Wow are protestant apologists really THAT dishonest?

[SORROWS]

“What shall it profit, my bretheren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him?..So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself…Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?” James 2:14, 17,24

“Wherefore, my dearly beloved…with fear and trembling work out your salvation.” Phil. 2:12

Protestants need to meditate more on the teaching of Christ and of the Catholic Church which is usually glossed over or not understood.

 

[Reader_Arsenios]

There is nothing new under the sun. Go read some stuff from sixteenth century controversial literature and you will end up with a heart attack.
These guys do nothing else but get on along a well-trodden path, too cheap and down-trodden to bother about.

Wisdom is justified in Her Children…

And these kids are clueless…

Arsenios

 

[rpavich]

Hi,
I am going to post one last reply…this thread is getting long and going nowhere…

I did read the 10 pages of the virgin mary tract…but still, my question remains…is what the tract said false?

I’m not defending that content, I’m back at square one and saying…ok…now we’ve gotten to the place where we’ve been able to read what’s written…now; what part of that tract was false specifically?

Just because some don’t like what’s asserted doesn’t make it false…it makes it hard to swallow.

It would seem that these tracts are getting dismissed on the basis of their “tone” and not the content…not once in this very long thread has anyone answered my two original questions directly…just a lot of grumbling about someone being unloving and spreading hate…

Disagreement about the facts is not hate: a government banning a tract does not make it hate literature…these are false arguments with no ties to the content we are talking about…

bob

 

[NotWorthy]

OK rpavich, real quick.

Chick condemns Catholics going to a priest, using the Scripture, “Only God can forgive our sins”, even giving the Scripture verse. What Chick ignores is that this verse is issued by a Scribe trying to condemn Jesus for forgiving the paralytic’s sins (when the four lowered him through the roof). Meanwhile, Chick ignores the verse in John where Jesus breathes on the 11 and says, “Receive the Holy Spirit, those sins you forgive they are forgiven…”.

Chick also presents false teaching about the Church. He intreprets Catholics praying in front of a statue as worship.

He claims the Church teaches that Purgatory is your second chance to get to heaven.

He mis-represents the teachings of so many other doctrines.

• Confession - invented in the 3rd or 4th century so that Priests can have damning information on important people.
• Transubstantiation of the Eucharist (regarding the Real Presence - invented in the 12th century.
• The Catholic Church added 7 books to the Bible in Trent to justify Purgatory teachings.

And the biggest problem is, these comics are designed to influence the person who doesn’t know much about their faith, so they don’t understand the mis-representations.

 

[rpavich]

Notworthy,
thanks for the reply,
From your post’s content I’d say that chick is just restating “protestant” beliefs about those subjects…nothing earth shattering here…these are the same things you’d find anywhere on the subject of “Catholic VS Protestant”…

This is old ground so I won’t go into any of that we all know the arguments on both sides.

For the record, I completely agree with Chick on those issues. They are some of the main “separaters” of Catholics to Protestants in my mind…

Have a good day,
bob

 

[NotWorthy]

Notworthy,
thanks for the reply,
From your post’s content I’d say that chick is just restating “protestant” beliefs about those subjects…nothing earth shattering here…these are the same things you’d find anywhere on the subject of “Catholic VS Protestant”…

This is old ground so I won’t go into any of that we all know the arguments on both sides.

For the record, I completely agree with Chick on those issues. They are some of the main “separaters” of Catholics to Protestants in my mind…

Have a good day,
bob

Well, you see that’s where the rubber hits the road. Take one issue - Transubstantiation.

Chick shows that we invented it in like, the 12th century. “Invented” means that it was not taught before hand. Yet, Chick knows that the teaching of the Real Presence has been taught since the earliest writings and our in line with the literal interpretation of John chapter 6 and the Synoptic Gospels rendering of the Last Supper. Chick knows that St. Augustine in the 4th century was the first to use the term “Transubstantiation”.

Now, whether you or Chick disagree with this teaching is irrelevant. I can see how people find this “a hard teaching, difficult to follow”. I appreciate your beliefs on that, even as I disagree with them.

But to knowingly list this as a “Tradition of Man”, which carries all the negative conotations, that was invented in the 12th century is an outright lie. Jesus would never condone this method of evangelizing.

That’s where Chick has crossed the line, and he continues to cross the line. He used Father Ramirez (?) an Ex-Catholic Priest as an expert on all that’s wrong with Catholic Doctrine. And you know what? Father Ramirez (?) was a fake, and Chick knew it. His expert witness had no clue what he was talking about, and Chick knew it.

Good Luck, RPavich, but please take my warnings to heart.

Never, Ever, knowingly mis-represent someone else’s Faith in order to win over souls. You may be helping them, but you are certainly putting your own soul at risk.

 

[deb1]

Notworthy,
thanks for the reply,
From your post’s content I’d say that chick is just restating “protestant” beliefs about those subjects…nothing earth shattering here…these are the same things you’d find anywhere on the subject of “Catholic VS Protestant”…

This is old ground so I won’t go into any of that we all know the arguments on both sides.

For the record, I completely agree with Chick on those issues. They are some of the main “separaters” of Catholics to Protestants in my mind…

Have a good day,
bob

With all due respect, I think that I see the problem.

Chick is an embarrassment to Protestants and most Protestants are not as blind as you say they are.

I’m not trying to be mean, but you seem to be unaware how ignorant Chick’s arguments are. Most of them are based on fabrications.

Yes, this is old grounds but if you aren’t willing to discuss these subject but just blindly accept what you are told by a horribly anti Catholic bigot then how ever will you discover if what you believe is true. Aren’t we told in the bible to ‘test’ these things?

So, I ask you , why don’t you start some threads and ‘test’ what Chick says about Catholics. Besides if you have real faith in your beliefs then they should be able to withstand the type of debate that we have around here.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

i was looking at Philip Porvaznik’s (“Philvaz”) website and saw an interesting quote from protestant apologist william webster and david king in their book “The Holy Scripture: Pillar and Foundation of our faith”

" The patristic evidence for sola Scriptura is, we believe, an overwhelming indictment against the claims of the Roman communion. " (volume 1 by David King, page 266)

" Such statements [regarding the unhistorical nature of sola Scriptura] manifest an ignorance of the patristic and medieval perspective on the authority of Scripture. Scripture alone as the infallible rule for the ongoing life and faith of the Church was the universal belief and practice of the Church of the patristic and medieval ages. " (volume 2 by William Webster, page 84-85)

" When they [the Church Fathers] are allowed to speak for themselves it becomes clear that they universally taught sola Scriptura in the fullest sense of the term embracing both the material and formal sufficiency of Scripture. " (volume 3 by Webster/King, page 9)

obviously this is a blatant lie since we can see through reading the church fathers in context that they did not teach sola scriptura at all! Now if webster’s argument was that there are certain passages from the church fathers which can be used to support his argument that is one thing (allthough i highly dissagre with it) but to say that there was a universal consesus for sola scriptura seems like these heretics are intenionally trying to misslead people. What do you think?

1. How is it “obviously a…lie” ?​

1. If they are to be accused of something that bad - it is necessary to show they are wrong; simply to say they are, is not enough.
2. One can be wrong, or, can differ from others in one’s interpretation of evidence, without being dishonest.
3. As for lack of a universal consensus - that can be used against Catholicism. ##

 

[rpavich]

Deb1,
I don’t know what you thought I was doing but I honestly didn’t know what Chick was all about and why he was getting a bad rap…

I would also disagree with chick on the 12th century thing…

I would probably say it’s “semantics”…

Protestants would say that at no time was Jesus every saying that the bread and wine was actually turning into Him…

Catholics point to the words and say “yes he did!”

When Did This Teaching Begin? Here is some information…one of us has our stories wrong obviously…

The teaching of transubstantiation does not date back to the Last Supper as most Catholics suppose. It was a controversial topic for many centuries before officially becoming an article of faith (which means that it is essential to salvation according to Rome). The idea of a physical presence was vaguely held by some, such as Ambrose, but it was not until 831 A.D. that Paschasius Radbertus, a Benedictine Monk, published a treatise openly advocating the doctrine. Even then, for almost another four centuries, theological was was waged over this teaching by bishops and people alike, until at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 A.D., it was officially defined and canonized as a dogma (a teaching or doctrine that can never be reversed or repealed. It is equal in authority to the Bible.) by Pope Innocent III.

Church historians tell us that when this doctrine first began to be taught, the priests took great care that no crumb should fall - lest the body of Jesus be hurt, or even eaten by a mouse or a dog! There were quite serious discussions as to what should be done if a person were to vomit after receiving the sacrament. At the Council of Constance, it was argued that if a communicant spilled some of the blood on his beard, both beard and the man should be destroyed by burning!

 

[exoflare]

The idea of a physical presence was vaguely held by some, such as Ambrose, but it was not until 831 A.D. that Paschasius Radbertus, a Benedictine Monk, published a treatise openly advocating the doctrine.

Where did you get this information? I’m not inclined to believe the author even knew what he or she was talking about, and here’s why…

Transubstantiation doesn’t even mean that the “physical” properties of the bread and wine change. The word “physical” refers to what we perceive with our senses, and this (called the “accidents” of bread and wine) is what remains the same. The substance of the bread and wine is what changes.

 

[juno24]

Deb1,
I don’t know what you thought I was doing but I honestly didn’t know what Chick was all about and why he was getting a bad rap…

I would also disagree with chick on the 12th century thing…

I would probably say it’s “semantics”…

Protestants would say that at no time was Jesus every saying that the bread and wine was actually turning into Him…

Catholics point to the words and say “yes he did!”

When Did This Teaching Begin? Here is some information…one of us has our stories wrong obviously…

The teaching of transubstantiation does not date back to the Last Supper as most Catholics suppose. It was a controversial topic for many centuries before officially becoming an article of faith (which means that it is essential to salvation according to Rome). The idea of a physical presence was vaguely held by some, such as Ambrose, but it was not until 831 A.D. that Paschasius Radbertus, a Benedictine Monk, published a treatise openly advocating the doctrine. Even then, for almost another four centuries, theological was was waged over this teaching by bishops and people alike, until at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 A.D., it was officially defined and canonized as a dogma (a teaching or doctrine that can never be reversed or repealed. It is equal in authority to the Bible.) by Pope Innocent III.

Church historians tell us that when this doctrine first began to be taught, the priests took great care that no crumb should fall - lest the body of Jesus be hurt, or even eaten by a mouse or a dog! There were quite serious discussions as to what should be done if a person were to vomit after receiving the sacrament. At the Council of Constance, it was argued that if a communicant spilled some of the blood on his beard, both beard and the man should be destroyed by burning!

Please read the forum rules, one of which is that if you are going to cut and paste whole sections from other sites you need to credit the site you copied from. For those who are curious, the above was cut and pasted from chcpublications.net/CathCrn1.htm

 

[DallasCatholic]

Deb1,
I don’t know what you thought I was doing but I honestly didn’t know what Chick was all about and why he was getting a bad rap…

I would also disagree with chick on the 12th century thing…

I would probably say it’s “semantics”…

Protestants would say that at no time was Jesus every saying that the bread and wine was actually turning into Him…

Catholics point to the words and say “yes he did!”

When Did This Teaching Begin? Here is some information…one of us has our stories wrong obviously…

The teaching of transubstantiation does not date back to the Last Supper as most Catholics suppose. It was a controversial topic for many centuries before officially becoming an article of faith (which means that it is essential to salvation according to Rome). The idea of a physical presence was vaguely held by some, such as Ambrose, but it was not until 831 A.D. that Paschasius Radbertus, a Benedictine Monk, published a treatise openly advocating the doctrine. Even then, for almost another four centuries, theological was was waged over this teaching by bishops and people alike, until at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 A.D., it was officially defined and canonized as a dogma (a teaching or doctrine that can never be reversed or repealed. It is equal in authority to the Bible.) by Pope Innocent III.

Church historians tell us that when this doctrine first began to be taught, the priests took great care that no crumb should fall - lest the body of Jesus be hurt, or even eaten by a mouse or a dog! There were quite serious discussions as to what should be done if a person were to vomit after receiving the sacrament. At the Council of Constance, it was argued that if a communicant spilled some of the blood on his beard, both beard and the man should be destroyed by burning!

First of all, would you care to give us the source for this quote? Secondly, note the parenthetical expression that I bolded above…this statement is not true. Just because something is an article of faith does not mean it is necessary for Salvation. Personally, the quotation you provided appears to be another in a long line of anti-catholic propaganda…I could be wrong. The misstatements of Catholic faith and belief and the overexaggeration are what point me to this conclusion. The final sentance actually made me LOL.

 

[exoflare]

Thanks for the link, Judy… that explains a lot. This same guy claims that dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible.

 

[exoflare]

The final sentance actually made me LOL.

hehe… both “the beard and the man” should be destroyed by burning. As opposed to just the man, and not the beard, I guess?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Deb1,
I don’t know what you thought I was doing but I honestly didn’t know what Chick was all about and why he was getting a bad rap…

I would also disagree with chick on the 12th century thing…

I would probably say it’s “semantics”…

Protestants would say that at no time was Jesus every saying that the bread and wine was actually turning into Him…

That is not what is meant by transubstantiation​

Catholics point to the words and say “yes he did!”

When Did This Teaching Begin? Here is some information…one of us has our stories wrong obviously…

The teaching of transubstantiation does not date back to the Last Supper as most Catholics suppose.

Neither does the deity of Christ - that does not make it any less a fact.​

It was a controversial topic for many centuries before officially becoming an article of faith (which means that it is essential to salvation according to Rome).

As could be said of many things - such as the Trinity, the deity of the Holy Spirit, the unity of the two natures in Christ, for instance. The final formulations of these dogmas took centuries.​

The idea of a physical presence

“Physical” is a very slippery word in this context:​

• 1. It is “physically” impossible for men to fly - that is, it is against their physis, their nature, as they are men & not birds.
• 1. Wrestlers are “physically” stronger than weaklings - that is, they are brawnier, bigger, tougher.
     Sense 1 is the one that featured in the theology of the Blessed Eucharist - it has nothing to do with 2.

was vaguely held by some, such as Ambrose, but it was not until 831 A.D. that Paschasius Radbertus, a Benedictine Monk, published a treatise openly advocating the doctrine. Even then, for almost another four centuries, theological was was waged over this teaching by bishops and people alike, until at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 A.D., it was officially defined and canonized as a dogma (a teaching or doctrine that can never be reversed or repealed. It is equal in authority to the Bible.) by Pope Innocent III.

Church historians tell us that when this doctrine first began to be taught, the priests took great care that no crumb should fall - lest the body of Jesus be hurt, or even eaten by a mouse or a dog! There were quite serious discussions as to what should be done if a person were to vomit after receiving the sacrament. At the Council of Constance, it was argued that if a communicant spilled some of the blood on his beard, both beard and the man should be destroyed by burning!

The word transubstantiatio is first used in Latin theology in 1140 by Master Roland (Roland Bandinelli, later Pope as Alexander III [1159-81]). It’s first used in a strictly doctrinal text in 1215, by Lateran IV, as you say.​

References to that little detail about the Council of Constance would be gratefully received; it sounds like a myth to me.

 

[DallasCatholic]

Please read the forum rules, one of which is that if you are going to cut and paste whole sections from other sites you need to credit the site you copied from. For those who are curious, the above was cut and pasted from chcpublications.net/CathCrn1.htm

Thanks Judy! What a crock!

Very, very few people know what the Catholic Church actually believes and teaches concerning this subject, and I am convinced that even fewer Catholics realize themselves what they are taking part in.

Taken from the website that Judy gave us.

LOL. Maybe we should send the author a link to one of the several threads on this forum concerning Transubstantiation.

It might be hard for you to believe, but that’s exactly, literally, what “transubstantiation” means. The Roman Catholic Church teaches their flocks that the bread and the wine used in the Mass actually, physically, turn into the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ after the priest blesses them during the liturgy (ceremony).

Obviously the author of that web article doesn’t know what the Church teaches about Transubstantiation either!! LOL

 

[NotWorthy]

Obviously the author of that web article doesn’t know what the Church teaches about Transubstantiation either!! LOL

So, does someone who can’t even interpret Catholic Teaching adequately (even when corrected) expect me to trust them to interpret the Bible correctly???

 

[DallasCatholic]

Deb1,
I don’t know what you thought I was doing but I honestly didn’t know what Chick was all about and why he was getting a bad rap…

I would also disagree with chick on the 12th century thing…

I would probably say it’s “semantics”…

Protestants would say that at no time was Jesus every saying that the bread and wine was actually turning into Him…

Catholics point to the words and say “yes he did!”

When Did This Teaching Begin? Here is some information…one of us has our stories wrong obviously…

The teaching of transubstantiation does not date back to the Last Supper as most Catholics suppose. It was a controversial topic for many centuries before officially becoming an article of faith (which means that it is essential to salvation according to Rome). The idea of a physical presence was vaguely held by some, such as Ambrose, but it was not until 831 A.D. that Paschasius Radbertus, a Benedictine Monk, published a treatise openly advocating the doctrine. Even then, for almost another four centuries, theological was was waged over this teaching by bishops and people alike, until at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 A.D., it was officially defined and canonized as a dogma (a teaching or doctrine that can never be reversed or repealed. It is equal in authority to the Bible.) by Pope Innocent III.

Church historians tell us that when this doctrine first began to be taught, the priests took great care that no crumb should fall - lest the body of Jesus be hurt, or even eaten by a mouse or a dog! There were quite serious discussions as to what should be done if a person were to vomit after receiving the sacrament. At the Council of Constance, it was argued that if a communicant spilled some of the blood on his beard, both beard and the man should be destroyed by burning!

OH, by the way…the Council of Constance was not a valid Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church.

 

[juno24]

Thanks Judy! What a crock!

My pleasure. Whenever someone posts something that looks totally out of sync with the rest of his posts (either grammatically, structurally, or even using higher-level vocabulary) alarms go off; I copy a portion of what he has posted and google it, and sure enough it comes up word for word from some other website.

In this case, it seems Mr Pavich has picked a real doozy of a site to copy from; it seems to be mish-mash of SDA, JW and Oneness theology tossed up into one big mess.

I googled the very last line of his post, and it came up with 6 hits, all of them going directly back to the page I posted as their source.

 

[Catholicdeacon]

What you and I could do is spend some hours talking about the doctrine of justification and election…basically Soteriology and I could very easily show you that the Catholic position is not biblical. The question is whether or not you would be willing to see it… How critical are the teachings surrounding salvation!

Greatings Brother in Christ! Peace be with you!

Indeed I would love to spend some time discussing the finer soteriologycal points of the Protestant faith. In fact I know I could learn much from our discussion, since I only have a very limited knowledge on this topic. However I’m afraid that to embark in such an undertaking without first agreeing on a “common language” is just folly.

What do I mean with “common language”? Let me explain. Let’s assume we engage in a discussion about justification. Eventually you (or me) will turn to scripture to emphasize a point. If we do not understand how the other interprets what is being quoted, we will end up on and endless diatribe of points and counter points, neither of us understanding (or even worst miss-understanding) the other. I think there is enough of that in the Internet already.

This is why I must insist on my first point: How does a believer in Sola Scripturae knows how to interpret what is in scripture? For Catholics it is easy because we have scripture, the witness of the Early Fathers and the Magisterium. But “Sola Scripturalists” (If I may call them this) only depend on scripture itself. So the question is in what do you depend to interpret scripture? And if you depend on an external source, isn’t it wrong to say that you solely depend on scripture, since you are also depending on the interpretation of this scripture? So if you do not depend on external sources then it follows that your interpretation must come from scripture itself. Where does it say, in the bible “this is how you must interpret the words of Jesus”, or the apostles. Again if you do not have an answer it is OK, I for sure do not know from the top of my head all the intrinsicacies <sp?> of Catholic Dogma. However, (If I may in the  love of Christ point to you) I suggest you spend some time trying to solve this conundrum…after all everything in the Christian faith depends on the word of God we better know what he is saying so we do not deceive ourselves.

   Nice meeting you. I hope you agree to the terms of our exchange.

In His love…

A Catholic Deacon