easy steps to improve Catholic apologetics

1Thess521 said:
...
Arguments Catholics Shouldn't Use
.
...
Click to expand...
11. Do not jump to James 2:24 in order to counter every Protestant proof-text for justification by faith alone. Given that Catholic theology is true, it ought to be able to account for every text of Scripture on its own terms and in its own context. Hence, there is no escaping the duty to do exegesis, even of, especially of, Romans. It will not satisfy any Protestant to object to his proof-text that "it can't mean that because then it would contradict this other passage over here." The Protestant will have his own understanding of that other passage over there as well. Again, there is no escaping the duty to read the Protestant proof-texts closely and carefully and to furnish justified interpretations which are consistent with Catholic dogma.
Click to expand...
In other words, ignore the whole counsel of God in favour of RCC's theological dogmas.
 
1Thess521 said:
originally from a pro-Catholic site:
(now shut down; but this has been on the internet at various other sites for years)

Arguments Catholics Shouldn't Use

If CARM posting Catholics would follow these tips : the quality of their apologetics would improve dramatically.
Click to expand...
I agree.

When I hear a Catholic say there are "33,000 denominations", right off the bat, that tells me he's an idiot who can't think for himself, but just spouts someone else's talking points.

I'm not offended by "anti-Catholic". I just point out that I'm not "anti-Catholic", but anti-Catholicism.

I don't mind them disagreeing with the Biblical praxis of sola scriptura, as long as they understand it correctly. But we've never seen a Catholic here represent it correctly, only their straw man version of it.
 
1Thess521 said:
originally from a pro-Catholic site:
(now shut down; but this has been on the internet at various other sites for years)

Arguments Catholics Shouldn't Use

If CARM posting Catholics would follow these tips : the quality of their apologetics would improve dramatically.
Click to expand...
From what I have seen here, the RC's responses would disappear! ?

(In the following, "you" is generic; although I fear that those who would benefit most from it will not recognize themselves.)
One point, which I may have missed, is "Be aware of what other Catholics have posted previously." To start arguing a matter which has been gone over and over, and using the same arguments as the other poster used, shows several things: 1) laziness on your part – you cannot be bothered to read what others have said, and 2) disrespect for those who have gone over the matter previously. It also reflects poorly upon your cognitive facilities – it is the immature child who keeps crying out the same thing in hopes of getting what it wants.

--Rich
 
RiJoRi said:
From what I have seen here, the RC's responses would disappear! ?

(In the following, "you" is generic; although I fear that those who would benefit most from it will not recognize themselves.)
One point, which I may have missed, is "Be aware of what other Catholics have posted previously." To start arguing a matter which has been gone over and over, and using the same arguments as the other poster used, shows several things: 1) laziness on your part – you cannot be bothered to read what others have said, and 2) disrespect for those who have gone over the matter previously. It also reflects poorly upon your cognitive facilities – it is the immature child who keeps crying out the same thing in hopes of getting what it wants.

--Rich
Click to expand...
in the "chess match" of apologetics:
Carm-posting Catholics keep playing the same losing opening moves.
(that was an analogy: this really isn't game)
 
Last edited:
Quote:The following important observations were made in 1851:

We cannot allow that every private Priest or member of the Church of Rome should give his own opinions merely as the standard of doctrine. We will have recourse to the oracular response of the Church, and insist that they be represented by themselves; not, however, by private individuals, but by their legal representatives


But, then, there is nothing which they dread so much as the testimony of their own Church. ...
IT IS A PRINCIPAL AIM OF ALL [ROMAN CATHOLIC] CONTROVERTISTS
TO EMPLOY EVERY MODE OF EVASION IN ORDER TO DISCONCERT THEIR OPPOSERS.

There is even a marked difference between the tone of these Romish Divines
who speak dogmatically for the instruction of their own members
and that of those who attempt to answer the objections of their antagonists.
With the former, all is matter of downright certainty;
with the latter, all is doubt, difficulty, subterfuge, and evasion.

When the faithful are to be instructed, every Priest becomes the sure depositary
of the infallible decisions of an infallible Church;

but when Protestants are to be confuted,
the declarations of their most illustrious men are of no authority.
Councils are discovered to have been but partly approved
Popes did not speak ex cathedra;
Cardinals and Bishops are but private Doctors;
And who cares for the opinion of an obscure Priest or Friar?

Thus nothing is so difficult as to know what the belief of Roman Catholics really is; and
WHEN A PROTESTANT ADDUCES THEIR OWN WRITERS AS WITNESSES,
HE IS FREQUENTLY TOLD THAT HE {The Catholic Writter} IS A MISREPRESENTER OF THEIR CHURCH

(Charles Elliott, Delineation of Roman Catholicism, London: John Mason, 1851, p. 23).



Quote: WELCOME TO Catholic Responses 101
Always, Always keep in mind
The Doctrine of Mental Reserve
you are under no obligation to tell any Heretic the truth,
nor reveal the True Teachings of the church
to those outside the confines of The
One True and Apostolic Church
 
RiJoRi said:
One point, which I may have missed, is "Be aware of what other Catholics have posted previously." To start arguing a matter which has been gone over and over, and using the same arguments as the other poster used, shows several things: 1) laziness on your part – you cannot be bothered to read what others have said, and 2) disrespect for those who have gone over the matter previously.
Click to expand...
 
RiJoRi said:
From what I have seen here, the RC's responses would disappear! ?

(In the following, "you" is generic; although I fear that those who would benefit most from it will not recognize themselves.)
One point, which I may have missed, is "Be aware of what other Catholics have posted previously." To start arguing a matter which has been gone over and over, and using the same arguments as the other poster used, shows several things: 1) laziness on your part – you cannot be bothered to read what others have said, and 2) disrespect for those who have gone over the matter previously. It also reflects poorly upon your cognitive facilities – it is the immature child who keeps crying out the same thing in hopes of getting what it wants.

--Rich
Click to expand...

In fairness, the scriptural observation that “there is nothing new under the sun” also applies here at CARM. Even a cursory review of historical threads reveals that the same issues are debated over and over and the same “chess moves” are made again and again by both Catholic and Protestant posters.
 
1Thess521 said:
originally from a pro-Catholic site:
(now shut down; but this has been on the internet at various other sites for years)

Arguments Catholics Shouldn't Use

If CARM posting Catholics would follow these tips : the quality of their apologetics would improve dramatically.
Click to expand...
dingoling. said:
There are errors in scripture and there are contradictions in it.

Hey @dingoling.

10. Never compromise biblical inerrancy in order to score points against Protestantism. ......
This defense is thoroughly inadmissible: it invalidates the authentic Catholic standard regarding the necessary characteristics of Scripture (one of which is inerrancy) just as well as Protestant standard.

 
1Thess521 said:
originally from a pro-Catholic site:
(now shut down; but this has been on the internet at various other sites for years)

Arguments Catholics Shouldn't Use

If CARM posting Catholics would follow these tips : the quality of their apologetics would improve dramatically.
Click to expand...
1) No problem since I do not allege there are 33,000 Protestant sects. I accept the number James White has suggested--at a few hundred. It does not matter. Protestantism cannot agree on what the Bible teaches. Thus, hundreds of sects are hundreds too many.

2) When Protestants intentionally lie about Catholicism with accusations of saint worship, Mary worship, bread worship, statue worship, what is that if NOT anti-Catholicism?

3) Lack of charity and Saint Jerome? I never heard of this.

4) This is nothing but a caricature of the Catholic argument against Sola Scriptura.The author cannot be blamed as "Catholic Answers" tends to be where most armchair Catholic apologists get their apologetics information. Catholics do not maintain that Scripture is unintelligible without the Church. Catholics maintain that God founded a Church, in part, to be the divinely authorized teacher of the Word of God. Sola Scriptura is not adequate becasue Scripture is not the sole locus where God's authority on earth is manifested. THAT----perhaps in short and oversimplified is the Catholic argument against Sola Scriptura.

5) Again, another caricature. If one is going to claim to go by the Bible alone, it follows that one needs to know what constitutes the Bible; that is to say, one needs to know what is Theopneustos. It is not readily apparent what is and is not Theopneustos. Thus, in accepting the 27 book New Testament Canon, Protestants unwillingly have to appeal to Tradition as their basis for doing so-and thus violate Sola Scriptura. You cannot have your cake and eat it.

6) Catholics do not claim that Tradition is Theopneustos, they claim it is infallible. Catholics agree that only Scripture is Theopneustos. If this is all Sola Scriptura asserted, Catholics could agree with it.

7) I am not sure what the point of this argument is.

8) So becasue 2 Peter 1: 20-21 cannot be used as a proof-text against Private Judgement, this entails Christians are free to interpret the Bible however they want--apart from the teaching, guidance and authority of the Church?

9) The author misses the point. How do you accurately reconstruct the manuscripts without appealing to Tradition in order to do so? All reconstructions of the manuscripts and all appeals to their accuracy are ultimately appeals to the authority of Tradition, since you cannot know their accuracy apart from Tradition. Sort of ironic for a Sola Scriptura Christian, don't you think?

10) The doctrine of inspiration--and inerrancy--which naturally follows from inspiration is a Faith based claim, not a scientific claim. Thus, alleged errors in the DeuteroCanonicals are simply not relevant since they are only apparent, not real--exactly like in any other book of the Bible the same logic applies.

11) Catholics don't just appeal to James as justification for their beliefs about justification.

12) Catholics believe that the whole Scriptures are the Word of God. The Gospels are not "more" the Word of God than the other Scriptures are. We give priority to the Gospels only becasue the rest of Scripture finds its perfect fulfillment and completion in Jesus, the Word of God incarnate.

13) Good point--but the author seems to assume that the Catholic is debating a reformed Protestant. Most "Bible Christians" are not Five Point Calvinists.

14) Another good point, but for the reasons above irrelevant. Most "Bible Christians" are not Five Point Calvinists.

15) If we agree that works are an outgrowth of Faith, how can they be anything other than justifying? When God sees our Faith, He sees Christ, correct? If Faith produces works, one and the same Christ is producing those works--which means--they are also justfying. How could they be anything but--if it is one and the same Christ doing them?

16) Agreed. The truth of the Catholic Faith does not hinge on whether one is justified in adding the word "alone" in Romans 3:28. A Catholic could add the word alone in that passage and still have it be consistent with the Catholic Faith about justification.

17) But love of God is exactly what motivates Catholics to do good works too. It is not and never has been Catholic teaching that there is an inherent equality between our good works and the rewards God gives them. Our good works are NOTHING. I as a Catholic do not do good works becasue I think I can place God in my debt, but because I love God and want to please Him. God rewards those works becasue God in his graciousness as deigned to associate his Grace with those works.

18) Agreed. I am sure the author of this article is well-intentioned.
 
romishpopishorganist said:
1) No problem since I do not allege there are 33,000 Protestant sects. I accept the number James White has suggested--at a few hundred. It does not matter. Protestantism cannot agree on what the Bible teaches. Thus, hundreds of sects are hundreds too many.
Click to expand...

This is incredibly disingenuous.

The issue at hand is NOT whether various denominations "agree". The issue is hand is whether any particular congregation is teaching TRUTH.

Just because the RCC agrees with itself, does NOT guarantee that it is teaching truth.

Further, it is artificial and self-serving to isolate the RCC by itself (so there can be no "disagreement", and then lump EVERYONE ELSE into the same group, and expect them to agree on everything.

Finally, the argument falsely assumes that one has to have perfect knowledge on ALL doctrines in order to be saved.

romishpopishorganist said:
2) When Protestants intentionally lie about Catholicism with accusations of saint worship, Mary worship, bread worship, statue worship, what is that if NOT anti-Catholicism?
Click to expand...

Again, so much error and disingenuous behaviour.

First of all, just because you may think a criticism is wrong, does NOT mean that it is a "lie". But Romanists have no charity, and so they love insulting Protestants at every turn. If the critic actually believes what he's saying, even if it's wrong it is NOT a "lie", it would merely be a mistake.

(And FYI, let's all remember the CARM rule which prohibits accusing posters of "lying".)

In this case, I don't think it's a lie at all, since I believe it is a perfectly accurate and true criticism. Romanists play fast and loose with Greek terms "latria" and "dulia", giving "dulia" to the saints, and "hyper-dulia" to Mary, when these concepts (as well as prayer itself are all forms of WORSHIP.

So yes, any Catholic who "dulia's" the Saints, or "hyper-dulia's" Mary, is WORSHIPPING them.

Sorry, but Mary and the saints are not gods, and they have no ability to hear prayers from Earth, nor do they have the capacity to process and respond to millions of prayers every second.

romishpopishorganist said:
5) Again, another caricature. If one is going to claim to go by the Bible alone, it follows that one needs to know what constitutes the Bible; that is to say, one needs to know what is Theopneustos. It is not readily apparent what is and is not Theopneustos. Thus, in accepting the 27 book New Testament Canon, Protestants unwillingly have to appeal to Tradition as their basis for doing so-and thus violate Sola Scriptura. You cannot have your cake and eat it.
Click to expand...

You have so many irrational reasons for rejecting Sola Scriptura.
But it's too bad for you that so many ECF's proclaimed sola Scriptura.

romishpopishorganist said:
8) So becasue 2 Peter 1: 20-21 cannot be used as a proof-text against Private Judgement, this entails Christians are free to interpret the Bible however they want--apart from the teaching, guidance and authority of the Church?
Click to expand...

You're basically using the proof-text even though the article recommends against. That's the whole point, you are ASSUMING that any exegesis given by Protestants is "however they want". You may feel good about yourself by insulting Protestants in this way, but it will NEVER convert anyone to Romanism.

romishpopishorganist said:
9) The author misses the point. How do you accurately reconstruct the manuscripts without appealing to Tradition in order to do so? All reconstructions of the manuscripts and all appeals to their accuracy are ultimately appeals to the authority of Tradition, since you cannot know their accuracy apart from Tradition. Sort of ironic for a Sola Scriptura Christian, don't you think?
Click to expand...

Nope.
Manuscripts are tangible fact.
They are not "tradition".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top