tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post3334132513730579262..comments2024-03-22T16:09:48.895-04:00Comments on Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Discussions with CatholicsJames Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-1650139049043133472007-12-20T23:03:00.000-05:002007-12-20T23:03:00.000-05:00Addendum: Fellas, lest you need any example, pleas...Addendum: Fellas, lest you need any example, please read this extremely rude piece posted, just below this one, called 'Sufficient Atonement' By B.S.<BR/><BR/>A money quote: "Also, the Reformed churches rightfully opposed the Romish heresy in all their confessions. Now that modern Evangelicalism has degenerated so far in so many critical areas (e.g., soteriology, worship, eschatology, etc.). Protestants need to be even more diligent in defending justification against all attacks from antichrist and his lieutenants"<BR/><BR/>- Good stuff. Man, those mean, nasty Catholics are always starting this stuff...<BR/><BR/>'Romish' and 'anti-Christ.'<BR/>Wow. Oh well, the usual from this blog.<BR/><BR/>Does John not say that the anti-christ is an unbeliever?<BR/><BR/>Pathetic.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02884682339259355903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-33319430263738115232007-12-20T19:05:00.000-05:002007-12-20T19:05:00.000-05:00Pilgrim and Mateo. I like that now we play the she...Pilgrim and Mateo. I like that now we play the sheep, but please re-read LP Cruz's statements. Pilgrim, my address was more to LP, not you, with regard to the path of Protestantism. <BR/><BR/>Now regarding respectible historians, I can give you a couple, however they are Catholic, and unless they are total dissenters from orthodox Catholic teaching, I am sure they will be discredited by you. Anyhow I suggest reading (I know you'll love the 1st title): <BR/>1) Triumph: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church. A 2,000-year history, by H.W. Crocker III. I think it was published in 2002.<BR/>2) The Great Heresies by Hilaire Belloc. Published in 1938.<BR/><BR/>Now did I say that the reformation caused the Holocost? No, I did not.<BR/><BR/>Did I state the reformation lead directly to the 20th century murders? No. <BR/><BR/>I did infer, and still do, that the eventual path of stripping the state from an accountable, moral authority does indeed lead to the horrors of the 20th century. Perhaps I should have indeed stated that is was an unintentional consequence of the shattering of Christendom. However, the rise of the state is directly due to the reformation. From there, all else is, as they say...history.<BR/><BR/>I stand by my assertions. Our current pope would as well. So would about a dozen bishops in the US. Many theologians would as well. <BR/><BR/>Where you err in assessing what I said is this: I did not infer it was an intended consequence. I do assert it was unintended. <BR/><BR/>How can these not be related. Think about it.<BR/><BR/>Stuff like this is asserted against Catholicism on Beggars all, all of the time, yet I never, ever, EVER, see you guys protest the protestant versions of it.<BR/><BR/>Interesting.<BR/><BR/>Not really.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02884682339259355903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-69572031262364290862007-12-20T15:45:00.000-05:002007-12-20T15:45:00.000-05:00Mateo,Thanks again for bringing some sanity to bea...Mateo,<BR/><BR/>Thanks again for bringing some sanity to bear here.<BR/><BR/>I just don't understand where all this rancour comes from. I have never, in my life, either believed or taught that Catholics killed millions in the Inquisition, and I don't know of any reasonably intelligent Protestant who has or does.<BR/><BR/>I am fond of facts. And the best facts are that over a 300+ year period somewhere between 3,000 and 5,000 people were executed. It's a sad thing, to be sure, but it's nothing like the millions killed in the various secular holocausts of the 20th century. It is nothing short of a damnable lie to say that Protestantism has caused the murders of millions.<BR/><BR/>I do not hold today's Catholics responsible for these things, and Catholics should not hold today's Protestants accountable for witch burnings and other persecutions of the past. Let's agree to move beyond this tit-for-tat nonsense, shall we?<BR/><BR/>Blessings,<BR/><BR/>PilgrimsarbourPilgrimsarbourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18046918223325823689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-45076010938516640922007-12-20T08:24:00.000-05:002007-12-20T08:24:00.000-05:00Well, I hope no one will identify Marco's hostilit...Well, I hope no one will identify Marco's hostility and wrongheaded, irresponsible claims (such as Protestantism's carving out the road which leads to the murderous 20th century) with Catholicism tout court. No bishop, no pope, no professional Catholic theologian would even dream of saying most (or all) of these things today (or ever?).Gaetanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14722914942511761947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-29578227209320906152007-12-20T00:30:00.000-05:002007-12-20T00:30:00.000-05:00Pardon me, I mean you Reformed folks' favorite Cat...Pardon me, I mean you Reformed folks' favorite Catholic apoligists, heheh.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02884682339259355903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-49057849660595227822007-12-20T00:28:00.000-05:002007-12-20T00:28:00.000-05:00LP Cruz: Your Protestant history attempted this in...LP Cruz: Your Protestant history attempted this in it's short history. We can use Geneva, or The Protestant persecution of Catholics, or Luther's peasant's revolt and witch burning's as well. Or perhaps the South African (heugenot) persecution of non-Christian, non-whites, the Klan et al. Sorry, but your sordid history did not fare so well either. The attempted Police state of Genevan Calvinism was not due to Catholicism.<BR/>A direct question for you and Pilgrim: You Protty's assert that millions were killed during the inquisition. How many exactly do you think were killed, and how many were sanctioned by a pope? Over how many years? Source?<BR/>BTW: When kings no longer pay homage to a moral authority, we then arrive where we are today, after Protestantism shattered Christendom. The rise of the state as our nanny, the rise of relativism, mass genocide and murder in the name of the state (about 100 million this past century alone). For the path that lead us there, we can thank Protestantism and all it's glory!<BR/><BR/>Now Pilgrim. Let's look at this again. I initially said 25K-30K. I still have no reason to doubt this is possible. Much less tens of thousands, or thousands for that matter. In any way, shape or form you try to slice it...<BR/>IT'S THOUSANDS!<BR/><BR/>I would also assert, that with all the little splinter fundie groups out there, even 8K+ would be very low.<BR/><BR/>You said: "I hate to impugn their intelligence, but there's no third alternative."<BR/><BR/>Ok, impugn our intelligence. Nothing new here, as that is what this entire blog is centered around. I cannot tell you how many times I've read evidence of this on this blog. <BR/><BR/>This blog is not to Christ; it is primarily against Catholicism.<BR/><BR/>Now, I'll hold your feet to the fire: The reason for thousands and thousands of Protestant sectarian groups, is due to Sola Scriptura.<BR/><BR/>Sorry dudes, it cannot be sidestepped. We know how you are trying to poison the well...'you idiot Catholics, it's not 33K denominations, it's 8.8K denominations...how could you be so stupid, see, this is unity, and this is the same as Catholicism, and Sola Scriptura has nothing to do with it...it's because, you Catholics, are like, dumb and stuff..."<BR/><BR/>Pilgrim, here's a good article which does a better job of breaking down your assessment of David Barret's analysis of how many Protty denom's there are, and I continue to assert the number is over at least 22,000. This is from all reformed folks' Catholic apologists:<BR/>http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a120.htm<BR/><BR/>Stay cool, <BR/>MarcoAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02884682339259355903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-37752297825870666312007-12-19T20:45:00.000-05:002007-12-19T20:45:00.000-05:00Marco,In spite of the fact that the information on...Marco,<BR/><BR/>In spite of the fact that the information on the website categorises "Protestant denominations" by the figure 8,848, your response is telling. What I get from you is this:<BR/><BR/>"Okay, so maybe there aren't 33,000 Protestant denominations. <B>But there are tens of thousands of Protestant denominations</B>, and it's all because of <I>sola Scriptura</I>! I don't care what the data say, that's my story and I'm sticking to it!"<BR/><BR/>How 8,848 and at least 20,000 are the same mathematically is beyond me. If you think they are, please explain it to me. Show your work.<BR/><BR/>The point of my previous comment on the 33,000 denominations myth is to demonstrate that the source material the Catholic apologists use in their rant against <I>sola Scriptura</I> in no way supports their argument. Assuming that they are actually looking at the source material and not just repeating what Steve Ray or somebody else said, one draws the following conclusions. They are either not bright enough to understand the information presented there, or are willfully abusing the data to support their anti-Protestant agenda. I hate to impugn their intelligence, but there's no third alternative. This is the data we have to work with. If you want to <B>cite</B> another source, I'll be happy to look at it. And by cite, I mean a specific book, author, page, website, etc. None of this "I think I read something about this somewhere, sometime, maybe the World Council of Churches?"<BR/><BR/>Thank you for illustrating my point so precisely for me. In future, I hope you will do some research into what the Reformed doctrine of <I>sola Scriptura</I> actually is, as opposed to the talking points you've so assiduously absorbed. Your efforts have been nothing less than bulimic.<BR/><BR/>And hey, thanks for introducing me to your pet canard. It's a bit undomesticated, though. Sorry, but I won't be helping you to raise it.<BR/><BR/>Be well,<BR/><BR/>PilgrimsarbourPilgrimsarbourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18046918223325823689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-13340707945781703952007-12-19T20:42:00.000-05:002007-12-19T20:42:00.000-05:00This is due ONLY to Sola Scriptura!Not really, thi...<I>This is due ONLY to Sola Scriptura!<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Not really, this is due to the fact that in the modern world heretics are no longer burned, there is no more a single mamoth institution that controls the state. This is rather the result of the ideas of liberty.<BR/><BR/>The world is now a market place of ideas, we just have to wake up that it is no longer the way it used to i.e. be back when the the kingdoms of this world pay homage to a pope. <BR/><BR/>The happy days are not there anymore. Sorry.<BR/><BR/><BR/>LPCLPChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11352627830833515548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-58033906253284701772007-12-19T09:04:00.000-05:002007-12-19T09:04:00.000-05:00Pilgrimsarbour - Thanks for the breakdown. I still...Pilgrimsarbour - <BR/><BR/>Thanks for the breakdown. I still believe that with all of the fundamentalist splinter groups, mainline Lutheran, breakaway Lutheran, Baptists, Anglican and their splinters, Pentacostals and their splinter, the number goes well into the tens of thousands, not including separate countries as a factor at all.<BR/><BR/>Either way, the fragmentation of 'bible-based' groups is less unified than the mutli-headed hydra.<BR/><BR/>You said: "To say that sola Scriptura is the cause of tens of thousands of non-Catholic groups is, at the very least misleading, and at worst dishonest in the face of the actual data. And yet, it continues to be repeated by misguided online bloggers."<BR/><BR/>This is not dishonest, nor misleading in the slightest. Lets simply take about 1.6 billion adherents out of the equation by simply removing 2 versions of Christianity that do not adhere to 'sola scriptura' - Catholicism and orthodoxy - and you are still left with the tens of thousands of bickering Protestant sects. Nice attempt to try to whistle by the graveyard by trying to muddy the water by stating the numbers are false, becuase it includes Catholics and orthodox - 2 in number only.<BR/><BR/>An astonishing fact that I always find with Calvinists, is the assertiion, and sometimes outright claim - as you have made here, that other versions of Protestant Christianity are false, and yours is correct. <BR/><BR/>I ask: Who says? Other Protestant groups (not just liberal ones) cry 'sola scriptura' as passionately as do yourselves, and yet call you false. Many of these are not small, insignificant breakaway groups!<BR/><BR/>You said: "Now, if Catholic e-pologists and lay people want to make a case against the existence of Protestant denominations based on the Reformed doctrine of private interpretation, then we may have the basis for a productive discussion."<BR/><BR/>I reply: This discussion has been made, and drivn home thousands of times now, and the Protestant fails to come up with a sufficient answer to account for the thousands of denominations. <BR/><BR/>As I have stated many times: The only 2 true unifiers of Bible-only Protestantism is that they love Jesus, and hate his Church. Everything else is up for grabs, especially their personal versions of 'church', and thus have no unity, which creates the hydra with the exponent of 99 behind it.<BR/><BR/>This is due ONLY to Sola Scriptura!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02884682339259355903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-21377755699321796722007-12-19T00:13:00.000-05:002007-12-19T00:13:00.000-05:00Marco,You said...Carrie, regarding your problem wi...Marco,<BR/><BR/>You said...<BR/><BR/><I>Carrie, regarding your problem with Catholic claims of Protestant sects being numbered at 25,000-30,000, I think the assessment issue is not at the hands of Catholics, but your very own WCOC - World Council Of Churches. If I recall correctly, that is their assessment.</I><BR/><BR/>Carrie created a new post of my previous comment, so your statement is actually directed to me. I only mention this to avoid the appearance of "stepping in" on Carrie's behalf. She is well able to speak for herself.<BR/><BR/>The problem is this: Catholic e-pologists such as Steve Ray, Tim Staples and others have claimed that the Protestant doctrine of <I>sola Scriptura</I> itself <B>specifically</B> has resulted in some "33,000 Protestant denominations" coming into existence since the Reformation. The source cited for this figure is the World Christian Encyclopedia (2001) published by Oxford University Press.<BR/><BR/>This is the book's statement that I copied and pasted from the online source. Please read it carefully.<BR/><BR/><B>Table 1-3 Organized Christianity: Global totals in 1995 AD<BR/><BR/>Note: Denomination is defined as an organization within a single country. This means that if the Roman Catholic church is in 234 countries, it would have a [sic] at least 234 denominations. Conversely, To say the Roman Catholic church has 239 denominations in 234 countries, is a conclusion that seriously misreads the data. On the other hand, the fact that there are 8848 denominations in the Protestant column, does not mean there are 8848 Protestant denominations as Catholics suggest. If you divide 8848 by the 237 countries, you come up with a figure of <I>only actual 37 denominations in 237 countries.</I><BR/><BR/>(David A. Barrett, World Christian Encyclopedia, 2001, p 12)</B><BR/><BR/>I can't reproduce the chart here, but you can take a look at it and the other charts and materials <A HREF="http://www.bible.ca/global-religion-statistics-world-christian-encyclopedia.htm" REL="nofollow">here</A>.<BR/><BR/>My point is to demonstrate that the 33,000 Protestant denominations figure that Catholic e-pologists (and other lay folk) repeat over and over is bogus for a couple of reasons. First, this figure, as defined by the WCE, includes Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Anglican, Marginal and Independent (sects and cults) groups. None of these believes in, adheres to nor practices the doctrine of <I>sola Scriptura</I>. To say that <I>sola Scriptura</I> is the cause of tens of thousands of non-Catholic groups is, at the very least misleading, and at worst dishonest in the face of the actual data. And yet, it continues to be repeated by misguided online bloggers.<BR/><BR/>In addition, to address your specific statement, the World Council of Churches represents "mainline" (liberal) denominations. They are an ecumenical, inter-faith organisation that does not speak for Reformed theology or conservative Christianity of any kind. They neither believe in nor practise <I>sola Scriptura</I>.<BR/><BR/>Now, if Catholic e-pologists and lay people want to make a case against the existence of Protestant denominations based on the Reformed doctrine of <I>private interpretation</I>, then we may have the basis for a productive discussion.<BR/><BR/>Blessings in Christ,<BR/><BR/>PilgrimsarbourPilgrimsarbourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18046918223325823689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-54244409953065253582007-12-18T18:53:00.000-05:002007-12-18T18:53:00.000-05:00Timothy Athanasius - Hmmmm. I suspect you are a bo...Timothy Athanasius - <BR/>Hmmmm. I suspect you are a bogus 'Catholic.' You sound an awful lot like a Reformed Protestant that has always been. In fact, you sound an awful lot like David King, trying to keep a lid on it. You don't sound one iota like a Catholic and do not have me convinced that you are legit. I think you are a Protty, in a Catholic's cassock's.<BR/><BR/>Carrie, regarding your problem with Catholic claims of Protestant sects being numbered at 25,000-30,000, I think the assessment issue is not at the hands of Catholics, but your very own WCOC - World Council Of Churches. If I recall correctly, that is their assessment.<BR/><BR/>I've not visited this blog in about 2-3 mos., but I see it is the same, exact stuff, over and over, with the same tone.<BR/><BR/>Just so you're clear. The original reformers were accursed/anathema under Trent, because of their breaking of the Church and knowingly coming up with novel, false doctrine. However, many Protestants since then knew not the Church proper, as they were mislead, so therefore it is difficult for them to fall under this same anathema - Romans 2:14. Many are ignorant of the Church, as Protestantism has so many different teachings of what a 'church' is, and thus these Protestants (and many Catholics) must be catechized properly as to the nature of Christ's Church, sacraments, the proper position of Sacred Scriptures, soteriology etc. <BR/><BR/>However, in your case, I'd guess that you are no longer ignorant, and that you are actually intentionally obstinate in your hatred and error regarding Christ's Church, the One (not yours), Holy (not yours), Catholic (certainly not yours) and apostolic (most certainly not yours) Church - the one you think of as Babylon, which you also teach that it's primary bishop - the bishop of Rome - as being the anti-Christ.<BR/><BR/>My guess is this anatehma from Trent would apply to you, peronally. However, it would probably not apply to many mainstream evangelicals.<BR/><BR/>It seems like I've never really gotten any other idea from my Church.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02884682339259355903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-61199749138662610272007-12-17T00:46:00.000-05:002007-12-17T00:46:00.000-05:00Mateo,Thank you for that very eloquent and cogent ...Mateo,<BR/><BR/>Thank you for that very eloquent and cogent response to Dozie's questions. There's a lot to think about there.<BR/><BR/>I'm no stranger to criticism from both "sides" when I show interest in Catholic theology. On the one hand I'm accused of having ulterior motives, and on the other hand I'm "holding hands on the road to ecumenism." It rarely seems to occur to people that I may be interested in truth.<BR/><BR/>All God's Best,<BR/><BR/>PilgrimsarbourPilgrimsarbourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18046918223325823689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-42405906444964897182007-12-17T00:36:00.000-05:002007-12-17T00:36:00.000-05:00Dozie,Sadly, your comments are all too familiar to...Dozie,<BR/><BR/>Sadly, your comments are all too familiar to me. It's difficult for me to convey why I am interested in the Catholic Church because my motives are considered suspect by many Catholics, almost to the point of paranoia. But I'll try again.<BR/><BR/>I have been asking questions of Catholics for some time because I was raised Catholic and left the church as a teen, probably without good theological reasons at that time.<BR/><BR/>I am now quite confirmed in my faith as a Reformed believer, but I also have a desire to know and understand Catholics better. As it is I have read the Catholic catechism and several other books as well. Why would I want to do this? I think the best way to answer that is to point you to a post I wrote on my own blog a few months back. You can read it <A HREF="http://the-porters-lodge.blogspot.com/2007/08/blogospherian-opera-pitfalls-of-online.html" REL="nofollow">here</A> if you're interested. I hope it sheds some light on your inquiry, and I would suggest taking a little time to peruse my site and see what else I have written on this subject. I think this is the best way into my mind on these matters.<BR/><BR/>In addition, I don't expect that my Catholic friends are looking to convert just because they ask me questions about the Reformed faith. But it is also not my first reaction to suspect their motives in asking these questions. I take it that they are interested in dialogue and understanding each other better. I agree with radio talk show host Dennis Prager's dictum: "I prefer clarity over agreement." <BR/><BR/>I think if those of us, from whatever communion, would just spend more time answering sincere questions instead of impugning each other's motives, we would all do well.<BR/><BR/>Blessings,<BR/><BR/>PilgrimsarbourPilgrimsarbourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18046918223325823689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-13574349198763421132007-12-16T16:55:00.000-05:002007-12-16T16:55:00.000-05:00Just my two cents: as a Catholic, I found the orig...Just my two cents: as a Catholic, I found the original query completely sensible. Look, the e-apologists, pop-apologists, or whatever you want to call them repeat over and over AND OVER again how much certainty and assurance the INFALLIBLE Catholic Church can give us moderns, esp. when it is compared to the supposedly 40,000 Protestant denominations. First of all, there aren't 40,000 real "Protestant denominations". That's just ridiculous on its face. <BR/><BR/>The second thing is that all these guys, I think, will, if they succeed at converting others, make really bad converts. Being part of the Catholic Church doesn't stop someone from having to think on her own. Come on, people. Look at the scholastics. Look at the way they never stopped discussing, deepening, debating, exploring the infinite revelation that is Christ Himself. They didn't stop short and simply defer to authority without reflection, though of course they believed in the authority of the Bible, the Church, the wisdom of the ancients, etc. (in different ways of course!). No serious Catholic theologian would make these kinds of arguments against Protestantism today. This is why I get so frustrated by the theological blogosophere. We are having debates on how evil Luther is. Come on! Joseph Lortz ended that for Catholics decades ago. <BR/><BR/>Read Avery Dulles' Models of Revelation. He is no liberal, and he is sensitive to the weaknesses in these supposed airtight references to "infallible" teachings as if that completely ends discussion. The visible Church on earth is a historical "organism". It obviously changes. What Catholics believe is that, at bottom, we are preserving the essential Gospel of Christ, only because the Holy Spirit is guiding Her. This is why some of those people converted by the e-apologists become Sedecavantists. They are astouned when they walk into an actual Catholic Church with all the warts, with all the nominal Catholics, with all the "liturgical innovation", with all of the left-wing Jesuits. But anyone who really understands history knows that this has already been the case. There have always been disagreements, sin, conflict. As much as the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit in my view, this doesn't preclude the humanness and hence the sinfulness of Christ's body on this earth, as scandalous as that is!<BR/><BR/>So, in my judgment at least, Catholics need to stop using this debating strategy developed in the throes of the Counter Reformation and, instead, follow Cardinal Kaspar's advice when involved in inter-Christian dialogue. He tells us ALL to convert first to Christ, THE TRUTH; only then can we continue to strive for full visible unity for which Christ prayed, only then can we remove the scandal which the divisions among Christianity have and will continue to cause. This seems to be the last thing on the agenda of so much of the theological blogosphere, and that is sad.<BR/><BR/>And Protestants need to recognize the disjunction between the Catholic Church and her American pop-apologists. They may be doing some good work, I suppose. But while I appreciate James Swan's references to Lortz and Jared Wicks to refute people like Steve Ray on Luther, I wonder how much he has reflected on the fact that he uses Catholic scholars against Catholic apologists. What are the implications of this for how Protestants approach these issues? Can we PLEASE not assume that a point against Steve Ray is a point against Rome? Even more, can we PLEASE stop thinking in terms of scoring points, winning debates, etc., while the world laughs at us in its hopelessness?<BR/><BR/>Well, I apologize for how preachy this turned out to be. I have just been so grieved by some of these exchanges. Please accept this in the spirit with which it was intended.Gaetanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14722914942511761947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-13502393446287555562007-12-16T16:11:00.000-05:002007-12-16T16:11:00.000-05:00“I confess to being more than a bit confused by th...“I confess to being more than a bit confused by the mix of Catholic teaching I find online.”<BR/><BR/>Do you mean you are a very pleased by the “mix of Catholic teaching I find online”? As a Protestant, one would suspect that you would have been happy and confirmed in your own beliefs, rather than being confused, by the “incoherence” you find in Catholic teachings. Are you confused about your own faith or are you confused for one who is Catholic? You are not Catholic and probably do not want to be one. Why do you care? As a Catholic, I have never, I repeat never, been concerned about what Baptists or Presbyterians or whatever Protestant group teaches. I am firm in my faith that I have no time to research Presbyterianism; I might as well spend the time researching Buddhism or Islam or Shintoism or whatever – as far as I am concerned, they are all the same to me.<BR/><BR/><BR/>“Like Carrie, I am constantly being told that the Catholic Church is exactly the same Church that was given to the apostles, that its doctrines have not changed, nor will they in the future.”<BR/><BR/><BR/>Well, what does your church teach about itself and the articles of your own faith? Are they constantly changing, are they firm and established? <BR/><BR/> "Put forty Protestants in a room and you'll get forty interpretations. They can't agree on anything." <BR/><BR/><BR/>Is the above an unfair assessment and in which way? Consider elementary teachings of Christianity – Baptism, Communion, Salvation, Worship, etc, how would forty Protestants from forty denominations decide on these and other issues?<BR/><BR/>“However, I often find what appear to be contradictory doctrinal statements from online Catholics. For example, I have never received a good explanation for the contradictions I see in Trent's condemnation of the Reformers and the more recent "separated brethren" language.”<BR/><BR/><BR/>Again, why go to Trent? Are you a professional theologian? Why should a “pew Christian” need to spend so much time researching what he does not believe? Is this a requirement in your church? How much education do you need for this kind of endeavor? How well do you know your own faith? Are you firm in your own faith and if so, the contradictions you find in Catholicism should make you happy rather than confused. They should make you happy or satisfied because you do not have the same problem in your religion.<BR/><BR/>“The same is true for teachings I've read on purgatory. It's confusing, at least to me, and I don't know where to turn to get "the real skinny." Everybody has an angle, it seems.”<BR/><BR/>Frankly, if you do not know where to find Catholic teachings on any of her articles of faith you obviously need a lot of help and you disqualify yourself from being able to comment on Catholic stuff. Earlier you gave the impression of being able to research Trent. Now you confess you don’t even know where authoritative Catholic teachings can be found. <BR/><BR/><BR/>“Some Catholics are not afraid to say that they may view things somewhat differently at certain points than official teachings would dictate.”<BR/><BR/>Thank you for speaking like a Protestant. The kind of Catholic that should win your commendation should be those Catholics who disagree with the Church, even openly. <BR/><BR/><BR/>“However, my impression is that Catholics think we Protestants should somehow know intuitively just who the best Catholic writers are and who we should stay away from both online and in books. Now I am not an academic (obviously).”<BR/><BR/>If you know anything about Catholicism, it should be its authority structure and what constitute authoritative teachings and where to find those. If you are not an academic, I suppose then that you are interested in the Catholic Church because you have found your current faith inadequate and want to convert. In that case, you should go talk to a local Catholic priest. That’s always a starting point for a genuine inquiry into the Catholic Church. If you are not interested in the Catholic Church – to convert, why waste your time?<BR/><BR/><BR/>“But I am a reader. How am I, as a Protestant, to know who is "good" to read and who is not? Frankly, it shouldn't be up to me to decide.”<BR/><BR/><BR/>But, as Protestant, it is up to you to decide. This is why you like to read in the first place. You what to decide for yourself who’s right and who’s wrong. You seem to have no other way of dealing with your problem. You do not believe in an infallible Magisterium, hence, everything is up for revision and your half-trained theologians are only happy to fill in the gap for a buck or two. You have no lasting tradition and therefore you read, and read, for the sake of discerning your faith. Protestantism in the end stands on one-legged stool – the book. You chase scholars around and their revision of long-believed doctrines. <BR/><BR/>“I cannot know intuitively who is "good" and who is not, nor do I have the time to research it fully and decide for myself. So I rely on others to make their cases for the best source materials.”<BR/><BR/>You are discussing the wrong religion here. Perhaps you should be interested in how believing Catholics approach their own faith. They do not chase authors around. While Catholicism has more of everything that Protestantism has, it does not for example, depend on the writings of theologians no matter how highly placed. The relevance of any theologian in the Catholic Church comes from the relevance accorded him/her by the Church. If the Church accepts your theologizing, then you are relevant, otherwise, you are not.<BR/><BR/><BR/>“Obviously, I get differing opinions from different groups. The traditionalists want me to read Gerry Matatics because he represents "true Catholicism." The e-pologists want me to read Steve Ray and Scott Hahn because Matatics is a heretic. I am not in a position to know whose advice to take, who is right. Each group claims the other is "not part of the true Catholic faith."<BR/><BR/>A sincere inquirer would be interested in knowing what the Church teaches about herself and what it means to be Catholic. Anyone with elementary knowledge of Catholicism should know that anyone who is not in union with the Bishop of Rome is not a Catholic. Again, if you do not know this, you need serious help with the ABCs of Catholicism and you are not ready to read any Catholic authors yet.<BR/><BR/><BR/>“I submit that there is enough confusion out there amongst the Catholic rank and file that Catholics should cut Protestants a little slack regarding the official teachings of the Catholic Church, and not just assume that Protestants only want to mischaracterise Catholic teaching. I think I can speak confidently for myself and for most of the other Protestants here that the last thing we want is to misrepresent Catholic doctrine in our dialogue. If I can get just one Catholic to understand that many Protestants have a legitimate complaint regarding our confusion about Catholic doctrine, then I think we have grounds to move forward in truly productive discussion.”<BR/><BR/>How consoling!!! A love for mediocrity seems at play here. I have resisted saying this, but I guess I have to: Find a copy of the Catholic Catechism; it contains the gem of Catholic teachings. If you want to criticize Catholic teachings, that’s where to start.<BR/><BR/><BR/>”Having said all this, as I prepared this comment on Wordpad before coming here to post it, I see that Pontificator has made some specific reading recommendations. Thank you, Pontificator, for those recommendations. Now how do I know you're steering me in the right direction?! ;)”<BR/><BR/>Are you then heading into the Catholic Church; that’s the only right direction? If not, I ask again, why the trouble?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-73741950811047528332007-12-14T12:51:00.000-05:002007-12-14T12:51:00.000-05:00I was wondering if you would say that.Survey says?...<I>I was wondering if you would say that.</I><BR/><BR/>Survey says? "DING!"<BR/><BR/><I>While I agree that I am no Paul, he did tell the Corinthians to imitate him.</I><BR/><BR/>Certainly, he exhorted them to imitate him as he imitated Christ.<BR/><BR/>But what does that mean? Does that men that in his imitation of Christ St. Paul could do and say everything Christ could do and say or was everything Christ was? I think we'd all answer that "no."<BR/><BR/>So it is in their imitation of the good example of St. Paul (and ours, I'd say.)<BR/><BR/>It would be wonderful for a child to imitate a virtuous father, but that imitation wouldn't mean they could discipline the other kids, take the car for a spin or use the checkbook. :)Your Humble Reviewerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02761676705455430009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-29984310369693528052007-12-14T11:51:00.000-05:002007-12-14T11:51:00.000-05:00I was trying to agree with you. :) Oh, then all is...<I>I was trying to agree with you. :) </I><BR/><BR/>Oh, then all is well :)<BR/><BR/>Sorry, I misread your comment.<BR/><BR/><I>But you and I aren't St. Paul, or even Apostles. I'm not talking about his behavior (that's above my paygrade), I'm just speaking about my own.</I><BR/><BR/>I was wondering if you would say that. <BR/><BR/>While I agree that I am no Paul, he did tell the Corinthians to imitate him.Carriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04697072499214349759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-10048497083514964542007-12-14T10:21:00.000-05:002007-12-14T10:21:00.000-05:00Carrie:I'm not sure why you have addressed your co...Carrie:<BR/><BR/><I>I'm not sure why you have addressed your comment to me since I wasn't really talking accusing motives.</I><BR/><BR/>I was trying to agree with you. :)<BR/><BR/><I>Somehow I think the Apostle Paul would disagree with you.</I><BR/><BR/>But you and I aren't St. Paul, or even Apostles. I'm not talking about his behavior (that's above my paygrade), I'm just speaking about my own.<BR/><BR/><I>What you said isn't incorrect, I just think it is incomplete.</I><BR/><BR/>That's the problem sometimes when speaking on theological topics, it's hard to say EVERYTHING ALL THE TIME.<BR/><BR/>We are fully in our rights to oppose what we see as error. I just believe we should do so in accordance to our station in life (we are not all teachers or pastors or bishops or Apostles or Christ) and with humilty and charity.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13547891717102923592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-36101491800410542822007-12-14T06:50:00.000-05:002007-12-14T06:50:00.000-05:00Any suggestions on resources for giving one the ab...<I>Any suggestions on resources for giving one the ability to make such unequivocal claims about a matter which has been disputed </I><BR/><BR/>The Bible, the Catholic Catechism, and the Holy Spirit.<BR/><BR/><I>in who or what you've studied to erase any doubt about these complex matters.</I><BR/><BR/>See answer above.<BR/><BR/>There's alot more to it than that, but I don't care to go down this road here. I don't blog on this stuff just to pick a fight, I try to share my research and thoughts about Catholicism so other Protestants can be informed. In the end, people have to come to their own conclusions.<BR/><BR/>I don't see why this is so atonishing, its not like I am alone in this opinion. While I do understand how well meaning people could be confused by this issue, I feel pretty confident in my assertion. And let me make the usual disclaimer - just because I don't believe Catholicism is a viable profession of faith, that doesn't mean there aren't true believers who profess a Catholic faith.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12904685811197057474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-91110929555479147932007-12-14T06:32:00.000-05:002007-12-14T06:32:00.000-05:00You mean like sexually abused?I don't think that i...<I>You mean like sexually abused?</I><BR/><BR/>I don't think that is what is necessarily meant but I am never asked for clarification.<BR/><BR/>Sorry, I think maybe my comment was unclear or seemed harsh. I was just sharing accusations I have heard from Catholic e-pologists as to why I oppose the Catholic faith. <BR/><BR/>I could say alot more but I won't.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12904685811197057474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-49793180578029113642007-12-13T23:47:00.000-05:002007-12-13T23:47:00.000-05:00Carrie,the church harmed them in some wayYou mean ...Carrie,<BR/><BR/><I>the church harmed them in some way</I><BR/><BR/>You mean like sexually abused? I think those sexually abused by the clergy are still suffering today with all sorts of emotional turmoil. This is just conjecture on my part but I suspect if such a thing happened to me, I probably hate all sorts of associations related to God.<BR/><BR/>LPCLPChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11352627830833515548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-57336070286886331962007-12-13T22:44:00.000-05:002007-12-13T22:44:00.000-05:00In case it wasn't clear, I was interested in some ...In case it wasn't clear, I was interested in some of the intellectual background for this assertion:<BR/><BR/>"The Catholic faith is not a viable profession of faith. Therefore, I oppose it."Gaetanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14722914942511761947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-75269637202096832792007-12-13T22:42:00.000-05:002007-12-13T22:42:00.000-05:00It's impressive that you've come to such confident...It's impressive that you've come to such confident conclusions, Carrie. Any suggestions on resources for giving one the ability to make such unequivocal claims about a matter which has been disputed by the "masters" in the field of history, theology, and Biblical exegesis. <BR/><BR/>I'm honestly interested (please don't read this as sarcasm) in who or what you've studied to erase any doubt about these complex matters. Was it a certain teacher in college? Was it a specific book you've read? Of course, it all comes back to Scripture, but most Scripture scholars have greater reservations about these matters than you've expressed here. Or have I misinterpreted your tone?Gaetanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14722914942511761947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-87064989656133069722007-12-13T21:44:00.000-05:002007-12-13T21:44:00.000-05:00I think, ultimately, only God fully knows why any ...<I>I think, ultimately, only God fully knows why any human being does what they do. We don't even fully know ourselves or own motivations.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm not sure why you have addressed your comment to me since I wasn't really talking accusing motives. I was just sharing my experience with Catholics questioning <B>my</B> motives. Personally, I don't care too much about motives, a bad decision is a bad decision whether the motives seemed good/honorable or not.<BR/><BR/>The Catholic faith is not a viable profession of faith. Therefore, I oppose it. <BR/><BR/><I>We should humbly present the case for the hope we have in a humble, charitable manner and pray for the folks we think are deceived. We should also pray for ourselves in case we're wrong.</I><BR/><BR/>Somehow I think the Apostle Paul would disagree with you. But if you can make a good case why we shouldn't openly oppose false teachings and false teachers I would be happy to hear you out.<BR/><BR/>What you said isn't incorrect, I just think it is incomplete.Carriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04697072499214349759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-7428379146933611162007-12-13T16:20:00.000-05:002007-12-13T16:20:00.000-05:00Carrie:I think, ultimately, only God fully knows w...Carrie:<BR/><BR/>I think, ultimately, only God fully knows why any human being does what they do. We don't even fully know ourselves or own motivations.<BR/><BR/>The decision for a person who is serious about their relationship with God to move from one faith or tradition to another is a complex one with a lot of factors. I don't think any of us, no matter what "side" we're on should try to explain it away with slogans and a wave of the hand. The people who make such a move, in my experience, don't do it lightly and we shouldn't make light of their predicament.<BR/><BR/>It's only natural for a committed Protestant to think "there is NO WAY God would lead ANYONE into the Catholic Church" and therefore immediately look for the cause of such a move in either diabolic deception or human weakness. And vice-versa for Catholics in the opposite situation.<BR/><BR/>I do think, however, we owe the decisions of others the same benefit of the doubt we want others to give our decisions. And we need to allow the sovereign God to have the freedom to do with people as he chooses. After all, it was the Holy Spirit that led Jesus into the Wilderness to be tempted.<BR/><BR/>We should humbly present the case for the hope we have in a humble, charitable manner and pray for the folks we think are deceived. We should also pray for ourselves in case we're wrong.<BR/><BR/>That's what I try to do, but I don't always hit that mark (one of the many reasons I need a savior.)<BR/><BR/>Pax.Your Humble Reviewerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02761676705455430009noreply@blogger.com