic straw men that are easy to knock down, laugh at, mock, and wonder at their stupidity - how much easier is it to then sell their brand of doctrine to their “sheep?”

If they venture into a true effort of genuine understanding - of study - of reflecting on genuine arguments made from scripture, tradition, and history…well then, that is much more difficult isn’t it?
 
40.png
Lorarose:
I think it is a tactic that makes it easier to protect their own followers from challenges to THEIR belief system.

If they can set up catholic straw men that are easy to knock down, laugh at, mock, and wonder at their stupidity - how much easier is it to then sell their brand of doctrine to their “sheep?”

If they venture into a true effort of genuine understanding - of study - of reflecting on genuine arguments made from scripture, tradition, and history…well then, that is much more difficult isn’t it?
Click to expand...
This is a thoughtful response and doubless largely correct. But having come from an anti-Catholic background myself, I know that there is a milieu in which people simply ASSUME that the Catholic Church is wrong, so any half-baked untruth makes sense. It’s a wonder anybody ever gets past that.
 
Jones’s book is particularly easy to shoot down, because he flatly contradicts himself. At one point he criticizes Catholics because they don’t believe they can be certain of their salvation, and at another point he accuses them of believing that everyone who is baptized is certain of their salvation!

In Christ,

Edwin
 
This is a thoughtful response and doubless largely correct. But having come from an anti-Catholic background myself, I know that there is a milieu in which people simply ASSUME that the Catholic Church is wrong, so any half-baked untruth makes sense. It’s a wonder anybody ever gets past that.
Click to expand...
That sorta gets back to my point.
You were fed this information by whom? Why would you have questioned it? You trusted those in authority who taught it to you.
It’s much…easier that way.

It would be much more difficult for an anti-catholic congregation, for example, to thumb throught the catholic catechism and shoot it down, point by point, based on scripture, tradition, and history.
 
The problem is that as practicing Catholics, we know to avoid Chick publications - Protestants and non-practicing Catholics don’t. We know how to knock down his arguments - non-practicing Catholics don’t. They see the books title think they are reading a good source.

It’s unfortunate that books like these exist. I pray that people stumble onto better sources.

Pax,

Robert.
 
I know several people , including a family member, who belong to a church called simply “The Church in Boston”, or “The Church in Dallas”, etc. whose beliefs about Catholicism are at the Jack Chick level you cite in your post. They’re associated with a group called Living Stream Ministry, and are an outgrowth of a Chinese group once headed by a man who called himself Watchman Nee.

Nee was Chinese, and apparently was “brought to Christ” by Baptist missionaries. He in turn sent missionaries to the US, and they’ve spread out in this country from roots apparently planted in Anaheim, CA.

Many of the members I’ve met were brought up Catholics, at least some in quite conservative homes, but they nonetheless espouse this sort of wildly distorted trash as the teaching of the Church. I don’t know what to make of these people or how to address them. Any suggestions?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top