M
Why do Protestant Apologists feel the need to lie about history and the Catholic Church?
- Status
M
mgrfin
Guest
I don’t have the time right now, but I am sure there is a basketful of errors in this exposition. I went to the last page, and the author was wondering whether Catholics believe that any one ever went to hell.
My, My, this is something Luther taught. We believe in eternal damnation, and sin and loss of sanctifying grace.
I am sure there lots more in this learned treatise, which is meant to be an attack on the Catholic Church. I thought those kind of polemics was long gone. But in a seminary, you have to send off your ministers with a certain amount of hatred of the Church, otherwise, they might defect, and join the swim team.
mgrfin
Someone say Amen
AMEN.
M
mozart-250
Guest
Good. Tell me where in this exposition the author is intentionally lying about Catholicism (not where you think the author is wrong about Catholicism).
And if you think that article expresses hatred for Catholicism you really need prayer for a paranoia problem.
D
Delphinus85
Guest
Not to be rude, but in my experience when I was protestant in a fundamentalist church (and one of the many things that drove me away) this is so very much true. I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve heard people justify things like pre-marital sex, gossip, and downright hurting people because the Holy Spirit either said it was oky, or that they needed to go and “correct” someone, usually by yelling at them and publically humiliating them. And no, it’s not just the wackos that did it. I’m not saying all fundamentalists are horrible, just most of the ones I met >.<
M
mgrfin
Guest
I now have read the paper. It is an exposition of the history of the Church’s teaching on “Outside the Church there is no salvation”.
I don’t know that the author hates the Church or not. Regardless, hatred of the Church is not new, we have been living with it since Peter was given the keys to the kingdom. We got used to it. We even see it on this site, although it is supposed to be a ‘catholic’ site.
After reading it, I have to say, ‘so what?’ The Church is the source of salvation of all. To be saved you have to belong to it. How you definition ‘belong’ is an issue that may go on again for some time.
As a witness to Vatican 2, some believe that there has been a lessening of the Church’s teaching as to who is a member of the Church. Apparently, recently statements by the Holy See seem to indicate that it is now necessary to focus on a much more limited view of who is a member of the Church.
It would now seem that membership is not to be so widely defined as one might get a sense from Vatican 2.
Mystici Corporis apparently carries the definition of who is a member:
" Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith…"
This may not sit well with Thelogical seminaries, and mainstream Protestantism sects who were coming to believe that they were members of the Church.
I am not responsible for the Thesis heading of this site. I think it is too broad, that there are Protestant sites which are fair to us.
mgrfin
pax vobiscum
M
mozart-250
Guest
Thank you.:tiphat:
It is not my intent to debate the contents of the article. It is just my intent to show one example of a Protestant expressing some disagreement with Catholicism without being disagreeable.
Moving on.
P
Petergee
Guest
This site does not seem to be an apologetic against Catholicism at all. It is merely a paper discussing the developments in one particular Catholic doctrine, addressed to evangelicals. Nowhere does it purport to argue that the Catholic Church and its doctrines are wrong. Page 22 says that aspects of JP2’s theology “creates significant problems” – something that could equally be said by a thoroughly orthodox Catholic. It is not “critical of Catholicism” per se.
I have not even made any assertions much less produced any websites to attempt to back them up. I proposed a hypothesis, and put out a challenge for anyone to produce a site which disproves the hypothesis. Nobody has done so. Your attempt is not even close.
N
Nella
Guest
Come on already; you’re acting like a clown.
N
Nella
Guest
You are predisposed to accept nothing from the Protestant side of the discussion whether it meets your so called criteria or not.
P
Petergee
Guest
P
Petergee
Guest
I’m presuming this is addressed to me. Whether I accept or reject anything a protestant says is irrelevant. The only relevant point is whether it’s an apologetic against Catholicism which doesn’t rely on lies. The site mozart-250 linked is not such.
M
mozart-250
Guest
Of course you can always define an “apologetic against Catholicism” very narrowly so as it is only inclusive of non mainstream sites like Chick Publications.
Of course that works equally well for me. It shows that only fringe Protestants and Evangelicals like Chick Publications are even concerned with “apologetics against Catholicism” while mainstream Protestants and Evangelicals while disagreeing with aspects Catholicism are not concerned with “apologetics against Catholicism”.
Anyway I am done here as this can be very circular. Apparantly the way that “apologetics against Catholicism” is defined is reserved for Chick Publications and their ilk. Since I have no inclination to defend Chick I am moving on.
My only objection here remains that there is a misplaced guilt-by-association of all Protestants and Evangelicals with Jack Chick.
P
Petergee
Guest
Utter nonsense. Neither I nor anyone else has suggested that this seemingly impossible search should be confined only to “fringe” groups or to any other particular kind of protestant. Any protestant group will do.
If you don’t know the meaning of “apologetic” please look it up. It has nothing to do with “being non mainstream”. It is absurd and amazing for you to suggest that I or anyone else “defines” this as its meaning.
Equally amazing is your assertion that “mainstream” protestants are somehow not even concerned with apologetics against Catholicism! Mainstream Catholic sites like Catholic Answers are very concerned with apologetics against protestantism, but they seem to have no trouble doing it without resorting to lies about what protestants believe and do, and about known historical facts.
M
mozart-250
Guest
Good. Then why don’t you cite a mainstream protestant that does apologetics against Catholicism and intentionally lies about it. Because so far you have not brought any to the table.
D
Delphinus85
Guest
The issue is, it’s more mainstream than you think. I notice your denomination, and maybe it’s not as big in yours, it is still huge. I am a convert from evangelical fundamentalism. I coverted about halfway trough my schooling at a fundamentalist bible college while studying to be a pastor. We had 2 christian radio stations in my town, and both of them were fundamentalist evangelical in nature, and in my home town the biggest group of christians were these people. There are a LOT and they are LOUD. They are definately defined as mainstream. Do you know what I heard while I attended there? What I hear on the radio station from time to time? Regurgitations of everything these websites say. I was accused of being an idolator by students. Every christmas the local radio stations make several stabs at catholcs as “worshipping mary” and during easter they tell people how we “recrucify christ” at every mass. These are all lies, and the grandest ones I encountered were at my school where I was told at one point that catholics added the “apocrypha” after the canon was set, I was told on several occasions in chapel that salvation is not offered to any roman catholic, and to pray for their conversion, then shared stories of missionaries sent to rome or mexico to convert those people who have false faith. The grand masterpiece was when I preacher stood there and told me that God will kill any catholic who screws with an evangelical because God looks after his own people. I went to a mainstream bible school and it is very well known by everyone where I live. So it really is a mainstream thing. Chick and his compatriots have their words out there. And yes, who can forget when my pastor heard I was leaving pentecostalism for Catholicism. He told me all about how catholics worship, yes worship, Mary and the saints, even the POPE, how they recrucify christ, how catholics ae NOT saved, and how they have no faith in Jesus at all and are trying to work their way into heaven on their own, ergo, no catholic will enter heaven.
I’m not saying this to whine at all, I am saying that the beliefs ARE mainstream, even if these websites are not. It’s just not politically correct for these mainstream churches to publish websites like that or they could come under heavy fire and they know it. They keep the belief in their parishoners, and when they encounter a catholic they try to rip that person to shreds. How do I know this?
Because I used to do it myself.
D
DB_AND_ALI
Guest
My dear…Catholic merely means universal ; therefore the catholic [universal] church did indeed exist in the 6th century.
J
jpaul
Guest
Peace and all-good!My dear…Catholic merely means universal ; therefore the catholic [universal] church did indeed exist in the 6th century.
False fact and wrong logic. Please read Church histories.
Ave Maria!
jpaul
D
DB_AND_ALI
Guest
M
mozart-250
Guest
Yes I am well aware of the type of fundamentalism which you describe.
Maybe it is a matter of perception, but from where I sit it is not mainstream at all, even within the “Evangelical” wing of Christianity.
I just took out the phone book for my county. There are 13 Protestant churches listed (we aren’t exactly the Bible Belt). Seven of these are evangelical. Of these seven, only one might be fundamentalist in the way you describe it.
But then again Vermont is the “Land of the Liberals” and might not be representative of the United States as a whole. So I might look for metrics to determine how representative that type of fundamentalism is within evangelicalism as a whole.
Some metrics that pop to mind are
- Big name Evangelical leaders
- Top Evangelical Christian authors
- Top Evangelical Christian musicians
- Big Christian mega-churches
(actually this would be an interesting thread in itself)
C
Contarini
Guest
By the definition I suspect the Protestants on this thread are using (one most people in our society would agree with), fundamentalists are not “mainstream.”
What do you mean by “mainstream”? I think that’s the real problem. A fundamentalist is, by definition, someone who thinks that most of Christianity is apostate. That’s hardly “mainstream” as I understand the term.
Edwin
- Status