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

[Proletarian]

That is my point…

Ignorance is bliss… at least here you get a fair hearing. Unlike some of the NON-Catholic sites I have been on… where if you cant be shutdown by personal attacks, your locked out…

Exactly…

You say “some” non-Catholic sites, but I’d say ALL non-Catholic forums behave in this way (If anyone can provide me a non-Catholic forum that permits Catholic opinions I would be very grateful)

From my experience most sites have rules than ban discussion that supports what they see as “cults”; inevitably Catholicism is heaped in with the Islam, Mormonism, the Jehovah’s Witnesses and SDAs.

I can deal with “personal attacks” against me; what I can’t fight is having my posts removed by the Mods. There are countless instances in which threads are started that directly attack Catholicism, the Mods will remove every post that defends the Catholic position leaving an entire thread dedicated to (as my OP suggests) lies and mistruths about the Catholic Church.

Just another example of the culture of untruth and misinformation within Protestantism.

 

[Nella]

“Definition” my foot. The archbishops of Canterbury (including quite a few non-Englishmen) were appointed by the Pope up until the 16th century. One of them, England’s most acclaimed saint Thomas Becket, was martyred precisely because he objected to the English monarch usurping the pope’s jurisdiction over the church in England. The Catholic bishops of England from the 6th to the early 16th centuries would have laughed in your face if you had suggested to them that they belonged to a different church than the one ruled by the Pope. These are indisputable historical facts.
You may as well say that Lutheranism started when St Boniface (a catholic English bishop btw) converted the Germans in the 7th century.
If you are going to define “Anglican”: as simply “having an identifiable national culture”, you could say that about the Catholic Church in any country. Having a national culture doesn’t constitute the “origins” of a separate national church.
In any case the Anglican split was driven by a tiny minority of English protestants who by a series of unfortunate events gained power over the instruments of governance of the State, and used this to brutally wrest control over the governance of the church. I’m sure if the English population had been allowed a democratic referendum in 1535 on whether to split from the Catholic Church, there would have been a resounding “no”.

You are one of the roughest and rudest individuals I have ever witnessed in here. Besides that, you are dead wrong about your statement of the tiny majority. Go back and read your history.

 

[Nella]

Nella,
I haven’t been here that long, but my experience is that you constantly nag, criticize, cajole, bicker, hate, bigot, anything that is Catholic, and, yet, you are still here.

I have yet to see a valuable post from your that adds to the discussion - that doesn’t hammer on anything Catholic. To you, it seems, if it Catholic, it has to be wrong.

We love you, Nella, and hope you find peace in your day.

mgrfin

I can’t believe you even used the word love after all that you said previously.

 

[Nella]

While I understand your reaction to this, please at least acknowledge it is no different on NON-Catholic sites… I have seen thread after thread on similar topics that aren’t ANY better…

At least you can still post here I believe, unlike some sites where you get banned and locked out of forums for disagreeing…

I am not condonning any negative attacks by ANY denominaton on ANY site… debate is healthy and good, and in the right tone with respect to all parties it is very educational…

The Focus should always be on similarities not differences… imo

God Bless.

Did any of you even bother to read this post?? I would have to say no because you refuse to see any similarity within us and you. You would rather keep on slamming all Protestants

 

[Petergee]

You are one of the roughest and rudest individuals I have ever witnessed in here. Besides that, you are dead wrong about your statement of the tiny majority. Go back and read your history.

Point to one thing I have said which is “rough” or “rude” compared to the outrageous insults you have heaped on Catholics here. If you are claiming that anything I have stated is factually incorrect, please provide evidence other than your empty bluster.
Now if you wouldn’t mind ceasing your latest diversion and attempt to answer my challenge.

 

[Petergee]

Did any of you even bother to read this post?? I would have to say no because you refuse to see any similarity within us and you. You would rather keep on slamming all Protestants

Nobody here has slammed all protestants.

 

[Contarini]

I asked you first. And I’m sure you would dismiss every example I give as “non-mainstream”, whatever that means.

No, there is a real difference between fundamentalists and other Protestants. That is what you are missing. You are understandably fixated on fundamentalists (because they target Catholics), and largely ignore the majority of Protestants who are not fundamentalists.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

“Definition” my foot. The archbishops of Canterbury (including quite a few non-Englishmen) were appointed by the Pope up until the 16th century.

First of all, it wasn’t that simple–the monarch had a say as well–but I think you are right in principle, since the archbishops of Canterbury were all considered papal legates (unlike many other bishops and archbishops, who were not appointed by the Pope). More to the point, they were archbishops of the “Ecclesia Anglicana.” This is what you are missing–for many Anglicans, separation from Rome is accidental and not essential to Anglican identity.

The Catholic bishops of England from the 6th to the early 16th centuries would have laughed in your face if you had suggested to them that they belonged to a different church than the one ruled by the Pope.

And I wouldn’t suggest any such thing. You misunderstood me.

You may as well say that Lutheranism started when St Boniface (a catholic English bishop btw) converted the Germans in the 7th century.

No, but it would be true to say that the Church of Sweden, say, began with the conversion of the Swedes to Christianity (in the 12th century, I think).

When Anglicans make this claim, they are defining Anglicanism as the “Ecclesia Anglicana,” the organized Catholic Church in England led by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and in modern times also the churches throughout the world who derive their polity, liturgy, and theological tradition from the Church of England. My point is that this is not, historically speaking, a lie, It is a matter of definition. Of course it seems strange to Catholics, because Catholics naturally see communion with Rome as a decisive factor. But Anglicans, just as naturally, do not.

When Anglicans go beyond this and claim that the Church of England had some kind of unique independence of Rome before the Reformation, they are indeed misrepresenting history.

IN Christ,

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Catholic Answers/This Rock and many other Catholic organisations have devoted a lot of time and energy to apolgetics against Anglicanism/Episcopalianism and Lutheranism. Do you regard Anglicans and Lutherans as “mainstream”?

Depends on how you define it, but basically yes (we are on the “Catholic” side of “mainstream,” so I wouldn’t push the point if someone wanted to deny us the term). I didn’t mean to say that you don’t also take on other Protestants, but that the contemporary movement of Catholic apologetics came into being to respond to fundamentalism.

My definition of “mainstream” would be roughly any denomination/church that is a member either of the National/World Council of Churches or of the National Association of Evangelicals. I.e., the mainstream of Protestantism currently consists of the old “mainline” and the newly resurgent non-fundamentalist evangelicalism. Fundamentalists and strict confessional Protestants cannot be considered “mainstream,” because they routinely criticize or even revile members of the other two groups, who make up most Protestants in the U.S.

The most prominent Anglican professor/clergyman in my city describes Catholics as “sub-Christian”.

Who is that? Paul Zahl?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Catholics have been doing that for a long time now.

I’m not talking about rhetoric but about substance. You do still believe we are material heretics in the sense that we deny truths that have been revealed by God, right? And you do not, like most Protestants, distinguish between essential and inessential revealed truth (i.e., many Protestants would say that there are things revealed in Scripture that you can misunderstand and still hold to the substance of the Christian Faith).

And the topic is not concerend with wherher protestant apologists hate Catholics or condemn them or call their doctrines heresies or (a different thing) call Catholics heretics. The topic is only concerned with whether they lie about indisputable objective facts.

Well, in that case, what about James White? What “indisputable objective facts” does he lie about? He describes Catholic doctrine polemically and unsympathetically, but you say that’s not what you are talking about.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

You are one of the roughest and rudest individuals I have ever witnessed in here. Besides that, you are dead wrong about your statement of the tiny majority. Go back and read your history.

What history? The old “Whig” narrative of the English Reformation has largely been overturned. The “revisionists” are probably overstating things in their turn, but they have made some very persuasive points about the affection with which most ordinary English people seem to have regarded Catholicism, and the persistent effort necessary for the Protestant elites to overcome this affection and inculcate new patterns of piety.

Of course there were many (largely lower-middle-class urban) ordinary English people who felt the other way and in some cases died as martyrs for Protestantism. It isn’t a clear-cut thing, but I think Petergee’s claim is at the very least a defensible speculation.

Edwin

 

[mgrfin]

You are one of the roughest and rudest individuals I have ever witnessed in here. Besides that, you are dead wrong about your statement of the tiny majority. Go back and read your history.

Nella,

I thought you were going to reserve that epithet to me.

mgrfin

 

[Petergee]

No, there is a real difference between fundamentalists and other Protestants. That is what you are missing. You are understandably fixated on fundamentalists (because they target Catholics), and largely ignore the majority of Protestants who are not fundamentalists.

Edwin

I repeat, I am not fixated on fundamentalists or any other particular type of protestant. I have repeatedly asked for evidence of any protestant apologetic against Catholicism which does not depend on lies about indisputable historical facts or the indisputable facts about what Catholics believe and do. Compared to the US there are actually not that many fundamentalists in Australia.

 

[Petergee]

First of all, it wasn’t that simple–the monarch had a say as well–but I think you are right in principle, since the archbishops of Canterbury were all considered papal legates (unlike many other bishops and archbishops, who were not appointed by the Pope). More to the point, they were archbishops of the “Ecclesia Anglicana.” This is what you are missing–for many Anglicans, separation from Rome is accidental and not essential to Anglican identity.

Delighted to hear it. I hope they soon recover from that nasty “accident”!

And I wouldn’t suggest any such thing. You misunderstood me.

Sorry about that.

No, but it would be true to say that the Church of Sweden, say, began with the conversion of the Swedes to Christianity (in the 12th century, I think).

When Anglicans make this claim, they are defining Anglicanism as the “Ecclesia Anglicana,” the organized Catholic Church in England led by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and in modern times also the churches throughout the world who derive their polity, liturgy, and theological tradition from the Church of England. My point is that this is not, historically speaking, a lie, It is a matter of definition. Of course it seems strange to Catholics, because Catholics naturally see communion with Rome as a decisive factor. But Anglicans, just as naturally, do not.

I think this is stretching the definition so far that it becomes nonsensical. And I don’t see why the Lutherans don’t make the cut. They took over the church buildings and government in the states where the Princes forcibly overthrew the Catholics. Just like Elizabeth I did in England.
Will the so-called “Patriotic Catholic Church” set up by the Chinese government now claim that it had its origin in the first Catholic missionaries in China?

 

[Petergee]

Who is that? Paul Zahl?

Edwin

Dr Philip Jensen

 

[Petergee]

Well, in that case, what about James White? What “indisputable objective facts” does he lie about? He describes Catholic doctrine polemically and unsympathetically, but you say that’s not what you are talking about.

Edwin

I don’t know; give us a link to his apologetics against Catholicism and let’s see if he tells any lies.

 

[Contarini]

I don’t know; give us a link to his apologetics against Catholicism and let’s see if he tells any lies.

His website is here. His specifically anti-Catholic stuff is here. He certainly interprets Catholic teaching in an unsympathetic way, and no doubt makes blunders for that reason (it’s hard to be fair about something you hate). But I have not noticed him making any egregious errors of fact (we may disagree on that point, or you may find something I have missed).

Disclaimer: my link to his site does not constitute agreement with or admiration of James White in any way! I think he is honest, but I do not find either the substance or style of his beliefs (beyond his adherence to basic Trinitarian Christianity and his welcome debunking of KJV-only nonsense) appealing. I am simply trying to answer Petergee’s challenge by showing that there are anti-Catholic Protestants (I still wouldn’t call White “mainstream,” though) who deal with the issues rather than simply throwing around ridiculous historical claims.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I think this is stretching the definition so far that it becomes nonsensical. And I don’t see why the Lutherans don’t make the cut.

The Church of Sweden is currently Lutheran–that’s why I picked it. I could have said the “Church of Saxony,” but because of the shifting nature of German political identities that’s a less stable unit to point to (and also because the Church of Sweden, like the Church of England and unlike the German Lutheran churches, has maintained a continuity of episcopal succession).

Will the so-called “Patriotic Catholic Church” set up by the Chinese government now claim that it had its origin in the first Catholic missionaries in China?

But of course that is the origin of the Catholic Church in China, whether that in full communion with Rome or the larger part that has been hijacked by the Communist government.

Edwin

 

[Petergee]

His website is here. His specifically anti-Catholic stuff is here. He certainly interprets Catholic teaching in an unsympathetic way, and no doubt makes blunders for that reason (it’s hard to be fair about something you hate). But I have not noticed him making any egregious errors of fact (we may disagree on that point, or you may find something I have missed).

Disclaimer: my link to his site does not constitute agreement with or admiration of James White in any way! I think he is honest, but I do not find either the substance or style of his beliefs (beyond his adherence to basic Trinitarian Christianity and his welcome debunking of KJV-only nonsense) appealing. I am simply trying to answer Petergee’s challenge by showing that there are anti-Catholic Protestants (I still wouldn’t call White “mainstream,” though) who deal with the issues rather than simply throwing around ridiculous historical claims.

Edwin

I never claimed that lying is the only thing they do.Yes, White does also “deal [often dishonestly] with the issues” as well as make ridiculous historical claims, and ridiculous claims about what Catholics believe.

Here’s a couple of links to several instances in which White freely stated what he knew (or should have known, given his claims to be a scholar) were blatant lies:
catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9307fea1sb3.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0104fea4.asp

I’m sure you could easily find more.

 

[Contarini]

I never claimed that lying is the only thing they do.Yes, White does also “deal [often dishonestly] with the issues” as well as make ridiculous historical claims, and ridiculous claims about what Catholics believe.

Here’s a couple of links to several instances in which White freely stated what he knew (or should have known, given his claims to be a scholar) were blatant lies:
catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9307fea1sb3.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0104fea4.asp

I’m sure you could easily find more.

Fair enough. I was curious to see how you would react. These are the sorts of misrepresentations I would expect from White–polemicists have a tin ear for nuance.

And I am not impressed by his credentials as a scholar, but I won’t push that point since people think I’m a snob anyway!

Edwin