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

[Petergee]

Umm…which protestants here claimed there were mainstream protestant sites which refute Catholicism without resorting to obvious lies about history and Catholic doctrines.

Please supply the quotes.

You seem to have forgotten that before this thread was derailed, SyCarl made this claim in posts 2 and 21, Allforhim made it in post 53, and you yourself made it in posts 14 and 23. But when Proletarian and I called you on it, you came up with nothing but diversions.

BTW I could point you to web sites that disagree with Catholicism but do not obviously lie about Catholicism. R,C, Sproul comes to mind perhaps, I wouldn’t call him unduly preoccupied with Catholicism, and he certainly is nowhere near like the fringe websites posted here.

You and your mates keep telling us what you “could” point to, and then decline to actually point to them, even though you have been repeatedly asked to do so. You have continually asserted that these rational anti-Catholic apologetics exist. WHERE ARE THEY?

 

[mozart-250]

You seem to have forgotten that before this thread was derailed, SyCarl made this claim in posts 2 and 21, Allforhim made it in post 53, and you yourself made it in posts 14 and 23. But when Proletarian and I called you on it, you came up with nothing but diversions.

OK…lets go through these posts one by one. They need to contain three things for your charge to be true.
(1) There needs to be mainstream protestants sites
(2) They need to oppose Catholicism
(3) They need to not lie about the Catholic church

Post (2) (SyCarl) says nothing about point 2. It just says there are good and bad Protestant apologists. It does not say the good apologists are anti-Catholic.

Post 14 (Me) says nothing about points 1-3. It just says the web sites posted are wacky

Post 21 (SyCarl) says nothing about points 1-3. It just makes an observation about the sites posted and says these do not represent all Protestants

Post 23 (Me) says nothing about point 2. It just says there are Protestant apologist sites that are not wacky. It does not say they oppose Catholics.

Post 53 (Allforhim) might possibly. But I think most likely she is only saying there are sites out there that disagree with Catholicism, not that are anti-Catholic. If she is saying that, then she not saying point 2 either.

You and your mates keep telling us what you “could” point to, and then decline to actually point to them, even though you have been repeatedly asked to do so. You have continually asserted that these rational anti-Catholic apologetics exist. WHERE ARE THEY?

OK…if you want a link to one, try this. However this is not an anti-Catholic site (my definition of anti-Catholic is the same as Dave Armstrong’s…you believe that Catholicism is an invalid expression of the Christian faith). It is just a site that disagrees with Catholicism on certain points. If you believe that a disagreement with Catholicism makes one anti-Catholic, then we have other issues.

I actually know of no apologetic “Anti-Catholic” (according to the Armstrong definition) web sites that do not to some extent distort the Catholic faith. That is one reason I am not an “Anti-Catholic” BTW; I have not read a credible and logically cohesive apologetic of the Anti-Catholic position.

I think you misunderstand the position of the Protestants here. From what I have read we all have been saying.

• There are rational Protestant apologisits out there. The ones linked here are not typical and rational Protestants.
• The rational Protestants out there are not preoccupied with Catholics. They generally would not make statements like “Catholics are not Christian” or “Catholicism is a cult” or the like (and would disagree with such assertions).
• There are those out there that will express disagreement with the Catholics on various issues. However expressing disagreement is not being Anti-Catholic.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Post 53 (Allforhim) might possibly. But I think most likely she is only saying there are sites out there that disagree with Catholicism, not that are anti-Catholic. If she is saying that, then she not saying point 2 either.

Hi,
Thanks Mozart
Yes that is exactly what I meant.

For Petergee,
Try gotquestins.org

christiananswers.net----there is a section called witnessing to catholics–you can look there.

Thebiblicist.org

The problem I still see being is that if you are not all open to any really good argument against whatever topic–none of the info. there is going to mean anything to you.

Im not really sure you are looking for a good defense because I think you will go into these sites with the attitude that they are wrong anyway. So why bother:shrug:

Happy reading. You will have to look within the sites for catholocism.

 

[Petergee]

OK…if you want a link to one, try this. However this is not an anti-Catholic site (my definition of anti-Catholic is the same as Dave Armstrong’s…you believe that Catholicism is an invalid expression of the Christian faith). It is just a site that disagrees with Catholicism on certain points. If you believe that a disagreement with Catholicism makes one anti-Catholic, then we have other issues.

I actually know of no apologetic “Anti-Catholic” (according to the Armstrong definition) web sites that do not to some extent distort the Catholic faith. That is one reason I am not an “Anti-Catholic” BTW; I have not read a credible and logically cohesive apologetic of the Anti-Catholic position.

I think you misunderstand the position of the Protestants here. From what I have read we all have been saying.

• There are rational Protestant apologisits out there. The ones linked here are not typical and rational Protestants.
• The rational Protestants out there are not preoccupied with Catholics. They generally would not make statements like “Catholics are not Christian” or “Catholicism is a cult” or the like (and would disagree with such assertions).
• There are those out there that will express disagreement with the Catholics on various issues. However expressing disagreement is not being Anti-Catholic.

Nice try but no cigar. I asked for “anti-Catholic apologetics”, i.e. apologetics arguing that Catholicism is wrong. (Partly wrong, of course - it would be absurd to imagine that they must insist that the exact opposite of every thing the Catholic Church says is the truth.)
I did NOT ask for “websites by Anti-Catholics” (people who vilify and persecute Catholics).

And maybe I’m dumb, but I can’t find anything on the page you linked to which remotely resembles a refutation of Catholic doctrines or practices, with or without gross distortions of history and Catholic doctrine.

 

[Proletarian]

Hi,
Thanks Mozart
Yes that is exactly what I meant.

For Petergee,
Try gotquestins.org

christiananswers.net----there is a section called witnessing to catholics–you can look there.

Thebiblicist.org

The problem I still see being is that if you are not all open to any really good argument against whatever topic–none of the info. there is going to mean anything to you.

Im not really sure you are looking for a good defense because I think you will go into these sites with the attitude that they are wrong anyway. So why bother:shrug:

Happy reading. You will have to look within the sites for catholocism.

Thanks for the links ALLFORHIM.

gotquestins.org is relatively sincere , however their lack of official references means that their opinions regarding the Church are very often tainted by a clear bias. christiananswers.net on the other hand does offer many quotes from official church documents; this s what I would consider an honest protestant apologetics resource (with a few acceptations).

I’m not sure what the deal with Thebiblicist.org is; the first link I was presented with was for an online adult shop.

 

[mozart-250]

Nice try but no cigar. I asked for “anti-Catholic apologetics”, i.e. apologetics arguing that Catholicism is wrong. (Partly wrong, of course - it would be absurd to imagine that they must insist that the exact opposite of every thing the Catholic Church says is the truth.)
I did NOT ask for “websites by Anti-Catholics” (people who vilify and persecute Catholics).

And maybe I’m dumb, but I can’t find anything on the page you linked to which remotely resembles a refutation of Catholic doctrines or practices, with or without gross distortions of history and Catholic doctrine.

Well according to some Catholics (Dave Armstrong comes to mind) the definition of anti-Catholic is somebody who believes that the Catholic church not Christian. That is the definition of anti-Catholic that I operate under.

So I don’t know what you want. Is it somebody that disagrees with Catholicism on a point or somebody that believes that Catholicism is basically a false religion. When does a disagreement become a refutation and when does a refutation become anti-Catholicism.

Also the phrase distortion of history and Catholic doctrine is ambiguous. Do you mean intentional or unintentional. How mistaken does the speaker have to be before it is a “gross distortion”? Who makes the call whether a mistake is a gross distortion or not.

But anyway…here is a section of the web site I quoted that discusses Catholicism.

 

[JimG]

christiananswers.net----there is a section called witnessing to catholics–you can look there.

I took a quick look at this site. One of the first things I noticed was a rather lengthy article apparently trying to argue for a young universe as opposed to current scientific theory which would point to an age of about 13 billion years for the universe. I have nothing against the attempt, but it seems like a fruitless exercise.

Then I found this quote from an article about Catholicism:

“While the Catholic catechisms quote the passages that speak of Christ dying once, they also teach that the priest miraculously transforms the bread and wine into Christ’s real body, and that Jesus is then sacrificed anew.”

Catholicism does not teach that Christ is sacrificed anew at every Mass, so this is a misrepresentation or a misunderstanding.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

I took a quick look at this site. One of the first things I noticed was a rather lengthy article apparently trying to argue for a young universe as opposed to current scientific theory which would point to an age of about 13 billion years for the universe. I have nothing against the attempt, but it seems like a fruitless exercise.

Then I found this quote from an article about Catholicism:

“While the Catholic catechisms quote the passages that speak of Christ dying once, they also teach that the priest miraculously transforms the bread and wine into Christ’s real body, and that Jesus is then sacrificed anew.”

Catholicism does not teach that Christ is sacrificed anew at every Mass, so this is a misrepresentation or a misunderstanding.

Hi,

I dont know about the other stuff you first mentioned, but what I quoted above, I have had taught to me by catholics here so you tell me.

Maybe even these forums are not such a good place to get the true teachings of the church.

 

[JimG]

Hi,

I dont know about the other stuff you first mentioned, but what I quoted above, I have had taught to me by catholics here so you tell me.

Maybe even these forums are not such a good place to get the true teachings of the church.

Perhaps it’s a common misunderstanding. Catholic teaching is that the sacrifice of the Mass IS the sacrifice of Christ at Calvary, made present for us. Christ died once; we cannot sacrifice him anew. But he makes it possible for us to be present at his one sacrifice, through the Eucharist.

 

[JimG]

A further thought: Some Catholics may use the term “re-presented” with respect to the Eucharist. i.e. that the sacrifice of Calvary is re-presented at the Mass.

“Re-presented” when used like that does not mean “sacrificed again” or “sacrificed anew.” It means “made present” again.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Perhaps it’s a common misunderstanding. Catholic teaching is that the sacrifice of the Mass IS the sacrifice of Christ at Calvary, made present for us. Christ died once; we cannot sacrifice him anew. But he makes it possible for us to be present at his one sacrifice, through the Eucharist.

Thanks Jim for the explanation.

 

[Petergee]

Well according to some Catholics (Dave Armstrong comes to mind) the definition of anti-Catholic is somebody who believes that the Catholic church not Christian. That is the definition of anti-Catholic that I operate under.

Such people would certainly be Anti-Catholics. (Of course there are also Anti-Catholics who are non-Christian and usually Anti-Christian, who don’t care whether Catholics are Christian or not.)

So I don’t know what you want. Is it somebody that disagrees with Catholicism on a point or somebody that believes that Catholicism is basically a false religion.

I don’t see a difference really. If only one tenet of a religion is false then that religion is to that extent a false religion. Your distinction is just a matter of degrees.

When does a disagreement become a refutation and when does a refutation become anti-Catholicism.

Anti-Catholicism (hatred and vilification of Catholics) is a totally different thing. You can disagree, dispute and refute someone’s beliefs without hating and vilifying him. For example I’m sure you’d agree that the tracts on the CA site stoutly dispute and refute various non-Catholic religions, but they by no means hate or vilify them.

Also the phrase distortion of history and Catholic doctrine is ambiguous. Do you mean intentional or unintentional. How mistaken does the speaker have to be before it is a “gross distortion”? Who makes the call whether a mistake is a gross distortion or not.

If a “mistake” about an important matter of doctrine or history could have been easily checked with reputable authoritative sources and found to be obviously false, then the writer’s failure to correct it is surely intentional. I gave some examples of common gross distortions.

 

[Petergee]

For Petergee,
Try gotquestins.org

christiananswers.net----there is a section called witnessing to catholics–you can look there.

Thebiblicist.org

The problem I still see being is that if you are not all open to any really good argument against whatever topic–none of the info. there is going to mean anything to you.

Im not really sure you are looking for a good defense because I think you will go into these sites with the attitude that they are wrong anyway. So why bother:shrug:

Sure I believe protestantism is wrong. But that won’t make any difference to whether I see any distortions of well-known facts on these sites. And whether they make a good argument or a poor one is immaterial to this point. I assure you I am always fully open to any really good argument, as I think my history on this forum will attest.

 

[Petergee]

Then I found this quote from an article about Catholicism:

“While the Catholic catechisms quote the passages that speak of Christ dying once, they also teach that the priest miraculously transforms the bread and wine into Christ’s real body, and that Jesus is then sacrificed anew.”

Catholicism does not teach that Christ is sacrificed anew at every Mass, so this is a misrepresentation or a misunderstanding.

Also Catholicism does not teach that the priest performs a miracle. God performs the miracle, that is to say he continues to perform the miracle he performed over the three days of the Easter Triduum.

 

[JimG]

Also Catholicism does not teach that the priest performs a miracle. God performs the miracle, that is to say he continues to perform the miracle he performed over the three days of the Easter Triduum.

Yes. It is Jesus who effects the change, by transcending space and time.

I’ve often heard Catholics speak of the miracle of transubstantiation or words to that effect. However, I really don’t like to use the term at all to apply to the Eucharist, for this reason:

In a miracle, as ordinarily understood, people can see that something extraordinary takes place. With the Eucharist, the change cannot be seen, because the appearances of the bread and wine remain the same.

(I’m not counting the documented “Eucharistic miracles”, because in those cases, the appearances change.)

 

[Petergee]

Allforhim,
A quick look at the sites you kindly suggested turned up the following:
gotquestions.org
The first thing I clicked on was:
*“Question: “I am a Catholic, why should I consider becoming a Christian?”

Answer: First, please understand that we intend no offense in the wording of this question. We genuinely receive questions, from Catholics, along the lines of: “What is the difference between Catholics and Christians?” In face-to-face conversations with Catholics, we have literally heard, “I am not a Christian, I am Catholic.” To many Catholics, the terms “Christian” and “Protestant” are synonymous.”!!!*Thanks, that’s the biggest laugh I’ve had all week.

Then it goes on to inform us that “it is abundantly clear that many Catholics do in fact worship Mary.”
And *“Prior to the Constantine’s conversion to Christianity in 315 A.D., Christians had been persecuted by the Roman government. With his conversion Christianity, became an allowed religion of the Roman Empire (and later became the official religion), and the thus “visible” Church became joined with the power of the Roman government. This marriage of church and state led to formation of the Roman Catholic Church, and over time caused the Roman Catholic Church to refine its doctrine and develop its structure in a way that best served the purpose of the Roman government. During this time, opposing the Roman Catholic Church was the same as opposing the Roman Government, and carried with it severe penalties. Therefore, if one disagreed with some doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, it was a serious charge that often resulted in excommunication, and sometimes even death.

Yet throughout this time of history there were true “born again” Christians who would rise up and oppose the secularization of the Roman Catholic Church and the perversion of the faith that followed.”*!!!

christiananswers.net:
“Protestants have historically held Mary in high regard as a godly and highly favored woman of God, a sinner saved by the grace of her divine Son.
Catholic dogma, on the other hand, has exalted her in an irresponsible and idolatrous way.”
*“The Protestant Reformation restored *[sic]to the body of Christ the doctrine of sola scriptura (“Scripture alone”). The Roman Catholic faith has shown a willingness to **raise the pope above Jesus Christ **and the Bible by giving him the right to nullify Scripture through papal decrees.”!!!
*“The Roman Catholic Church does **not *teach its people to have confidence in the full forgiveness of their sins through the death of Christ alone.”
“Catholics are taught that when they die, if they have not committed mortal sins (and with the exception of the special class of believers they call “saints”), all go to the place the church calls purgatory.”!!!

Thebiblicist.org: nothing but tacky ads and garbage.

 

[Petergee]

Another gem from **christiananswers.net **is a tract purportedly written by one Richard Bennett who claims to have been a Dominican priest with many years of theological training, who lacked a degree only because he resisted the offer of his wicked superior to give him a ready-made thesis to present as his own: Years later he starts to read the Bible:

*“I did not know my way through the Bible and the little I had learned over the years had taught me more to distrust it rather than to trust it. My training in philosophy and in the theology of Thomas Aquinas left me helpless, so that coming into the Bible now to find the Lord was like going into a huge dark woods without a map.
… I discovered that God’s Word in the Bible is absolute and without error. I had been taught that the Word is relative and that its truthfulness in many areas was to be questioned.” *!!!
Looking at himself and his fellow Catholics in his parish *“I began to see the worship of Mary, the saints, and the priests for the sin that it is.” *
And of course, like nearly all the others who purportedly discover a deep theological reason why they need to leave the Church and the priesthood, by an amazing coincidence very soon after leaving “I was provided a wife by the Lord” !

 

[Proletarian]

Allforhim,
A quick look at the sites you kindly suggested turned up the following:
gotquestions.org
The first thing I clicked on was:
*“Question: “I am a Catholic, why should I consider becoming a Christian?”

Answer: First, please understand that we intend no offense in the wording of this question. We genuinely receive questions, from Catholics, along the lines of: “What is the difference between Catholics and Christians?” In face-to-face conversations with Catholics, we have literally heard, “I am not a Christian, I am Catholic.” To many Catholics, the terms “Christian” and “Protestant” are synonymous.”!!!*Thanks, that’s the biggest laugh I’ve had all week.

Then it goes on to inform us that “it is abundantly clear that many Catholics do in fact worship Mary.”
And *“Prior to the Constantine’s conversion to Christianity in 315 A.D., Christians had been persecuted by the Roman government. With his conversion Christianity, became an allowed religion of the Roman Empire (and later became the official religion), and the thus “visible” Church became joined with the power of the Roman government. This marriage of church and state led to formation of the Roman Catholic Church, and over time caused the Roman Catholic Church to refine its doctrine and develop its structure in a way that best served the purpose of the Roman government. During this time, opposing the Roman Catholic Church was the same as opposing the Roman Government, and carried with it severe penalties. Therefore, if one disagreed with some doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, it was a serious charge that often resulted in excommunication, and sometimes even death.

Yet throughout this time of history there were true “born again” Christians who would rise up and oppose the secularization of the Roman Catholic Church and the perversion of the faith that followed.”*!!!

christiananswers.net:
“Protestants have historically held Mary in high regard as a godly and highly favored woman of God, a sinner saved by the grace of her divine Son.
Catholic dogma, on the other hand, has exalted her in an irresponsible and idolatrous way.”
*“The Protestant Reformation restored *[sic]*to the body of Christ the doctrine of sola scriptura (“Scripture alone”). The Roman Catholic faith has shown a willingness to **raise the pope above Jesus Christ ***and the Bible by giving him the right to nullify Scripture through papal decrees.”!!!
*“The Roman Catholic Church does **not ***teach its people to have confidence in the full forgiveness of their sins through the death of Christ alone.”
“Catholics are taught that when they die, if they have not committed mortal sins (and with the exception of the special class of believers they call “saints”), all go to the place the church calls purgatory.”!!!

Thebiblicist.org: nothing but tacky ads and garbage.

Nice work Petergee

I wish I’d had a good look at christiananswers.net before I endorsed it

 

[murtad]

I find this comment interesting in a thread that deals with “Protestant lies”.

Several churches that existed during the first 1500 years, and still do exist are:
The Armenian Apostolic Church
The Coptic Orthodox Church
The Assyrian Church
The Syrian Orthodox Church
The Eastern Orthodox Church
The Waldenses

The only one that could be called Protestant are the Waldenses, but they were and are all separate from the Catholic Church

The Coptic Church is a Monophysite body that denies the human nature of Jesus our Lord. The current leader of the Monophysites (a.k.a. Miaphysites) Pope Shenouda III says Jesus is 100% God and 0% man. Catholic theology which is based on the divine decrees of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon insists Jesus has two natures, 100% God and 100% man.

Who do you want to believe? The Monophysite Coptic Church or the Catholic Church?

Which Pope do you want to obey? Monophysite Pope Shenouda III or Catholic Pope Benedict XVI?

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Another gem from **christiananswers.net **is a tract purportedly written by one Richard Bennett who claims to have been a Dominican priest with many years of theological training, who lacked a degree only because he resisted the offer of his wicked superior to give him a ready-made thesis to present as his own: Years later he starts to read the Bible:

“I did not know my way through the Bible and the little I had learned over the years had taught me more to distrust it rather than to trust it. My training in philosophy and in the theology of Thomas Aquinas left me helpless, so that coming into the Bible now to find the Lord was like going into a huge dark woods without a map.
… I discovered that God’s Word in the Bible is absolute and without error. I had been taught that the Word is relative and that its truthfulness in many areas was to be questioned.” !!!
Looking at himself and his fellow Catholics in his parish “I began to see the worship of Mary, the saints, and the priests for the sin that it is.”
And of course, like nearly all the others who purportedly discover a deep theological reason why they need to leave the Church and the priesthood, by an amazing coincidence very soon after leaving “I was provided a wife by the Lord” !

Hi,
Im glad you took the time to look at the sites:thumbsup: However, I told you you wouldnt agree with them. For the simple reason that you believe in the CC. So, your response was typical and expected.

You know th OP question could be flipped around and asked about catholic apologetics as well. But I do not think that they are lying. I think they think they are 100% correct. Just like I think the same of the protestant apologists. Yes one is spreading false doctrine but I do not think it is malicious or on purpose.The opposing side may think it is but that doesnt make it so. This battle is going to go on until Christ returns and then we will ALL KNOW the TRUTH. So until then --the battle continues:shrug:

I know the one thing we can all agree on (I hope anyway) is that God is in control and He will work all of this out for His Glorification. AMEN!!!