Why do Protestant Apologists feel the need to lie about history and the Catholic Church?

[myfavoritmartin]

Nella said that only Christ can be an intercessor. You say that people other than Christ can be intercessors, but only in this life. It’s a completely different argument.

Edwin

Your right, my guess is Nella meant mediator!

Yes, but Mary and other saints are mediators in Catholic theology in the sense of “intercessors,” so I actually think Nella is cutting across some terminological confusion and laying bare the problem with the Protestant critique here.

Agreed, and that critique is begining to hold more and more weight, with the “development” of the attempted co-mediator doctrines, (my POV a further wedge and a dangerous unscriptural direction) though I understand the maxim of tradition that these doctrines need not be scripturally based or historically based.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

"Why should I believe Christianity is true when you Christians can’t even agree unamimously on almost anything amongst yourselves about how one should be a Christian?

How one SHOULD be a Christian is NOT the question!
How Can I, or WHY should I is what they ask…Trust me I’ve been out there…

 

[Contarini]

Agreed, and that critique is begining to hold more and more weight, with the “development” of the attempted co-mediator doctrines,

Actually “co-mediator” is not a term. “Co-redemptrix” and “Mediatrix of all graces” are the terms, I believe. I do not think we can expect any further dogmatic statements on either of these points, in spite of the efforts of some zealous Catholics.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

If these differences aren’t important why did the people who founded your denomination break away from the Catholics in the first place? And why don’t you join up with them and all the other Christians now, and just throw out all those unimportant things you disagree with them on?

The answer to that last question is for many of us “we’d be happy to, but they won’t agree to that.” Nor, I should add, do I think Catholics have any obligation to do so. But it is not incoherent to say that on our part we think all Christians who profess the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds should reunite, but that on your part you ask for a more detailed set of doctrinal agreements.

Edwin

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Actually “co-mediator” is not a term. “Co-redemptrix” and “Mediatrix of all graces” are the terms, I believe. I do not think we can expect any further dogmatic statements on either of these points, in spite of the efforts of some zealous Catholics.

Edwin

I hope not!
True it’s not an actual term(my mind was on coredemtrix,different issue) forgive me, but what the vatican says about
mediator cooperation surely walks close to that line!

970 "Mary’s function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes** this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power. But the Blessed Virgin’s salutary influence on men** . . . flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on his mediation, depends entirely on it, and draws all its power from it."511 “No creature could ever be counted along with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer; but just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by his ministers and the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is radiated in different ways among his creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source.”

 

[Petergee]

How one SHOULD be a Christian is NOT the question!
How Can I, or WHY should I is what they ask…Trust me I’ve been out there…

Yes, that’s exactly what I said: “**Why should I believe Christianity is true **when you Christians can’t even agree unamimously on almost anything amongst yourselves about how one should be a Christian?”

 

[Petergee]

The answer to that last question is for many of us “we’d be happy to, but they won’t agree to that.” Nor, I should add, do I think Catholics have any obligation to do so. But it is not incoherent to say that on our part we think all Christians who profess the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds should reunite, but that on your part you ask for a more detailed set of doctrinal agreements.

Edwin

It seems incoherent to me. The Creeds raise as many questions as they answer, or more. e.g. They don’t explicitly mention any of the Sacraments. Some Christians profess all 7 sacraments, some none of them. Who should toss their doctrines aside? Who is to decide such questions, and why? You may as well say “All Christians who believe in the Bible should reunite”.

And the obvious rejoinder is “the founders of your denomination also said they believed in the creeds, but thought that the doctrines which divide them from the Catholics were very important. Why is it now OK to toss them aside?”

 

[Contarini]

It seems incoherent to me. The Creeds raise as many questions as they answer, or more. e.g. They don’t explicitly mention any of the Sacraments. Some Christians profess all 7 sacraments, some none of them. Who should toss their doctrines aside? Who is to decide such questions, and why? You may as well say “All Christians who believe in the Bible should reunite”.

And the obvious rejoinder is “the founders of your denomination also said they believed in the creeds, but thought that the doctrines which divide them from the Catholics were very important. Why is it now OK to toss them aside?”

Because they were wrong. And as a matter of fact, as an Anglican who is a Wesleyan by theology and has some involvement with the United Methodist Church, your premise is not entirely true of the “founders” of either of my “denominations.” The reasons for Canterbury’s split from Rome were complex, but at no point did the Church of England take the official stance that Rome’s doctrines were heretical. The Articles do condemn certain “Romish” doctrines, but at no point were these doctrinal disagreements cited on the Anglican side as the reason for separation.

The case of Wesley is clearer. He insisted that what was most important for Methodists was what they shared with other Christians, not what divided them from others. Indeed, he went so far as to claim that Methodists had no distinctive doctrines of their own, which wasn’t entirely true.

I don’t claim that your statement doesn’t apply to Anglicans and Methodists at all. As I said, the Articles to register some sharp disagreements with Rome, and Wesley clearly said that he believed in private judgment and that the split from Rome was justified. However, you would have a lot more traction making this argument against Lutherans or Calvinists. The form(s) of Protestantism with which I identify myself have historically distinguished themselves by an attempt to emphasize commonalities with other Christians (this is why both traditions have found it particularly hard to resist liberal theology).

Edwin

 

[Zooey]

If you’re talking to me, of course I want protestants to recognise me as a Christian. But what I want, and what I think a lot of other people want, is this:
We have heard the rational arguments which Catholic apologists advance for the truth of Catholicism, and they seem pretty convincing. Now, to make sure we have made a completely fair and thorough investigation of such a vitally, indeed eternally, important topic, we would like to read some rational arguments by non-Catholic apologists about why Catholicism is not true. But they do not seem to exist.

After all if one only read the arguments put forward by the proponents of any religion or anything else, and did not hear anything against it from the other side, it would be possible for almost anything to sound convincing.

For starters, most nonCatholic apologists write more books & spend less time on the 'Net.
But this comes back to the fact that for most nonCatholic Christians, the point of apologetics is NOT to convert, (nor even to argue with) Catholics. The point is to reach out to those who are in other faith traditions, or who have no faith at all. (Part of the reason being, that we are less sanguine about the possibility of salvation of those in nonChristian religions, than most Catholics are).
I understand that the Catholic position is different. I respect that; your desire to draw others into the ark of safety as you define it, is commendable.
As a Methodist, I look at Catholics, & see fellow Christian believers, while out there in the wild world there are still people who have never even heard the Name of Christ (except, possibly, as a swear word), & I see no point in trying to make Methodists of people who have at least as much chance at Heaven as Wesleyans do. For what?? You’re all ready in the family!! We love you. We look forward to sitting with you at the Lord’s feet one day.
I know its a different paradigm, but its where I’m coming from.

Mary is indeed the Queen of Heaven mentioned in BOTH testaments:
One of the Messianic Psalms applied to Christ is Psalms 45:6-7 which cited in Hebrews 1:8-9. Coincidentally, Psalms 45:9 also mentions the Queen who sits at His right hand in gold of Ophir. While the Hebrew word for queen in this verse is shegal, to Catholics this verse also refers to the Queenship of Mary in heaven. In the book of Jeremiah in verses 7:18; 44:17, 19, 25, the word translated as queen in “queen of heaven” is not gebira but melekheth and is therefore not applicable to Mary. After all, if there are false Christs (or Messiahs) and false prophets (Matthew 24:24) it should not surprise us that we also have false queens.

…on our part we think all Christians who profess the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds should reunite, but that on your part you ask for a more detailed set of doctrinal agreements.

This is quite true, & again, this is a difference that we need to recognize!

 

[mozart-250]

OK, but if I were a heathen and they were trying to convert me, my obvious questions would be:

"Why should I believe Christianity is true when you Christians can’t even agree unamimously on almost anything amongst yourselves about how one should be a Christian?

Why should I join your denomination and not one of the thousands of others whose beliefs contradict yours? Especially when your denomination is one of the smaller and newer ones?

Yup…divisions have consequences.

However the Protestant apologists I mentioned aren’t really apologists for their respective denominations (meaning they are trying to convert folks to their denomination as opposed to Christianity in general). In fact I am not sure what denominations Josh McDowell and Ravi Zacacharius belong to. I am quite sure Billy Graham is Southern Baptist, but again he is not seeking converts to the Southern Baptist denomination.

Are you really telling me that all the contradictions between different denominations don’t matter, as long as someone is some type of Christian then anything else they do is valid and okay and truthful?

I would say that the contradictions are much less important than the differences that separate Christianity from heathenism. It would think that is the position a typical mainline Evangelical or Protestant apologist would take, which is why we don’t spend much bandwidth promoting our particular denomination and attacking others.

If these differences aren’t important why did the people who founded your denomination break away from the Catholics in the first place?

Dunno. My denomination is a couple generations removed from the split from Catholicism. In the end the reasons for break ups don’t interest me all that much. The reality is that the church of Jesus Christ today is divided into a gazillion distinct ecclesiastical organizations. Deal with it.

I’m not sure that this is what Christ had in mind when He designed the church, but I didn’t create this and it is what it is.

And why don’t you join up with them and all the other Christians now, and just throw out all those unimportant things you disagree with them on?

Is the “you” me or is it Protestants? For the “me” answer is that I can only belong to one group at a time unless you can invent cloning. If the answer is a generic “you” I dunno for sure. I can speculate that from a business perspective the cost of merging organizations is costly and maybe the benefits aren’t worth the cost.

You can ask this question on entities other than denominations. Why does New England have to be divided into 6 dinky states for example. Since they are all socialist states, can’t they put aside their differences, merge, and form the state of New Sweden.

In short how can all or any of these types of Christianity be true when they contradict each other? How can truth contradict truth?"

Well they can’t all be totally true.

Statistically it is highly improabable that any one denomination has a corner on all of thel truth. Divisions have consequences.

But still all the orthodox denominations have enough truth in them that you can be a member in good conscience and have faith unto salvation in Jesus Christ. I can be thankful for that.

Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate that these guys are not trying to convert Catholics, but to say they “are not concerned with Catholicism” is a cop-out. I can appreciate someone like CS Lewis who as he put it, takes his readers to the vestibule of Christianity and leaves them to choose which door to take, but one must choose a door.

Most Protestant apologists that I respect anyway think along the lines of CS Lewis.

 

[Petergee]

If a heathen said “OK I think I’m ready to believe in Christ, but there are so many denominations and their different beliefs are so confusing and contradictory. Which one should I choose? How should I decide between them? Or should I just pick one at random because the differences bewteeen them are all about minor things which don’t really matter?”
What would a moderate mainstream protestant apologist say?

 

[Atemi]

There are countless anti-Catholic websites on the net, all of which contain nothing but lies against the RCC. They do this by grossly misrepresenting Catholic Doctrine, or by simply making up their own history; a history that conflicts with all modern historical evidence. These lies have obviously disseminated throughout the Protestant laity; however I’m not blaming them, they are the product of a 500 year propaganda campaign. Why is there this culture of misinformation among Protestantism?

You should stop and think and recognize that there are non-Catholic Christians that feel exactly the same way about much of the modern RC apologetic.

Of course, when we think everything we believe is perfectly accurate, then anyone else who says otherwise suddenly becomes a “liar.”

…

 

[Contarini]

If a heathen said “OK I think I’m ready to believe in Christ, but there are so many denominations and their different beliefs are so confusing and contradictory. Which one should I choose? How should I decide between them? Or should I just pick one at random because the differences bewteeen them are all about minor things which don’t really matter?”
What would a moderate mainstream protestant apologist say?

That’s a pretty artificial situation. Generally people come to Christ through the witness of Christians and accept the form of Christianity through which they were evangelized.

In the hypothetical case you mention, I’d say, “Be Catholic.”

Edwin

 

[juliamajor]

I’m waiting to hear what the lies are that Protestants alledge against the RCC?? Simple.

Did you ever hear of “the Black Legend”? fueled many centuries of anti catholicism( it started a a protestant nationalist ploy in england against their prime enemy Spain) and grew from there to the point that it influenced and continues to influence both protestant and secularists that have an axe to grind.

 

[Petergee]

You should stop and think and recognize that there are non-Catholic Christians that feel exactly the same way about much of the modern RC apologetic.

Of course, when we think everything we believe is perfectly accurate, then anyone else who says otherwise suddenly becomes a “liar.”

…

For the hundredth time, we are** not **talking about disagreements over doctrines.

 

[Petergee]

That’s a pretty artificial situation. Generally people come to Christ through the witness of Christians and accept the form of Christianity through which they were evangelized.

In the hypothetical case you mention, I’d say, “Be Catholic.”

Edwin

Great, but I don’t think it’s artificial at all. I can well imagine saying that, if I hadn’t been brought up a Christian. And I have heard non-Christians say similar things many times. In fact for many people this seems to be their main objection to Christianity - “If you Christians can’t even decide among yourselves where the truth lies, in fact you’ve got thousands of different versions of it, why should I think any of you have the truth?”

 

[Atemi]

For the hundredth time, we are** not **talking about disagreements over doctrines.

Either am I.

…

 

[mozart-250]

If a heathen said “OK I think I’m ready to believe in Christ, but there are so many denominations and their different beliefs are so confusing and contradictory. Which one should I choose? How should I decide between them? Or should I just pick one at random because the differences bewteeen them are all about minor things which don’t really matter?”
What would a moderate mainstream protestant apologist say?

I do agree with Edwin in that converts generally follow those doing the converting.

But this is an interesting hypothetical nonetheless.

Certainly I would welcome him to my church, well aware however, that this might not be the will of God for this particular person.

If this convert had a background of any of the denominations in my area, I might also suggest a denomination compatible with his background.

If this convert had absolutely no Christian background, while welcoming him to my church, I would also give him the names of the 10-12 other Trininitarian churches in my area (I might however steer clear of the 1-2 churches in my area that are overtly liberal). I would tell him that he most certainly could not go wrong selecting any of these churches and would assure him that the Holy Spirit would most certainly guide him wherever he is to end up.

 

[Contarini]

Great, but I don’t think it’s artificial at all. I can well imagine saying that, if I hadn’t been brought up a Christian. And I have heard non-Christians say similar things many times. In fact for many people this seems to be their main objection to Christianity - “If you Christians can’t even decide among yourselves where the truth lies, in fact you’ve got thousands of different versions of it, why should I think any of you have the truth?”

But is this really what someone inclined to convert to Christianity would say?

If you hadn’t been brought up as a Christian, you would have encountered Christianity in some particular context. You can’t deal with questions of conversion in the abstract, because conversion is never abstract.

Yes, there are people who “read themselves into the Faith,” but they’re relatively rare.

Edwin

 

[qui_est_ce]

You should stop and think and recognize that there are non-Catholic Christians that feel exactly the same way about much of the modern RC apologetic.

Of course, when we think everything we believe is perfectly accurate, then anyone else who says otherwise suddenly becomes a “liar.”

…

Nowhere in this thread nor in modern cc apologetics is misinformation or lies spread. Old or new, apolgetics, by definition is:
. The term comes from the Greek word apologia (απολογία), meaning defense of a position against an attack. Wikipedia
We welcome all to this forum to express their views. There have been many errors (heresies) over the centuries about the nature of the Divinity. Heresy is defined as the teaching of a false belief. Many denimations today (JV’s, Mormons) are actually the same old doctrinal errors found in the early Church (Nestorianism-rejection of Mary as Theotokos, Ariansim-rejection of divinity of Christ).

I would like you to show me where official Catholic teaching attacks with mistruths other faiths. Jesus answered him, “If I have spoken wrongly, testify to the wrong; but if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?” (John 18:23).