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

[Contarini]

**

3/

**

I remain concerned that no one has shown me official Catholic teachings that would outright deny their “right” to persecute, harrass, or other wise slander individuals who may disagree with Catholic doctrine, should the political climate again allow such things in a given location/s.

The place to start is Vatican II’s document Dignitatis Humanae. Note in particular section 4, which explicitly guarantees the right of non-Catholic religious groups to spread their teachings.

I would like to respectfully say too, that you sound almost vicious towards anyone who dares to question the Mass.

What was “almost vicious”? For one thing, you seem to have misunderstood me. I did not say that what Luther said about the Mass was blasphemy, but that Luther said that the Mass was blasphemous. However, if you are going to say that it’s “vicious” to call something blasphemy, then I think you’re working with an unduly constricting sense of civility. Are you really saying that there is no such thing as blasphemy, or that we should never call it what it is for fear of sounding “vicious”?

As a matter of fact, I’m not sure that Luther’s criticisms of the Mass were blasphemous, because they focused on the Catholic understanding of it as a sacrifice rather than on the Sacrament itself. But when William Farel wrote a pamphlet calling the Host “a god of dough,” when Protestant mobs fed the Host to dogs, defecated on the altar, and even sometimes murdered priests and laity who were trying to defend the Host from desecration, and when Protestants for centuries spoke of the Mass routinely as a blasphemous idolatry because Catholics took the words of Christ more literally than Protestants thought proper–yes, I think that kind of thing is blasphemous.

I still have serious questions about it all; but I would be scared to mention them on this forum for fear of what would be said about me.

First of all, I don’t know why you would be scared. Mean posts are unpleasant, but they won’t hurt you. I think you’re striking a rather unjustified martyr pose here. In the second place, it seems to me that your posts have been quite outspoken. If you want to be even more so, go ahead. The worst that will happen is that you will be banned and you can devote yourself to more worthwhile pursuits than arguing on the Internet (or find somewhere else to do so)! But by and large the moderators do not ban people simply for their opinions.

Edwin

 

[po18guy]

I haven’t heard anyone here call the pope the whore of Babylon. That’s a new one to me. As far as the Reformation goes, it is merely one’s opinion of what it really was and means today. I happen to believe it restored God’s Word again and gave it respect and meaning that it had obviously lost. You may disagree and that’s fine. The Body of Christ is alive and well and if it weren’t, we would all be in trouble.

The church that Christ founded (if He did not found the One Church, then ALL deriviatives of it are illicit) was immediately attacked by satan. This has continued throughout the centuries-to this day. The evil one has entered some priests, thus the current scandal. This was all predicted. Doesn’t make it easier to take.

The Catholic church has been attacked for centuries as the “whore of Babylon” It has become a proverb for the Evangelicals. Some “Christians” seem to hate us as much as they do satan. We pray for them.

Many of the reforms Luther sought were greatly needed. Others were just products of his ego. Thank God the Catholic church never had, or adopted the virulent anti-Semitism of Luther.

In Matthew 16:18, Christ said “on you I found My church”. This is singluar-One Church-not plural, not “33,000 denominations” We are called to unity-as St. Paul constantly preached. This is not a matter of individual opinion.

Thus, as Catholics “universals” we call everyone to unity. We have had to accept Christ’s teachings-even those our human nature disagrees with. Is that too much to expect from others?

Christ’s peace be with you.

 

[po18guy]

No, Luther was a big mouth. We know what he wrote. A decent man would not repeat his vile, obscene, blasphemous language.
peace

“Let your yes mean yes, and your no mean no. Anything more is from the evil one”. Amen to solid beliefs!

Christ’s peace.

 

[rr1213]

****The place to start is Vatican II’s document Dignitatis Humanae. Note in particular section 4, which explicitly guarantees the right of non-Catholic religious groups to spread their teachings.

Yes, Dignitatis Humanae is an admirable document.

Of course, it has been attacked numerous times by “traditional” Catholics in these very forums as not, actually, standing for religious liberty. You know their routine… …you have to understand the document in the context of 2000 years of Catholic history where the “right” of the Church to deny rights to non-Catholics was well established and, therefore, the document does not really mean what, on its face, it purports to mean.

I don’t know what to think about the traditionalists’ approach to DH…as a Protestant do I discount these folks or am I wise to constantly look over my shoulder to ensure that they aren’t trying to mess with my fundamental liberties?

 

[po18guy]

It was for saying things like this about The Word of God that Luther was hounded by the Catholic Church like a dog, had his life in constant danger, and was denounced as a heretic.

I would like to find out a list of the official Catholic doctrine/s that gave their Church the direction to persecute Luther like this.

There is much sin in church history-since every member of every church is a sinner-first and foremost. We cannot apply today’s cultural beliefs and knowledge to decisions or errors made hundreds of years ago. At that time, there was a geniune belief that the heresies of Luther would bring about the end of the church. Decisions were made, rightly or wrongly, based on those fears.

Luther’s well-documented ego lead him to disobedience-to begin a new faith tradition. One which was greatly diluted from the very faith he embraced before the need for reformation. It also lead him to descend into virulent anti-Semitism.

I looked around at all of the churches. They bore either Christ’s name (the Church of Christ is the official name of the Catholic church), or that of man. I chose Christ.

 

[mgrfin]

Yes, Dignitatis Humanae is an admirable document.

Of course, it has been attacked numerous times by “traditional” Catholics in these very forums as not, actually, standing for religious liberty. You know their routine… …you have to understand the document in the context of 2000 years of Catholic history where the “right” of the Church to deny rights to non-Catholics was well established and, therefore, the document does not really mean what, on its face, it purports to mean.

I don’t know what to think about the traditionalists’ approach to DH…as a Protestant do I discount these folks or am I wise to constantly look over my shoulder to ensure that they aren’t trying to mess with my fundamental liberties?

I have never seen DH attacked by Catholics on this site, traditional orthodox, liberal, or otherwise, particularly for it not standing for religilous liberty.

So, you are saying that the document does not mean what it purports to mean on face? Where do you get that? Some underlying document where there is a heated discussion in the Vatican on this before issuance? Some statements since DH which contradict its message? Or are you making it up as you go?

Sometimes, some of the posts here by non-catholics makes you scratch your head where they get this stuff from.

I am sure some non-catholic commentators here will provide a less emotional response than I feel at the moment.

peace

 

[rr1213]

I have never seen DH attacked by Catholics on this site, traditional orthodox, liberal, or otherwise, particularly for it not standing for religilous liberty.

So, you are saying that the document does not mean what it purports to mean on face? Where do you get that? Some underlying document where there is a heated discussion in the Vatican on this before issuance? Some statements since DH which contradict its message? Or are you making it up as you go?

Sometimes, some of the posts here by non-catholics makes you scratch your head where they get this stuff from.

I am sure some non-catholic commentators here will provide a less emotional response than I feel at the moment.

peace

Nope. I’m not making this up at all. There was (more than one) discussions in the Traditionalist forum and elsewhere where traditionalist Catholics most definitely poo-pooed DH and told me that it didn’t mean what it seemed to mean. In all honesty, the discussion was mildly traumatic for me because I thought I had finally found one of the Church’s premier statements that the religious liberties of non-Catholics would be respected…as opposed to the Syllabus of Errors and other such documents.

 

[po18guy]

I have never seen DH attacked by Catholics on this site, traditional orthodox, liberal, or otherwise, particularly for it not standing for religilous liberty.

So, you are saying that the document does not mean what it purports to mean on face? Where do you get that? Some underlying document where there is a heated discussion in the Vatican on this before issuance? Some statements since DH which contradict its message? Or are you making it up as you go?

Sometimes, some of the posts here by non-catholics makes you scratch your head where they get this stuff from.

I am sure some non-catholic commentators here will provide a less emotional response than I feel at the moment.

peace

You got me there?!? I have corresponded with Rabbis who trust the Catholic church because we are bound by our church’s teachings. All other churches are free to turn on the Jews as quick as you can say “Luther”. Luther’s virulent anti-Semitism might have something to do with that.

Bottom line is, if you are Protestant, you must by definition be anti-Catholic. Praise God that we are only anti-satan! We can spend more of our time being Christians.

 

[rr1213]

Nope. I’m not making this up at all. There was (more than one) discussions in the Traditionalist forum and elsewhere where traditionalist Catholics most definitely poo-pooed DH and told me that it didn’t mean what it seemed to mean. In all honesty, the discussion was mildly traumatic for me because I thought I had finally found one of the Church’s premier statements that the religious liberties of non-Catholics would be respected…as opposed to the Syllabus of Errors and other such documents.

Here I found one of the threads. Take a look at posts 105 (my first mention of DH) up through 112.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=131575&page=7

 

[po18guy]

Nope. I’m not making this up at all. There was (more than one) discussions in the Traditionalist forum and elsewhere where traditionalist Catholics most definitely poo-pooed DH and told me that it didn’t mean what it seemed to mean. In all honesty, the discussion was mildly traumatic for me because I thought I had finally found one of the Church’s premier statements that the religious liberties of non-Catholics would be respected…as opposed to the Syllabus of Errors and other such documents.

Peace be with you. Those attacking the DH or other documents are a doubting fringe. They remain our test of faith. Their voice is all out of proportion to their numbers.

Christ’s peace. (when I find some, I’ll share with all!)

 

[mgrfin]

Here I found one of the threads. Take a look at posts 105 (my first mention of DH) up through 112.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=131575&page=7

Politics and religion - such a mixture is TNT.

PEACE

 

[Contarini]

Bottom line is, if you are Protestant, you must by definition be anti-Catholic.

Unless you mean by this “disagree with some part of the Catholic Church’s teaching,” your statement is false and ignorant. Protestants are not required by virtue of being Protestant to think that the Catholic Church is not really Christian, or that it is evil, or that it is any more in error than many Protestant churches, or even that it is any more in error than the Protestant’s own church. It’s even possible to think (as I do) that the Catholic Church is more doctrinally correct than any Protestant church, while still remaining Protestant (because Protestant churches don’t require you to think that they have preserved the fullness of the faith in its entirety). Indeed, there are Protestants who think the Catholic Church is correct but remain Protestant for some pragmatic reason or out of a doomed sense of loyalty. But at that point I’d agree that we are talking about bad Protestants who are not theologically Protestant at all!

That said, and setting aside your remark about Luther (which I think is unfair given the anti-Judaism of much late medieval and early modern Catholicism, out of which Luther’s anti-Judaism sprang–but that’s a fight I’ve had several times recently and don’t want to have again), I agree with your point that Catholicism is bound to its past in a way Protestantism is not, and therefore can be trusted to learn from the past. Apart from any question of divine guidance or protection, this is the great beauty of a church with a strong doctrine of tradition. It may be slow to learn, but it is even slower to forget. I entirely agree that Protestants are in the future far more likely to be persecutors in general (or anti-Semitic in particular, though that’s not much of a danger as long as dispensationalism is popular among the majority of militant Protestants) than the Catholic Church. Fundamentalism, by definition, is incapable of learning anything from history, because it always claims to be taking its ideas straight from Scripture. The conservative Calvinist “Reconstructionists,” though a tiny minority at present, have openly declared their support for religious persecution. And while I think liberals are highly unlikely to persecute in their own right (i.e,. force people to go to the UCC or something!), they might well participate in a future persecution
of conservatives on the grounds of being anti-gay or gender-exclusive or something (though this is probably less likely than most conservatives think, just as a fundamentalist persecution is much less likely than most liberals think).

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[po18guy]

Unless you mean by this “disagree with some part of the Catholic Church’s teaching,” your statement is false and ignorant. Protestants are not required by virtue of being Protestant to think that the Catholic Church is not really Christian, or that it is evil, or that it is any more in error than many Protestant churches, or even that it is any more in error than the Protestant’s own church. It’s even possible to think (as I do) that the Catholic Church is more doctrinally correct than any Protestant church, while still remaining Protestant (because Protestant churches don’t require you to think that they have preserved the fullness of the faith in its entirety). Indeed, there are Protestants who think the Catholic Church is correct but remain Protestant for some pragmatic reason or out of a doomed sense of loyalty. But at that point I’d agree that we are talking about bad Protestants who are not theologically Protestant at all!

That said, and setting aside your remark about Luther (which I think is unfair given the anti-Judaism of much late medieval and early modern Catholicism, out of which Luther’s anti-Judaism sprang–but that’s a fight I’ve had several times recently and don’t want to have again), I agree with your point that Catholicism is bound to its past in a way Protestantism is not, and therefore can be trusted to learn from the past. Apart from any question of divine guidance or protection, this is the great beauty of a church with a strong doctrine of tradition. It may be slow to learn, but it is even slower to forget. I entirely agree that Protestants are in the future far more likely to be persecutors in general (or anti-Semitic in particular, though that’s not much of a danger as long as dispensationalism is popular among the majority of militant Protestants) than the Catholic Church. Fundamentalism, by definition, is incapable of learning anything from history, because it always claims to be taking its ideas straight from Scripture. The conservative Calvinist “Reconstructionists,” though a tiny minority at present, have openly declared their support for religious persecution. And while I think liberals are highly unlikely to persecute in their own right (i.e,. force people to go to the UCC or something!), they might well participate in a future persecution
of conservatives on the grounds of being anti-gay or gender-exclusive or something (though this is probably less likely than most conservatives think, just as a fundamentalist persecution is much less likely than most liberals think).

In Christ,

Edwin

Edwin Edwin Edwin,
I apologize for causing the rant . I mean that if you have chosen Protestantism, you by definition have a disagreement with Catholicism. Since we both can’t be right (unless we each have complementary halves of the whole truth), we are placed in a position of defending our beliefs. This has lead to a distancing of the adversaries, as occurs in all such relationships. I will generalize here and say that Catholics feel less need to defend the faith, since we consider our faith to trace back to the founding.

However, those who followed Luther had to justify their actions, more so in the early years, but traces of the attitude remain. This has lead to the sometimes stark doctrinal differences that developed. The Catholic church was done with public revelation at the death of the last apostle, but assembling the teachings and scriptures took some time after, as we all know.

Interesting that Protestantism did not develop a catechism. My uneducated guess is that Luther rejected it along with much else of the Catholic faith.

Certainly anti-Semitism has waxed and waned (not in the Jew’s opinion!), but it was never institutionalized, even if practiced in the Catholic church. Educate me here if you have information to the contrary.

 

[RobHom]

STILL waiting for any reference to a protestant site which points out the “errors” of Catholicism without resorting to a gross misrepresentation of facts…

Looks like our separated brethren have conceded by their deafening silence that not one of this claimed multitude of mainstream protestant sites, in fact exists.

Go here: erwm.com/CatholicIssues.htm

Go here: christianwebsite.com/cgi-bin/search/jump.cgi?ID=96573

The writers on both sites are so in the wrong that one would be tempted to think that were parodies on the level of the “Onion”. But these people are really and truly warped. See if you can find the gross misrepresentations… They’re not hard to find…not at all.

In fact these people on both sites have a common thread…they are for the most part, or have been linked to LaHaye…who just happens to be a good friend of Rev (?) Moon, of “Moonies” notoriety. They also have a guy who gives speeches, warms up his audience by ranting about Nazi’s and the ACLU, then abruptly changes the subject to “Catholics”.

Another writer did a smear page on Mother Teresa, even to the point of bemoaning the fact that when Mother Teresa was seriously ill that she good good medical care “in the finest facility in the world”. I guess he thought it would be far better to kick her into the ditch in Calcutta. But, while he claimed she was sent to the “finest facility in the world”…he adroitly, or rather "purposefully neglected to name the facility.

If you have no knowledge of sites like this, you have my sympathy for your abject lack of knowledge.

As to the site with the “retarded looking minister”… I find it interesting that it is claimed that it is a hoax. Maybe on one level it is, but in reality, I would not doubt for a single second that some unsuspecting non-Catholic would read it and believe it. I know people who sound just like the yutz. They do exist. The two links above prove it, though their command of the English language in form and diction is better… their dishonesty is equally foul.

I do believe I have previously linked a couple of these sites here in the past few days. Are you being redundant because its convenient…or did you actually miss the posts.

 

[Contarini]

Interesting that Protestantism did not develop a catechism.

It would be interesting if true. But in fact early Protestantism was marked by its intense interest in catechisms–Luther himself wrote two, which are still used by Lutherans. Of course there was never a single catechism, if that’s what you mean.

Edwin

 

[RobHom]

Petergee, please be kind enough to ignore the following comment in my previous post…I tried to edit it, but…it seems that the 20 minute thing isn’t really 20 minutes long

“I do believe I have previously linked a couple of these sites here in the past few days. Are you being redundant because its convenient…or did you actually miss the posts.”…

I have asked the moderators to remove that… I apologize. It seems my mind wandered or I just oooopsed… Sorry.

 

[Nella]

You have misunderstood the usage of would here.

You have applied the conditional form when the usage was past tense.

Past tense usage meaning that Luther called the Pope the Whore of Babylon.

Oh isn’t this something. Now I am going to get a grammar lesson on the word would. This is really getting petty. just admit it, I understood what you originally said and meant. These antics and mental gymnastics are really becoming ridiculous and very redundant on your part.

 

[RobHom]

Hmmmm, seems like someone doesn’t like it when their very own tactics are used on them…

 

[adrift]

Oh isn’t this something. Now I am going to get a grammar lesson on the word would. This is really getting petty. just admit it, I understood what you originally said and meant. These antics and mental gymnastics are really becoming ridiculous and very redundant on your part.

Touchy I was reading post between two people who were using a word differently. What did you understand that I wrote since I only have one post on this thread You questioned another poster about his ability to know what Luther would do. You obviously meant it conditionally where it was quite clear to me that the poster you were answering was using it as past tense. If you understood this, and answered the way you did then antics and mental gymanstice is what you are doing.

 

[Delraek]

The OP is referring to “apologists”, but I have just some stories from work involving the “twisting” of history and the misunderstanding of what the Church teaches…

One of my ex-coworkers is a relatively new Christian and was taking a Bible class offered by his non-denominational church. One of his comments to me was that the reformation took place so that a Bible could be placed in every hand. I had to explain to him that it was the invention of the printing press, NOT the reformation, which was responsible for this. I then asked him how the reformists would have placed a Bible in every hand if the printing press hadn’t been invented yet - he had no response.

Then while I was having one of my discussions with him regarding religion, another co-worker (who happens to be SDA) accused the Catholic Church of removing one of the commandments! I then had to explain to him that our version was taken from Deuteronomy, not Exodus. And when I asked him how “worshipping a graven image” does not violate the commandment “thou shall not have strange gods before me”, he had no answer. But then he accused Catholics of worshipping statues because to him, it looks that way! :banghead:

He also said the it was Jesus who handed Moses the tablets - don’t know where he got that from??

Also, an ex-Catholic friend of mine who is now Baptist uses the same accusatory rhetoric over and over again:
idolotry
worshipping Mary
sacrificing Christ over and over again
I’ve explained what the Catholic teaching is regarding these things and she just dismisses it. I guess it’s easier to believe the “lies” of her pastor than it is to believe a Catholic that actually knows what the Church teaches!

It’s very frustrating!