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

[Petergee]

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).

No doubt you know that Catholics believe that neither the Anglicans nor any any branch of the Lutherans have maintained episcopal succession.

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

But if they are not in communion with the Pope, they are no longer Catholic, but merely local. It seems that the “Anglicanism started with St Augustine” crowd want to have their cake and eat it too. They claim the old English Catholics were Anglicans, and apparently that the current English Anglicans are Catholics! Rendering both terms meaningless.

 

[Romans12]

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

Actually, yes I have bothered to read this post. And I dont see how I am slamming anyone at all???

 

[Palladio]

But if they are not in communion with the Pope, they are no longer Catholic, but merely local. It seems that the “Anglicanism started with St Augustine” crowd want to have their cake and eat it too. They claim the old English Catholics were Anglicans, and apparently that the current English Anglicans are Catholics! Rendering both terms meaningless.

Yes, and I have just had this argument with an old and venerable Anglican minister, whose stubborness (or whatever) beggared belief. The C of E began in the mists of Albion… He was so sweet about it, though, I had to beg off.

 

[Petergee]

Yes, and I have just had this argument with an old and venerable Anglican minister, whose stubborness (or whatever) beggared belief. The C of E began in the mists of Albion… He was so sweet about it, though, I had to beg off.

I can’t help thinking about that old episode of Alf Garnett (probably showing my age!) where he says “What do you mean Jesus was a Jew? Of course he wasn’t. Look at his parents’ names - Mary and Joseph ! You can’t get any more English than that!”

 

[Palladio]

I can’t help thinking about that old episode of Alf Garnett (probably showing my age!) where he says “What do you mean Jesus was a Jew? Of course he wasn’t. Look at his parents’ names - Mary and Joseph ! You can’t get any more English than that!”

That’s a good one!

Thanks and God bless.

 

[Zooey]

AMEN! But the question must be asked, is it possible for a Protestant not to be “anti-Catholic”, even on a subliminal level? A non-Catholic (even the ones that are trying to be “100% Christian”) must, by their very nature, oppose the Catholic Church in some form.
.

[SIGN]http://bestsmileys.com/crying/13.gifWhat am** I**?? Chopped liver???[/SIGN]
I am not in opposotion to the Catholic Church. I am not in opposition at all. Do I disagree? Yes, I do, at times, but not–to my way of thinking–on matters of substance.
The problem is…& it is a real problem…It is that so many people are anti-Catholic, that Catholics are defensive. I understand this. I am the only mainstream Protestant in a family of flaming fundamentalists. I have been the one getting the little digs. I try, therefore, to avoid big fights over what I consider to be things that Christians can reasonably disagree on.
In a few words: I pick my battles. I recommend this to all. Some things are not worth raising your blood pressure about; some things are. Choose, then, wisely.

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.

Don’t go there.http://bestsmileys.com/angry1/4.gif This is one battle I **will **fight.

I’m yet to find a protestant forum that has not banned me for expressing a Catholic opinion (even when done in the most respectful manner possible).

They throw me out too. What can I say? They’re having their own little party, & we are:shrug: not invited.

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’s point is well taken.
The fact is, Protestant Apologists who are not fundie, don’t bother with Catholics, for the good & sufficient reason that there are plenty of people who aren’t Christian out there; there is simply no need to be assaulting our brethren in Christ.
I would think this would please you; there are enough folk who are calling names at you. Don’t you want us to recognize you as Christians?? 'Cause it doesn’t sound that way…

 

[mozart-250]

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.

(caveat: not to be a defender of James White…I don’t know that much about him to have an opinion one way or another)…but the “This Rock” articles do not accuse him of lying. They do accuse him of poor scholarship.

Since the points under discussion seem to be fine nuances (that I don’t totally understand) rather than major themes, this seems reasonable.

 

[donnyblake]

The devil makes them do it. It’s as simple as that.

 

[Petergee]

Edwin’s point is well taken.
The fact is, Protestant Apologists who are not fundie, don’t bother with Catholics, for the good & sufficient reason that there are plenty of people who aren’t Christian out there; there is simply no need to be assaulting our brethren in Christ.
I would think this would please you; there are enough folk who are calling names at you. Don’t you want us to recognize you as Christians?? 'Cause it doesn’t sound that way…

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.

 

[Sixtus]

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?

This is something about which I too have often pondered.

 

[po18guy]

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,
Great that you are asking all of these questions. But, are you SURE that you actually believe? All of scripture was written by “mere man”. Our Christian faith itself was passed on by “mere man” Each was inspired by God, but remained a mere man.

If Mary is not the Queen of Heaven, then who on earth (heaven, actually!) would it more likely be?

But, keep asking questions with an open heart and mind-keep seeking the fullness of truth, and it will be revealed to you.

Christ’s peace to you.

 

[Petergee]

(caveat: not to be a defender of James White…I don’t know that much about him to have an opinion one way or another)…but the “This Rock” articles do not accuse him of lying. They do accuse him of poor scholarship.

Since the points under discussion seem to be fine nuances (that I don’t totally understand) rather than major themes, this seems reasonable.

Obviously neither White nor his Catholic opponents regard them as fine nuances. The latter might be too polite to actually use the word “lies” but that’s surely what they are saying. And as I said ,these two articles are among many which detail the many not-so-little White lies.

 

[Nella]

Nella,
Great that you are asking all of these questions. But, are you SURE that you actually believe? All of scripture was written by “mere man”. Our Christian faith itself was passed on by “mere man” Each was inspired by God, but remained a mere man.

If Mary is not the Queen of Heaven, then who on earth (heaven, actually!) would it more likely be?

But, keep asking questions with an open heart and mind-keep seeking the fullness of truth, and it will be revealed to you.

Christ’s peace to you.

here’s the problem. You answer the question with an open ended question. How do you know that there is even a queen of Heaven? Scripture doesn’t mention it. The only thing that you offer is an aaumption of what God did or will do. This is far from being truth. Far from it.

 

[Mannyfit75]

here’s the problem. You answer the question with an open ended question. How do you know that there is even a queen of Heaven? Scripture doesn’t mention it. The only thing that you offer is an aaumption of what God did or will do. This is far from being truth. Far from it.

There is Revelation 12:1

And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; 2* she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery. 3* And another portent appeared in heaven; behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems upon his heads. 4* His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, that he might devour her child when she brought it forth; 5* she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, 6 and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which to be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days.

Catholic intreprets the woman as Mary based on the following reasoning.

1. She gave birth to a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron.
2. This child was caught up to God and to his throne.

The child we Catholics believe is Jesus Christ. Jesus inherited the Kingdom of David which will be forever. We see that this child was caught up to God and to his throne. This verse sounds parallel resemblance to the Ascension of the Lord. In verse 1, the woman is crown with twelve stars. As far as we know, a Queen have crowns.

John, the Evangelicalist is a Jew. He knows Jewish Scripture very well. In Biblical Typology, OT Jewish Kings have mothers as their Queen (See 1 Kings 2:17, 20, 1 Kings 2:18, 1 Kings 2:19, 1 Kings 15:13, 2 Chron. 22:10, and Neh. 2:6).

The queen acts an intercessor to the King in behalf of the people. The New Testament is hidden in the OT, and OT is reveal in the New. Since Jesus is the King, he made his mother queen. When John, the Evangelical wrote Revelation he saw a vision from God, which reveal the Triumph of the Lamb of God.

Revelation also state that the vision appeared heaven. No queen in heaven? I doubt it. Take a look at the passage and there clearly a queen in heaven.

The assumption is also implied here. She how would a woman appear in heaven? She would assumed.

 

[Contarini]

No doubt you know that Catholics believe that neither the Anglicans nor any any branch of the Lutherans have maintained episcopal succession.
But if they are not in communion with the Pope, they are no longer Catholic, but merely local. It seems that the “Anglicanism started with St Augustine” crowd want to have their cake and eat it too. They claim the old English Catholics were Anglicans, and apparently that the current English Anglicans are Catholics! Rendering both terms meaningless.

Well, the more Protestant Anglicans would say that we are Catholics because we believe in the Trinity and in Chalcedonian Christology, and the Anglo-Catholics would say that we are Catholics because we have apostolic succession, the Real Presence, etc.

And yes, I know that you deny these latter claims. I’m simply reporting what many Anglicans believe, and pointing out that if you define “Ecclesia Anglicana” in terms of the succession of bishops of Canterbury then it did begin in the late 6th century. You may argue that the succession was broken in the 16th century, but that’s a theological argument (i.e., you are saying that from Parker on the consecrations of the archbishops were not theologically valid).

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

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.

The Internet may be a bad place to look for this. For a fairly reasonable modern statement of evangelical disagreement with Catholicism, I’d recommend Geisler and MacKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences. I have only glanced at it myself, but Geisler is a fairly level-headed guy (though capable of some nutty claims–I once wrote an angry letter to Christian History in response to a column in which Geisler claimed that Aquinas didn’t believe most of the things that Protestants object to in Catholicism, so I won’t vouch for the book entirely). My [Methodist] advisor got a copy in the mail and expressed dissatisfaction with it, saying that it simply expressed traditional Protestant polemic. However, this fundamentalist website obviously thinks differently! At any rate, nutty or not, I would say that this book represents a mainstream evangelical approach. Noll and Nystrom,* Is the Reformation Over? *also comes from a moderate evangelical perspective.

For a mainline Protestant critique of Catholicism, I’d recommend two books. Jaroslav Pelikan’s The Riddle of Roman Catholicism is outdated (it was written before Vatican II), but states the differences as they appeared to an ecumenical Lutheran in the 1950s (Pelikan, of course, eventually became Orthodox). Francis Edwards, *What is Catholicism? An Anglican Responds to the Official Teaching of the Roman Catholic Church *takes on the 1994 catechism from a fairly typical high-church/liberal Anglican perspective (i.e., not representing all Anglicans by any means, but representing an influential perspective within modern Western Anglicanism).

Edwin

 

[po18guy]

here’s the problem. You answer the question with an open ended question. How do you know that there is even a queen of Heaven? Scripture doesn’t mention it. The only thing that you offer is an aaumption of what God did or will do. This is far from being truth. Far from it.

LORD,
Is this is actually You, testing us? OK, let’s take the Cliffs Notes version of the life of Jesus, also known as the New Testament. If all you believe in is this book, you are denying the vast majority of what Christ did and taught.(John 21:25). Since Christ answered the Pharisee’s questions with questions, I will answer yours in like manner. According to your line of reasoning, the first 30+ years of Christians must be in hell, becaue they had no bible to teach them. They were instructed verbally, just as Jesus did. “No”, you say, they are not in hell? Well, then it would appear that salvation depends on more than just the bible, huh?

Where is your FAITH and TRUST in GRACE? It “appears” that you follow the teachings of a “mere man” (L*****) who lost his faith and trust, but persisted anyway in founding a movement that bears his own name, not that of God. I had “the Mary problem” when I came into the faith. God, being outside of time, and perfect in nature, bore with me and revealed the truth to me. He stands ready to do the same for you, if only you will stop persisting in your unbelief and believe.

There is no YouTube video that I can link you to which will “prove” the beliefs of millions. Some things you just have to take on faith. Not “sola fide”, but faith nevertheless. Keep asking questions and seeking, and God will reveal all to you.

The peace of Christ be with you.

 

[donnyblake]

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.

 

[po18guy]

It “appears” that you follow the teachings of a “mere man” (L*****) who lost his faith and trust, but persisted anyway in founding a movement that bears his own name, not that of God.

Oh, never mind! I see your affiliation now. You are so close! Just keep inquiring and the Lord Himself will lead you home.

In Christ.

 

[Sixtus]

…evangelical disagreement with Catholicism, represents a mainstream evangelical approach…

…mainline Protestant critique of Catholicism [is] fairly typical [of]…liberal Anglican perspective

Isn’t that rather over-stating the obvious: an Evangelical [sola scriptura] perspective is diametrically opposed to and juxtapositioned with Catholicism. It is therefore hardly surprising there exists fundamental differences between Christian fundamentalism and Catholicism.

A liberal perspective will always be in opposition to authentic Catholicism due to that position being traditional rather than liberal.

Even within Anglicanisim philosophical and theological differences exist between traditional and liberal perspectives, so it is hardly surprising that differences exist between liberal Anglicanism and traditional Catholicism

It never ceases to amaze me how paranoically obsessed some are with criticising Catholicism, while the Catholic Church does not criticize anyone, but quietly gets on with leading and ministering to her faithful.