What Percent Can Defend Their Faith?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cordelil
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Cordelil

Guest
Marcus Grodi in one of his “Journey Home” dialogs spoke with a young man Skylar Testa. During the course of their exchange Testa made the comment that only 2% can adequately defend their faith or something to that affect. Grodi responded somewhat curtly “yes, we have some work to do.” Frankly, at times I have wondered the same thing. How many take their Catholic faith seriously, assiduously study the essentials of it, and can defend it if need be? Hopefully, it’s higher than 2%.
 
Too often the defense of Christian Faith comes down to verbal argument or discussion, and it is not POSITIVLEY attractive because WEAKNESS IS ALWAYS PROVACTIVE in a very negative sense.

It is the single failure of Christianity that some of its basic tenets are (I believe mistakenly) sold as subservience and submission, and thereby creating the*** need ***to be defended, while at the same time, the Christian/Catholic people variously flourish and, in serving their GOD through their Christianity, seek to help those who are not. Christianity should be a nation’s or a people’s stregnth. It should be the island that others are left to swim up to.

I don’t hear much in the way apologetics for any other religion. If you consider the religion at the end of the sword trick that Islam regularly plays but the complete off-set in the way it is compared with Christianity, especially Catholicism, I think you can readily sample this failure.

Defend your faith not with indifference then, but a little more tough-love.

When forming interactive societies one maxim maintains the balance of individuals when
commingled pairs form larger groups. That maxim is simply:

“I WILL NOT PAY TO RAISE-UP AN ARMY AGAINST MYSELF.” (TERMS, J.M.Thomas R., 2012)
 
It’s a little disheartening to find that so few of us really can defend our faith. That said, in my limited experience of trying to take up the fight, I have found that I myself am often ill equipped to defend my faith against the faithless or the anti-catholic. I will be looking at “New Proof for the Existence of God” by Robert J. Spitzer to try and gain some insight to those arguments where evidence is required. I don’t need the proof, but I need to know how to form the arguments and tailor the discussion to not come off looking like someone who just “lives in a fantasy land.”
 
I think by reading the works of Dave Armstong, Peter Kreeft, and Alan Schreck, have helped me a great deal in able to fend off challenges made by people of other faiths, even though in my case they have occurred infrequently.

When I went through RCIA 3 decades ago my knowledge of the Catholic faith could fit in a thimble. Fortunately, being a reader I was able to educate myself after being confronted by some Protestant fundalmentlists at work. If memory serves me right they were challenging the authority of the pope. They didn’t agree with me but I was a able to put forth my case in a coherent fashion. Studying apologetics pays off.
 
Seems when I read a title - an answer pops into my head…and then reading the OP requires something different…🤷

In answer to the title, I would say that 100% of people can defend their faith. The question then simply becomes what IS their faith.

Of course the OP is asking about those who claim the title of Catholic and how well can they share THE Catholic faith. I must say that the 2% figure doesn’t sound all that far fetched to me.

Peace
James
 
Perhaps the 2% estimate is a reflection of this Testa’s perspective. Is he an apologist who regularly deals with protestant objections and challenges to the Faith? Is so, that would probably explain the 2% estimate.

IMO, the Church does a fair job in preparing her adherents to defend the Faith against challenges from outside the Bible–against atheists, agnostics, gnostics, materialists, muslims, jews, and the like–where we can defend the Faith, by explaining the salvation narrative, doctrinal concepts, Church structure, history, the growth from the OT to the New Covenant, and the like.

Where the Church has been rather lacking in her response (IMO), is in preparing her members against attack mostly from protestants. That’s why so many of us have to do so much extra research on our own, in order to address the attacks by protestants.

The sad thing about protestants, is that their view of evangelization is mostly based on poaching Catholics, rather than targeting muslims, jews, hindus, buddhists, atheists, agnostics, etc. Their evangelization often presupposes a familiarity with the Bible.

E.g.–when you talk to protestant missioneries (without them knowing you’re Catholic)–the impression they often betray, is that they are targeting mostly Catholics. That’s been my experience, anyway. In contrast, Catholic missioneries mostly target lapsed Catholics, and non-Christians (I was one; hence I base this on experience).

Furthering the point–protestant pastors often have this unwritten rule against ‘stealing from another pastor’s flock’. So they don’t actively seek to recruit other protestants–rather they favor fisthing mostly the ‘Sea’ of Rome (pardon the pun).

Not since the counter-reformation has the Church really emphasized the threat of protestantism–opting instead, for a more diplomatic, ‘charitable’ approach, in treating them as ‘seperated brethren’–with very little reciprocity in return, it should be noted.

Hence, IMO, the Church should consider revisiting her view on protestantism, and further consider gearig her defenses towards that battle front, rather than continuing to front ‘the war’ against the non-Christian ideology, while she continues to suffer her worst losses to attack from the rear (so to speak).

IMHO.

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.
 
I’m not sure who would judge whether a faith has been defended successfully.

I always think it’s best that people are simply honest about why they have faith. I sense sometimes in apologetics the answer given is not necessarily the real reason people have the faith that they do. In some cases at least, I think people’s faith precedes learning the apologetic answers to why they have that faith. I’m more interested in getting under the skin of why people believe certain things rather than hearing learned answers trotted out. I think perhaps you can only ever get to the real reasons by getting to know someone well enough that they’ll trust giving you their honest faith history.

Anyway, that’s just my perspective.
 
Well said Michael. I think part of my problem is while I can explain why I have faith, I sometimes get too wrapped up in trying to “win” the argument that I lose sight of what is important. There is a place for apologetics, definately, but faith first!
 
About 20 years ago in Los Angeles there was a talk show on KABC radio called “Religion On The Line” hosted by Dennis Prager. Usually the participants would be 3 clergy: one Protestant, 1 Catholic, and 1 Jewish. The host, Prager, would often comment that many of his callers were former Catholics who were now Protestants. Obviously, it is a field that has been successfully harvested by various denominations for decades now. Many reasons were given for their leaving the Church, but the one I remember is “they didn’t ever have a relationship with Jesus Christ.” Granted, I don’t understand it, but that is what they said.
 
That’s interesting Cordelil, especially given that through the sacraments (particularly communion) we Catholics have a VERY personal relationship with Jesus. I wonder what brought them to that line of thinking.
 
That’s interesting Cordelil, especially given that through the sacraments (particularly communion) we Catholics have a VERY personal relationship with Jesus. I wonder what brought them to that line of thinking.
It’s a canned protestant apologetic, to which I’ve been ‘treated’, a thousand times. They claim that Catholics do not have a personal relationship with Christ, because the Church ‘interferes’, and then boast rather loudly, of their own. Many of these lapsed Catholics either dutifully echoed their indoctrination, or, imo, far more likely than actually ‘towing party line’…

I’d bet at least half of those, were protestants pretending to be lapsed Catholics, in order to foster the myth (remember, he said it was a call-in radio show–anyone can claim to be anyone or anything).

Sure that’s speculation, but not without foundation.

Here’s a line a like to cite on this point:
"You diligently search your scriptures, because you think you will have eternal life through them; but you refuse to come to me, to have life.
John 5:39-40

For perspective:
"You diligently search your scriptures the Bible], because you think you will have eternal life through them; but you refuse to come to me the Eucharist], to have life.
NOTE: ]'s are my addition, soley for perspective.

Nothing any protestant has ever tried to convince me of, has ever even come remotely close, to the relationship one develops with Christ, in and through Eucharistic Adoration.

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.
 
That’s interesting Cordelil, especially given that through the sacraments (particularly communion) we Catholics have a VERY personal relationship with Jesus. I wonder what brought them to that line of thinking.
Yeah, it was a "headscratcher’ every time I heard it.
Two words…Lousy Catechesis…🤷

Peace
James
 
or covert guerilla evangelism.

Afterall, the ‘black legend’ didn’t just perpetuate itself.

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.
I’ve never heard of this…could you expound a bit?

Peace
James
 
I’ve never heard of this…could you expound a bit?

Peace
James
If you’re referring to the ‘black legend’, [edit] see below. If your referring to ‘Guerilla evangelism’–actually, perhaps it should be ‘evangelization’, I’ll refer you to the post just above the one you replied to, as an example–though the term is my own concoction–just joined a couple of existing concepts to develop a point.

Guerilla–fighting dirty, at any cost, without regard to truth, fairness, or the like, because the ‘ends justify the means’;

Hence ‘Guerilla Evangeliaztion’ = engaging in the above, ostensibly in the name of evangelization.

[Edit:] Bear in mind that the concept of ‘evangelization’ to the protestant, mostly means–'luring Catholics (and lapsed catholics) to protestantism.'

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.
 
The Black Legend (Spanish: La leyenda negra) refers to a style of historical writing or propaganda that demonizes the Conquistadores and in particular the Spanish Empire in a politically motivated attempt to incite animosity against Spain. Anti-Spanish propaganda was started in the 16th century when Spain was at its height of political power, by propagandists from rival European powers, namely the Protestant countries of England and the Netherlands, as a means to morally disqualify the country and its people. The Black Legend particularly exaggerates the extent of the activities of the Inquisition, or the treatment of American indigenous subjects in the territories of the Spanish Empire, and non-Catholics such as Protestants and Jews in its European territories.[1][2] The term was coined by Julián Juderías in his 1914 book La leyenda negra y la verdad histórica (“The Black Legend and Historical Truth”). A more pro-Spanish historiographical school emerged as a reaction, especially within Spain, but also in the Americas. The style which describes events of Spanish colonization in an exaggeratedly idealized manner has been referred to as the “White legend”.[3]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Legend

*Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum. *
 
That’s interesting Cordelil, especially given that through the sacraments (particularly communion) we Catholics have a VERY personal relationship with Jesus. I wonder what brought them to that line of thinking.
I suppose the grain of truth in the accusation is that some Catholics don’t feel they can approach God directly (outside of sacraments administered by a priest) for forgiveness of serious sin. I have heard some say that a direct personal relationship with God can only occur when in a state of grace - that they believe God won’t even hear the personal prayer of those in a state of serious sin.
 
Thanks for the clarification Goya.

Our two experiences have obviously been quite different. I find very little of what you define as “guerrilla evangelization”. Rather I see many who are honestly trying to bring others closer to Christ.

The reason that they seem to find Catholics to be such “easy pickings” is, in large part, simply because of what I said earlier. Lousy Catechesis. But this is also too simple.

You brought out an interesting point above about people who claim to be “former Catholics” who did not have a relationship with Christ.
One has to ask - what sort of “former Catholics” could these be? My guess is that they are largely cradle Catholics who’s families did not really practice the faith, go to mass regularly, prayed at home etc…
I heard a number some time ago that said something like 20% of Catholics in the U.S. attend mass regularly. Well if 80 percent of those who identify as Catholic don’t even attend mass…is it any wonder that they don’t have a “personal relationship” with Christ??

Bottom line in this is that I don’t choose to blame those doing the evangelizing for Catholics leaving the Church. The problem being discussed here is defense and in the case of defending the faith, one needs to actually believe it, and to embrace it and to learn it.

Just some thoughts.

Peace
James
 
If by “defend their faith,” you mean being able to rattle off little lines of reasoning from pamphlets or Catholic answers tracts, then yes, 2% seems about right.

As for the other 98%, I hope they choose not to to engage in worthless intellectual games which in the end only seem to make me feel better about my position.

Defending the faith doesn’t mean being able to memorize scripture texts, it means living your life authentically as a Catholic. This is what it means to witness to the world. Not yelling proof-texts through a bullhorn.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top