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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Proletarian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nella said:
Oh ok, just duck everything here. i asked a simple question that you should have been able to produce answers for instantly, that is if you had those answers which apparently you don’t.
Click to expand...
As I said, if you actually bothered to read this thread instead of trying to derail it because you have no answers to it, your simple question has been answered many times on this thread, pointing out many of the lies on these sites.
And why go to yet another thread. The accusation was made here , why not address it here?
Click to expand...
Fine, if you’re determined to divert this thread still more to avoid answering my challenge: Which one, if any, of the lies mentioned above, do you not think is actually a lie? and why?
 
Petergee said:
As I said, if you actually bothered to read this thread instead of trying to derail it because you have no answers to it, your simple question has been answered many times on this thread, pointing out many of the lies on these sites. Fine, if you’re determined to divert this thread still more to avoid answering my challenge: Which one, if any, of the lies mentioned above, do you not think is actually a lie? and why?
Click to expand...
I’m waiting to hear what the lies are that Protestants alledge against the RCC?? Simple.
 
Nella said:
My Catholic friends, you do a very good job of telling those who you would wish to join your faith, “Let’s just assume”, instead of “let’s see what Jesus really said on these matters”.
Click to expand...
Funny, I’ve never heard any Catholic apologist argue from an assumption, especially not in contradiction to anything Jesus said. Your accusation is absurd.
Why are so many of your doctrines and teachings either not Biblical or counter Biblical??
Click to expand...
“so many” = zero. You are so full of it.
How can this be pleasing to God. How can you elevate Mary to a supernatural state when Scripture never goes there not once.
Click to expand...
LOL! Thanks for iullustrating yet another lie about Catholic beliefs. Why don’t you actually try finding out what Catholics believe?
Queen of heaven?? There can be no such thing.
Click to expand...
How unbiblical of you.
Jesus Christ is the ruler of the universe. Mary is foremost of all saints, no more no less.
Click to expand...
Hooray, at least you’ve got two basic Catholic beliefs correct.
 
Nella said:
My Catholic friends, you do a very good job of telling those who you would wish to join your faith, “Let’s just assume”, instead of “let’s see what Jesus really said on these matters”. Why are so many of your doctrines and teachings either not Biblical or counter Biblical?? How can this be pleasing to God. How can you elevate Mary to a supernatural state when Scripture never goes there not once. Queen of heaven?? There can be no such thing. Jesus Christ is the ruler of the universe. Mary is foremost of all saints, no more no less.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that Mary being Queen of Heaven is a lie?

Who is the King? In biblical times who was the queen? I have seen you accuse others of ignorance on several threads(me included).This should be a no-brainer for you.
 
Indyann said:
Are you saying that Mary being Queen of Heaven is a lie?

Who is the King? In biblical times who was the queen? I have seen you accuse others of ignorance on several threads(me included).This should be a no-brainer for you.
Click to expand...
Prove that Mary is the queen of Heaven. That’s all you have to do. Saying a mere man said so won’t consitute proof either.
 
Nella said:
What lies do they tell about the RCC? If you could at least produce those, we could discuss them
Click to expand...
I have one. If you go to Wikipedia and look up the Anglican Church you will find that the Anglican Church began in England at the end of the 6th Century. Not the 16th Century; the 6th Century.

Of course, Wikipedia is open to anyone to post whatever they want. It may be that someone from this site has posted that false history about the Anglican Church.

Any one want to admit to it?

peace
Mgrfin
 
mgrfin said:
I have one. If you go to Wikipedia and look up the Anglican Church you will find that the Anglican Church began in England at the end of the 6th Century. Not the 16th Century; the 6th Century.

Of course, Wikipedia is open to anyone to post whatever they want. It may be that someone from this site has posted that false history about the Anglican Church.

Any one want to admit to it?

peace
Mgrfin
Click to expand...
You are correct. It is the 16th century. I do not believe that this is a liebut a mere mistake. It is very easy for most folks with any knowledge of religious history to know that Anglicanism didn’t begin in the 6th century. In the 6th century, there was no Roman Catholic church nor Orthodox church but the early Christian church that Jesus founded.
 
Nella said:
My Catholic friends, you do a very good job of telling those who you would wish to join your faith, “Let’s just assume”, instead of “let’s see what Jesus really said on these matters”. Why are so many of your doctrines and teachings either not Biblical or counter Biblical?? How can this be pleasing to God. How can you elevate Mary to a supernatural state when Scripture never goes there not once. Queen of heaven?? There can be no such thing. Jesus Christ is the ruler of the universe. Mary is foremost of all saints, no more no less.
Click to expand...
Nella,

We always look at what Jesus said on all matters. We also consult St. Paul, St. James, St. Peter, St. John, St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke. We never make statements of doctrine which are 'counter Biblical". Unlike Luther, however, we never change or add to a text to get a doctrine more in our favor. The Catholic Church was the Depositor and Keeper of the Bible. We are also by Christ’s command, and the power of the Holy Spirit within the Church, the final interpreter of what is contained in God’s Holy Word. We are the Church which he founded, which he guides and guards, and will do so until he comes again. You are limited to private interpretation of the Gospel - those are the rules you set for yourself. No minister, bishop, prelate of your church can interprete for you what is contained in the Holy Books. You are left to your merits, or failings.

We are fast approaching the Feast of the Assumption of Mary, a defined doctrine of the Faith. I would approach this subject very carefully. You are not going to be allowed to attack the Virgin Mother of God and our faith.

Accept it for what it is, cause you are not going to be convinced of it. We already know that.

You are the first to yell, “Foul” when something is said that you don’t like. Please give us the same courtesy.

We are not forcing you to join our faith. We even invite anyone who is honestly seeking, to ask whatever question they like. You are here because we believe you are honest questioners. But if you are here to combat, cajol, condemn, criticise, curse, blaspheme Catholic doctrine, that eventually will show itself.

Please allow us to celebrate this great mystery for us, and that is what it is, a great mystery, without your criticism.
Thank you.

peace
mgrfin
 
Nella said:
You can’t point to one alleged lie.
Click to expand...
OK, if you can’t be bothered reading the thread and want me to do all your homework for you, I’ll re-state a few of the lies for you for free:
I mentioned at some length in this thread the apologetic by a supposedly ex-Catholic priest who claimed inter alia that the Catholic Church required Catholics to worship him, that he qualified for a doctorate in theology at a Catholic university but learnt next to nothing about the Bible whilst being a Catholic priest for many years. (No wonder he [allegedly] left the Dominicans - I guess he just couldn’t live up to their motto “Veritas”!)
Maybe you’d like to make a case that these are not lies. Good luck. Or else you could just apologise for your insults and time-wasting. Oh and your lies. Hopefully out of all this you might stumble upon the truth and recognise it.
 
Indyann said:
I do not have to prove anything, but since I am a nice person, I will provide you a link.
You could easily figure this out by yourself, if you would read the Old Testament. Like I said a no-brainer.

catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9812fea2.asp
Click to expand...
Nella,

I have asked you to approach this subject respectully and carefully as we approach the Vigil of the Assumption of Mary.

You are not going to get any proofs. Mary was entrusted to John the Apostle and the other Apostles. They were witnesses and their testimony is in the Deposit of faith to the early church.

Please let it go at that.

mgrfin
 
Nella said:
You are correct. It is the 16th century. I do not believe that this is a liebut a mere mistake. It is very easy for most folks with any knowledge of religious history to know that Anglicanism didn’t begin in the 6th century. In the 6th century, there was no Roman Catholic church nor Orthodox church but the early Christian church that Jesus founded.
Click to expand...
No, not a mistake. This was stated by a Church historian on this site.

mgrfin
 
Nella said:
You are correct. It is the 16th century. I do not believe that this is a liebut a mere mistake. It is very easy for most folks with any knowledge of religious history to know that Anglicanism didn’t begin in the 6th century.
Click to expand...
I’d like to think it’s a mistake too, but if you read the whole paragraph on “origins” you find they are seriously asserting that the Anglican church started with St Augustine of Canterbury, or even earlier! It’s insulting to the intelligence and unfortunately this sort of nonsense is not unusual in Wikipedia.
In the 6th century, there was no Roman Catholic church
Click to expand...
Still isn’t.
nor Orthodox church but the early Christian church that Jesus founded.
Click to expand...
Which has been called “the Catholic Church” since the first century. The phrase “The Christian Church” is not found until much later.
 
Petergee said:
OK, if you can’t be bothered reading the thread and want me to do all your homework for you, I’ll re-state a few of the lies for you for free:
I mentioned at some length in this thread the apologetic by a supposedly ex-Catholic priest who claimed inter alia that the Catholic Church required Catholics to worship him, that he qualified for a doctorate in theology at a Catholic university but learnt next to nothing about the Bible whilst being a Catholic priest for many years. (No wonder he [allegedly] left the Dominicans - I guess he just couldn’t live up to their motto “Veritas”!)
Maybe you’d like to make a case that these are not lies. Good luck. Or else you could just apologise for your insults and time-wasting. Oh and your lies. Hopefully out of all this you might stumble upon the truth and recognise it.
Click to expand...
This is ridiculous. I don’t know of any widespread Protestant idea that Catholics are required to worship a priest. What a weak flimsy statement by you after all the ranting you did about this subject. I’m quite surprised actually that this is all that you could come up with.
 
Nella said:
This is ridiculous. I don’t know of any widespread Protestant idea that Catholics are required to worship a priest. What a weak flimsy statement by you after all the ranting you did about this subject. I’m quite surprised actually that this is all that you could come up with.
Click to expand...
This is just a rant.

here is another one for you:

atruechurch.info/catholicism.html

Salve Regina!

mgrfin
 
40.png
Nella:
In the 6th century, there was no Roman Catholic church
Still isn’t. nor Orthodox church but the early Christian church that Jesus founded.
Click to expand...
Wrong. There was a Catholic Church in the sixth Century, fifth Century, 4th Century, 3rd Century, 2nd Century, and 1st Century.

The Orthodox Church at the time were in union with the Universal Church prior to the Schism in 1054 AD, and there was only One Church then.

Jesus established One Church, whom he built upon Simon Peter, and also commissioned 11 Apostles. After Jesus ascension, there were five major Churches, Jerusalem, Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople. Jerusalem headed by James, Rome by Peter, as well as Antioch, Constantinople by St. Andrew, and Alexandria by Mark.

The Apostles were succeeded by the bishops and Patriarchs. I think you need to study the Early Church history to make prove your claim that neither the Catholic Church or the Orthodox dates its line at the time of the Apostle.

Even though the Orthodox are split from Rome, they do have valid Apostolic Succession as much as the Catholic Church. They lack union with the Pope in Rome.
 
Nella said:
This is ridiculous. I don’t know of any widespread Protestant idea that Catholics are required to worship a priest. What a weak flimsy statement by you after all the ranting you did about this subject. I’m quite surprised actually that this is all that you could come up with.
Click to expand...
Catholics don’t worship priests. Apparently you been expose to so much misinformation about Catholicism. Catholic only worship the Blessed Lord Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top