| Author |
 Topic  |
|
BCcath
652 Posts |
 Posted - 05/04/2009 : 3:36:23 PM
|
Greetings,
What are your thoughts on this list of unsound catholic arguments (and the reasons offered for their unsoundness)?
http://www.pugiofidei.com/unsound.htm
Thoughts?
Blessings,
BC |
|
|
Patti
USA
7244 Posts |
|
|
artsippo
USA
5190 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2009 : 9:48:42 PM
|
You know, I wish that alleged "Catholics" would stop doing the work of the enemies of the Church and telling us what we should not do. I find the list puerile and frankly ludicrous.
White likes the list because it absolves him of having to deal with some arguments that he doesn't like.
Protestantism is false religion. Every bit of it. None of it is valid. Even the parts where they try to emulate Historic Christianity are done so tritely and with poor results. What is the use of declaring that Jesus was really God and really man when you refuse to believe it when he said "This is my body...This is my blood?"
I have no need of any such list and I advise the person who put it up to take it down and mind his own business.
Art
Omnes semper - ad Jesum, per Mariam, cum Petro! |
 |
|
|
Patti
USA
7244 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2009 : 10:28:44 PM
|
I don't know if the gentlemen who drew up that list desire input, but since BC asked (what a glutton for punishment he is), here's a small bit:
1. Do not allege that there are 33,000 Protestant denominations....
Agreed. That number was arrived at through application of too broad a definition as to what constitutes a denomination. On the other hand, there have been a multiplication of autonomous bodies claiming to be true Christians since the sixteenth century, whereas before that, there were Christians and there were heretics. The only major split was the Eastern Schism and some of that has been closed with reconciliations with various Eastern churches in the ensuing centuries.
Moreover, even if we could arrive at an accurate tally for Protestant denominations (20,000?), we still could not blame the whole of that number on Sola Scriptura. Some of these churches share substantial unity in faith, even if they are juridically independent (perhaps due to geography). And much of the disunity of faith within Protestantism, at least in the developed world, stems from efforts to subordinate the authority of Scripture (e.g., to various sexual perversions).
No Catholic apologist worth his calling claims that "the whole" of disunity among Protestants is due to Sola Scriptura. He can, however, legitimately point to the failure of the theory of Sola Scriptura to function as a model for Christianity due to its failure to provide Christian unity since: A) The Scriptures are from the Lord (both sides agree on that) and B) The Scriptures, being from the Lord, should be drawing all men to oneness in the same Holy Spirit. Since, however, no definition of what constitutes Sola Scriptura is fully agreed upon by every single Protestant group that professes it, and the authors above provide no definition, it's hard to argue much about the point due to insufficient evidence.
In reality, if every Protestant denomination were serious and consistent in affirming and applying the rule of Sola Scriptura, the spectrum of Protestant belief would be significantly narrower. It bears emphasizing: the only thing for which we can directly blame Sola Scriptura is the extent to which it fails to provide unity in true faith and morals to those who sincerely adhere to it, e.g., "orthodox" Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Anglicans, Methodists, Pentecostals, Campbellites, etc.
I like Monfrere's answer to the first part of the above: "This sound reasonable; but I do not agree. I think that this would question the sincerity of those who come to differing conclusions.... Honest mistakes/differences can easily emerge. This is the reason that sola scriptura cannot work - because the very best effort of men, even men possessing the Holy Spirit, cannot always come to the correct conclusion." I would only add to that last sentence "if they are striving to come to this conclusion without using all of the aids the Lord has given us: reason, the natural law, conscience and the Church, which the Scriptures point out as the pillar and foundation of truth".
The underlined portion is to highlight the contradiction between the statement that if SS were being followed seriously and consistently, it would lead to a narrowing of SS/Protestant denominations. However, the opposite is what actually occurred, especially here in the USA when the "no creed but the Bible" movement went into full swing. That was the new Sola Scriptura, as opposed to the more limited form embraced by the groups of and immediately following the Protestant Revolution. By following a less radical form of SS, these groups had some schisms but not very many; those who followed the Bible alone were destined to fail to unify, as what was being followed was the Bible-as-I-read-it-alone. In a sense, it isn't the whole of the problems that stem from adherence to Sola Scriptura but many can be found attached to it.
To be continued at some unknown point in time....
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare. |
|
|
|
rr1213
4425 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2009 : 07:55:53 AM
|
2. Avoid the term "anti-Catholic." The term is ill-defined. If it refers to a form of bigotry or prejudice then it could only be applied to individual Protestants (or other non-Catholics) on a case by case basis, and that only after they had exhibited a demonstrable pattern of bad faith. If, on the other hand, it refers to theological opposition to Catholicism, then it ought not to be used as a term of disdain. For Catholics are theologically opposed to Protestantism. Indeed, according to Dominus Iesus, Protestant "churches" are not, properly speaking, churches. The distinctives of Protestant theology are heresy, and the Council of Trent has pronounced anathema upon them. If, then, Protestants who believe Catholicism to be heretical are anti-Catholic, by the same standard Catholics who believe Protestantism to be heretical are anti-Protestant.
I would not say avoid the term "anti-Catholic", but be careful in using it. There are some people who are most definitively anti-Catholic. Go to the CARM Catholic forums and take a look at some of the ridiculous threads posted there. While a few are honest inquiries, others are of the like of associating the Catholic Church with paganiam because the Pope's birthday cake looked like a pagan temple (forgot the word for it). When people repeatedly, over and over, post nonsense like that then, yes, they are anti-Catholic. Otherwise though, the author of the list has a good point. Because of the negative connotations of the term "anti-Catholic", I would not use it for Protestants of good will who simply do not agree with Catholic theology. Those folks are not anti-Catholic per se, just Protstant.
|
|
|
|
rr1213
4425 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2009 : 08:03:16 AM
|
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.
Again, I agree and disagree. I agree that not every faith alone discussion needs to automatically go to James 2:24 (it used to annoy me to no end when Art did that...sorry Art..;-)...we should be able to argue the point without reference to James 2:24. On the other hand, Art is right in sticking to his guns by refusing to let Protestants ignore James either or to rely on the lame explanation that James was talking only about "justification before men." (I actually heard that one first from a Lutheran pastor who I greatly respect for his wisdom and knowledge of the Bible...when I asked him about James I expected a really insightful response based on what I knew about the pastor and he disappointed me with the "justification before men" argument). James says what James says. It is a beautiful and very practical book of Scripture and has always been one of my favorites.
|
|
|
|
Randy Carson
USA
882 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2009 : 09:40:53 AM
|
Perhaps it would be interesting to consider the SOUND Protestant arguments, also.
We need to know their strengths as well as our weaknesses, eh?
Randy + † +
Tiber Swim Team - Class of '79
"What is very clear from the best scholarship available is that the Jewish Biblical Canon was a Post-Christian development and not part of our patrimony from Judaism." - Dr. Art Sippo
|
|
|
|
artsippo
USA
5190 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2009 : 10:41:27 AM
|
Rob sez:
quote:
I agree that not every faith alone discussion needs to automatically go to James 2:24 (it used to annoy me to no end when Art did that...sorry Art..;-)...
Nothing to be sorry about, Rob. It was intentional on my part to BE annoying. One slogan worth pondering is that as Christians we should comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.
That is another point. Part of apologetics is technique and bandinage. Having your facts straight is quite important and paramount in my estimation but how you use those facts wins the debate. A well enunciated lie may win the debate agaisnt a poorly stated truth.
On the 33,000 issue for example, I frankly consider it an UNDERESTIMATE. Protestant sects keep splitting and reforming and splitting again like paramecia. Some disappear and are replaced by new and different religions often with a tenuous conection at best to their immediate antecedants from mere decades earlier. Many Protetant sects today would not be recognizable to their own forebears.
In any case, even if we limited te number of Protestnat sects to the bare minimum of four (e.g., Calvinist, Lutheran, Anglican, Baptist) that would still be 3 too many (really 4 too many) to represent the one Historic Church. Add into the mix all the varieties of "cults" that mainstream Protestants want to disavow (Mormons, JWs, SDA, COG, Salvation Army, Unitarians, Campbellite Church of Chirst, Kimbanguism, etc.) and you have dozens of disparate sects. Add in the 'non-denominational' denominations and the list grows even larger.
Now compare the positions of the various sects on theology, Church order, Church History, marriage, divorce, abortion, homosexuality, and any number of other issues and you don't need to get to 33,000 to see the problems. None of them agree on much at all beyond a few basics ad soemtitme not even that. And of course they repudiate Historic Catholic and Orthodox doctrines and practices causing a major discontinuity in the Church from the 16th Century onwards.
The actual revised number of Protestant sects currently extant is conservatively estimated to be ~8,000.
Jesus said there would be "ONE fold and ONE shepherd". Protestantism doesn't cut it whether we consider them as being 33,000 sects or 4 or a dozen or 8,000. It is still Pandemonium and only a fool or a liar would pretend otherwise.
Art
Omnes semper - ad Jesum, per Mariam, cum Petro! |
|
|
|
rr1213
4425 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2009 : 11:24:45 AM
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Randy Carson[/i]
[br]Perhaps it would be interesting to consider the SOUND Protestant arguments, also.
We need to know their strengths as well as our weaknesses, eh?
Randy + † +
Tiber Swim Team - Class of '79
"What is very clear from the best scholarship available is that the Jewish Biblical Canon was a Post-Christian development and not part of our patrimony from Judaism." - Dr. Art Sippo
True. |
|
|
|
Patti
USA
7244 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2009 : 12:16:52 PM
|
Avoid the term "anti-Catholic." The term is ill-defined. If it refers to a form of bigotry or prejudice then it could only be applied to individual Protestants (or other non-Catholics) on a case by case basis, and that only after they had exhibited a demonstrable pattern of bad faith.
Most good Catholic apologists I've read already understand that. Then again, merely pointing out theological inconsistencies has earned these same apologists the title "anti-Protestant", "dishonest", and plenty of assigned motives springing from rash judgment on the part of their non-Catholic opponents. (The really interesting situation is when a Catholic apologist is presented as either intellectually deficient or morally deficient; it's like that game where two bad choices are presented and someone is asked "Would you rather...")
So, while I agree that the term anti-Catholic can be misused and sometimes is, I disagree that it is "ill-defined". If an opponent to the Catholic Church disagrees with her teachings and theology, then he's not anti-Catholic. Nor is someone anti-Catholic who misrepresents Church teaching out of ignorance. On the other hand, if an opponent distorts Church teaching after having studied it and/or having it explained thoroughly to him, or mocks Catholics as persons, or engages in mean-spirited tactics and displays a repeated pattern of disagreeableness and unpleasantness toward Catholics (such as the pope) in light of Our Lord's injunction that we should love our enemies, then that is anti-Catholic behavior. In brief, look at how they talk about Catholics behind their backs yet in public. I've seen plenty of personal sniping going on that diminishes any proof of authentic Christianity on the part of some professional Protestant apologists. Snideness is not a fruit of the Holy Spirit or the Gospel.
And what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander; Catholics ought to try to refrain from responding in kind when attacked in this way. Just ignore the jibes and present the teachings, letting the Holy Spirit do His work. It can be very hard at times, especially when attacks are unjust---as they frequently are---, but being unjustly treated puts us in the good company of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Those who find such tactics edifying on either side are really not seeking truth but trying to win fights.
Do not justify lack of charity by appealing to the example of St. Jerome.
Agreed. Lack of charity has no place in presenting and defending the Gospel with its message of God's charity toward us. Like the servant in Matthew 18:23-35, we will be given the same treatment we give others, so better emulate Christ rather than Jerome.
Do not exaggerate the inadequacy of Sola Scriptura, as if it were not possible to understand the Bible at all without the Magisterium. In reality, if one, without help from any external authority, gives the Bible a diligent, sincere, and attentive reading, it will be possible to achieve the right answer to a fair number of questions. Sola Scriptura is inadequate because it cannot give the Church definitive answers to every question which she needs answered in order to function as the Church.
No good apologist believes that it is impossible to understand the Bible at all. The Catholic Church teaches that the Sacred Scriptures is one of two reliable avenues of God's revealed truth. But while it not impossible to understand the Bible at all, it is exceedingly difficult to understand the Bible from a standing start, beginning with the comprehension that the Bible was written by mostly men (Luke and Mark being notable exceptions) from a Semitic mindset. It is not easily accessible in some important places; it helps to begin with understanding that the Bible is a collection of various literary genres, such as narrative, discourse, apocrypha, wisdom, encyclical, to name a few. Then factor in the four senses of Scripture identified in the couplet:
The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.
And it is clear that while the Bible does present the truth, a sincere person knowing nothing of these things will have a much more difficult time than someone who has guidance. Such a person can find the truths necessary for salvation with great and arduous effort or one can become Catholic and be exposed to great amounts of Scripture by attending Mass, engaging in a Catholic Bible study, reading the Catechism and have an objective guide in the Church. For someone relying solely on Scripture, the last one in particular is missing, as he is relying on his subjective understanding of Scripture and his subjective feeling that he is being led by the Holy Spirit. That is indeed possible but without a standard from that which is being led by the Holy Spirit, that's difficult to ascertain.
To be continued, sorry to say.... Bored yet, BC? 
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare. |
|
|
|
BCcath
652 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2009 : 12:37:27 PM
|
Patti,
Nope... not bored yet... I just wanted to see people's thoughts on the list. I don't agree with all of the list, but I think there are some things that a Catholic who is in dialogue with Protestants where apologies for the superiority of the Catholic position(s) are discussed might consider.
I will post my thoughts on the list (in more detail) later (hopefully soon).
I appreciate all of the responses thus far...
Blessings,
BC |
|
|
|
artsippo
USA
5190 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2009 : 12:55:43 PM
|
I reserve the term anti-Catholic for those who meet the following criteria:
1) Open hatred for the Catholic Church
2) Promulgating erroneous notions about the Catholic Church that anyone with normal intelligence should know are not true
3) Systematic prejudice against Catholics and Catholicism that has no foundation in fact and prejudges without any attempt to give us our just due. This is the same kind of thing as we see in white racism, anti-Semitism, chauvinism, jingoism, nativism, and other forms of discrimination based on race, color, creed, and national origin
4) Those who make their living by lying about Catholicism and who refuse fraternal correction
5) Those who encourage violence or disruptive behavior towards Catholics
6) Those who deny that Catholics are Christians or who denounce us as pagans
7) Those who deny to Catholics the right to practice their religion and live by its tenets
8) Perpetuating nonsense and bigotry towards Catholics from the past
I have no problem with someone who says he or she does not agree with my religious views and that they think their religion is true as long as they recognize my right to believe and live in accordance with my Catholic faith.
Art
Omnes semper - ad Jesum, per Mariam, cum Petro! |
|
|
|
thepalmhq
USA
57 Posts |
|
|
artsippo
USA
5190 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2009 : 4:21:18 PM
|
Excommunicate you? No. I told you folks to mind your own business. You see, nobody anointed you to be the "experts" on what was or wasn't a sound argument. And frankly, you are doing the work of the Church's enemies by attacking your fellow Catholics.
If you want apologetics done in a certain way do it yourself. If you have a beef with how other people are doing apologetics, talk to them individually IN PRIVATE and be prepared for them to disagree with your personal opinions.
I make it a point not to criticize the arguments that my fellow Catholics put forward IN FAVOR of the Church even when I might have disagreements with them. It is improper to show dissension among Catholics in the face of the opposition we have to contend with.
I am a soldier and I know what loyalty means and how important it is to be able to trust the guy fighting next to you. I cannot trust you people. You are more liable to insult me and soothe the White's and Svendsen's of the world than to join me in defending the faith.
Your list is contentious, and pretentious. It serves no valid purpose. When you get the Pope to sign off your PERSONAL INTERPRETATIONS of what are and are not a sound apologetics argument, come and talk to me. Until then, my advice remains:
DROP THE TOPIC
ERASE THE LIST
MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS
I also respectfully ask that you remove my name from your blog. If you want to quote me as an anonymous dissenter, feel free, but you are merely serving the ends of the enemy by bearing false witness against me in this way. I will pray for you.
Art
Omnes semper - ad Jesum, per Mariam, cum Petro! |
Edited by - Patti on 05/17/2009 4:32:44 PM |
|
|
|
Patti
USA
7244 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2009 : 5:00:34 PM
|
The list can be useful insofar as helping in stopping a trend that seems to be emergent on the internet: Catholic "apologetics" sites that are aggressive, mean-spirited and even spiteful in their treatment of non-Catholics. This type of site will give apologetics a bad name after people like the founders of Catholic Answers (to name but one group) have tried so hard to re-establish apologetics as a reputable arm of evangelization.
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare. |
|
|
|
MonFrere
USA
1136 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2009 : 6:54:50 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Patti
The list can be useful insofar as helping in stopping a trend that seems to be emergent on the internet: Catholic "apologetics" sites that are aggressive, mean-spirited and even spiteful in their treatment of non-Catholics. This type of site will give apologetics a bad name after people like the founders of Catholic Answers (to name but one group) have tried so hard to re-establish apologetics as a reputable arm of evangelization.
In my mind, as long as there the likes of James White in the apologetic world there needs to be the likes of Art Sippo. The are both "alpha dogs". This "alpha" personality didn't change when Saul became Paul. This world has its share of "alpha" personalities and nuttin' ain't gonna change that. Beta dogs CANNOT set the rules for alpha dogs. I think this is what was being done with this article on apologetic arguments.
ALSO alpha dogs have difficulty in beta dog environments and/or with beta dog personalities.
Alpha dogs can be both proud and humble; and in my mind our alpha dog is humble. Certainly, no one questions the conversion of St. Paul, or King David for that matter -- yet both of these individuals never lost their "alpha personality". St. Paul confronted both St. Barnabas and St. Peter. King David's deathbed encouragement to Solomon was one of giving the enemy no leeway; and he was fiercely loyal to the wayward King Saul.
Alpha dogs can be both up front or insidious. Our alpha dog is up front. No sheep in wolf's clothing is he -- a true WYSIWYG. It is here that I think our alpha dog sees REAL DANGER. Part of apologetics is exposing the evil of false ideas and heresy and alpha dogs do this with the highly incisive language of a surgeons knife.
Beta dogs wish alpha dogs would be more like them. And in beta environs, this is probably a good point of wisdom. But, as the leopard cannot change his spots - the alpha dog shouldn't be asked to change his bark or bite.
MonFrere (woof woof)
If a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing badly. G.K. Chesterton
|
|
|
|
Patti
USA
7244 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2009 : 6:59:54 PM
|
Monfrere,
What I was talking about made Art look like a meek little puppy, and we know that's not so; he wasn't even in my mind when I posted that. These people weren't alpha dogs; they were rabid wolves. They wouldn't gather the flock together in Christ but scatter them by their howling.
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare. |
|
|
|
MonFrere
USA
1136 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2009 : 7:55:33 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Patti
What I was talking about made Art look like a meek little puppy, and we know that's not so;
Patti,
Sometimes when I use a quote as a reference it that reference that triggered a thought, sometimes not even directly related to the quote itself. I'm always amazed that Mr. White spends so much of his time engaging those he things beneath him. The most popular anti-Catholic apologist (and I've no problem calling Mr. White anti-Catholic) is equalled very handily by a couple well equiped Catholic bloggers. For me - this fact speaks volumes as to the power of the Catholic positions on apologetic issues. If an NFL team is beaten by a pick-up team of football enthusiasts it sure doesn't say much for the NFL team.
SIDE NOTE: about the 30,000 + Protestant denominations ....... The talk about this number being inflated and that 8,000 is a more fair number. We all righty then ..... is the Catholic position (or point being made - that sola scriptura has caused division) harmed by the 8,000 number compared to the 30,000 number? Hardly.
SO .... do you see how I used the above quote as a springboard and not as a refutation to what you said? I mostly use the reference to demonstrate I'm not TOTALLY OFF THE WALL. Us musicicians sometimes have a hard time thinking WITHIN THE BOX!! -- "outside the box" is where we live! My poor wife; she asks a question and I answer it and she's totally baffled by my answer -- after an often lengthy conversation where I go through my muttled thought process she says WHY DIDN'T YOU SAY SO .... and I say .... I thought I did.
MonFrere (with over 30 years of marital experience in making myself perfectly clear)
If a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing badly. G.K. Chesterton
|
|
|
|
Patti
USA
7244 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2009 : 8:45:52 PM
|
Well, I just wanted to make it clear that I don't lump him in with those who figure out ways to "trick" their opponents into logical traps by setting them up and playing dumb. Art is up-front about his chip on his shoulder; no subtlety there.
Not "totally off the wall", huh? Bummer. I'm an artist who definitely thinks with the right side of my brain more than the left. Boxes have no insides or outsides as far as my mind is concerned. So, you're preaching to the choir, my friend. It's fun to hear anyway. 
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare. |
|
|
|
Jerry-Jet
USA
3120 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2009 : 9:05:13 PM
|
Christ is the Fullness of Truth.
The Fullness of Truth subsists in the Catholic Church.
Since that is true isn't anyone in opposition to that Fullness of Truth not only anti-Catholic but anti-Christ? |
|
|
|
thepalmhq
USA
57 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2009 : 10:16:27 PM
|
quote:
Excommunicate you? No. I told you folks to mind your own business. You see, nobody anointed you to be the "experts" on what was or wasn't a sound argument. And frankly, you are doing the work of the Church's enemies by attacking your fellow Catholics.
Art, to spell out the obvious, when you call us "alleged 'Catholics'" you have made an unmistakable judgment about our bona fides. My Catholic faith is more dear to me than life. You were way out of line to call that into question.
We named nobody; we attacked nobody. The only attack has come from you. In my opinion, you have an exaggerated view of our vulnerability. In apologetics our weapon is the truth, not our image. There is absolutely nothing lost in admitting, even publicly, that a given argument is unsound and then simply replacing it with a better one. We have nothing to fear from the truth.
quote:
I also respectfully ask that you remove my name from your blog. If you want to quote me as an anonymous dissenter, feel free, but you are merely serving the ends of the enemy by bearing false witness against me in this way. I will pray for you.
No, Art. Again, to state the obvious, if you don't want to be quoted publicly don't speak publicly; in other words, think before you post next time. But if you wish to retract what you said, especially calling into question our Catholic faith, then I will consider modifying the blog posting.
If you are sincere about your prayers for me, I thank you for them.
The Reluctant Traditionalist: http://thepalmhq.blogspot.com |
|
|
|
artsippo
USA
5190 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2009 : 01:15:26 AM
|
I think we see your true agenda of this, David Palm. The "Reluctant Traditionalist" indeed. Those of us who are in the cognoscenti know what that means. You consider yourself a "super-apologist" and like to attack us mere "neo-con Catholics" (your term BTW, not mine) as if we were not good enough to defend the Catholic faith.
Well I am not reluctant about my loyalty to the Church. While you set yourself up as some great arbiter over Catholic apologetics, I will continue to defend the faith in my own fashion whether you like it or not.
I ask you to remove my name form your blog because I never excommunicated you. I have some idea where your real loyalties lie with regard to the Pope and the Magisterium and I believe I do not share them. My views are mainstream and my loyalty is to the reigning Pope not to my own smorgasbord of ideas from the past.
I am an alleged Catholic, too. I clearly allege my loyalties to Christ and the Church he founded under the authority of the reigning Pope Benedict XVI and his predecessors and the direction they are leading the Catholic Church. Do you?
Do you accept Vatican II as an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church which binds you to a religious submission of mind and will? Do you accept the Mass of Pope Paul VI as valid and properly promulgated? Do you accept Dignitatis Humanae and its teaching on religious liberty? Do you submit to the teachings of Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae? Do you accept the Ordinary Magisterium of Pope John XXIII, Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI WITHOUT RESERVATION?
My objection to your use of my name on your blog is that you are misrepresenting what I said. That is false witness against a neighbor. For example, you did not bother to recount my detailed explanation of why the argument about "30,000 Protestant Sects" was valid. You ignored that and quoted me out of context.
You see, I would think that a REAL Catholic would make the effort to quote me correctly and not impute to me positions that I do not hold. In particular, a REAL Catholic would respect my wishes and honor my request. The question of your TRUE Catholicity is a matter of showing love of neighbor and not perpetuating deliberately provocative prevarications.
In the face of lack of charity, I have no need to question your Catholicity. I will allow the readers to determine for themselves how "catholic" you are.
Meanwhile the ACBs are laughing at the spectacle of us arguing.
David, you need to repent and honor the rights of your co-coreligionists. All I asked for was that you and your friends stop setting yourselves up as a private 'magisterium' in apologetics. You need to attend to your own houses and stop sniping at other people.
If you continue on your current course, I fear that you and those whom you support will be just causing trouble and achieving nothing. The choice is yours. I stand behind what I wrote and I condemn wholeheartedly the mean-spirited comments you have made about me as not representative of my true position.
The ball in in your court. You need to do the right thing for your sake not for mine.
And yes, my offer of prayer was genuine. Do you reciprocate?
Art Sippo
John 13:35 "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another." |
Edited by - Patti on 05/18/2009 09:05:53 AM |
|
|
|
rr1213
4425 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2009 : 07:58:15 AM
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by thepalmhq[/i]
[br]My own comments on the reactions to our list may be found here:
http://thepalmhq.blogspot.com/2009/05/bad-argument-is-bad-argument.html
God bless,
David
The Reluctant Traditionalist: http://thepalmhq.blogspot.com
I appreciate the list that you all put together. We might quibble around the edges here or there (after all this is an apologetics forum ), but for the most part I think that it is a good list that makes good points. Some of the arguments which you took to task are ones that particularly annoyed me as a Protestant and did not help in moving me along my journey in the faith towards Catholicism. From an advocacy standpoint, it is always a good idea to argue from strength and to avoid those arguments which are either false or easily rebutted. |
|
|
|
MonFrere
USA
1136 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2009 : 11:59:10 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by rr1213
I appreciate the list that you all put together. We might quibble around the edges here or there (after all this is an apologetics forum but for the most part I think that it is a good list that makes good points.
If the article was meant as "food for thought" I think there was some good food for thought. If the article was meant as a "cease and desist" from these arguments; then I think it was ill advised.
If someone can give good evidence that an argument isn't effective anymore; then it's good for all apologists to hear that evidence. When one give and apology to apologists - one must be most careful to be properly effective to give the best possible light to his apology. Being obstinate at this point would effectively be a hindrance to all the good that was trying to be accomplished in the apology. Good apologists will come to their own conclusions. Some may agree, some may adjust, and some may disagree. (I think this forum went mostly to the taking of the information as "food for thought" - and gave their appropriate responses). Certainly apologetic arguments is in the realm of where St. Augustine said we should exhibit charity toward all. All should be given the greatest freedom to proceed in their apologetic work as they wish. The fruit of their effort will be the determining factor.
MonFrere
If a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing badly. G.K. Chesterton
|
|
|
|
artsippo
USA
5190 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2009 : 12:45:01 PM
|
The problem, Monfrere,is that any list of "no-no's" will be used by the ACBs to try and foment trouble amongst us. And just because someone likes this list does not mean that he is right nor does it mean that the rest of us should recognize it.
I agree with you that many of us on this board thought it was 'food for thought' BUT the ACBs are instead using this list to say "See! So-and-so is using arguments that even his fellow Catholics agree are not valid."
Several different Catholic apologists have critiqued the "33,000 sets argument" in a non-pejorative fashion in the past and it was helpful. This ham-handed 'list' on the other hand was unnecessarily provocative and condescending and it is being used by the enemies of the Church against those of us who are defending her. THIS TYPE OF ARROGANCE HAS TO STOP. If someone wants to critically discuss a particular point he should do it discretely and with humility.
And I particularly resent it when I or any one else is misquoted and then attacked for something that was neither said nor intended. We have enough problems without attacking each other or imputing base motives to each other.
The list should be taken down and disavowed. It is neither official nor does it represent a consensus of scholars or apologists. It is some guy's opinion and nothing more. I feel no need to bother with it any further and I would request that other apologists likewise ignore it publicly.
Art
Omnes semper - ad Jesum, per Mariam, cum Petro! |
|
|
|
Patti
USA
7244 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2009 : 2:11:51 PM
|
quote:
I agree with you that many of us on this board thought it was 'food for thought' BUT the ACBs are instead using this list to say "See! So-and-so is using arguments that even his fellow Catholics agree are not valid."... The list should be taken down and disavowed.
Unfortunately, someone with an axe to grind will use anything he can lay his hands on as a stick with which to try to bash the Catholic Church. To reject something that may be useful and instructive because anti-Catholics can use it is a risky venture; practically anything at all written by Catholics would then become useless if held to that standard. Even our own documents would become problematical in their potential for such misuse.
Instead of disavowal, treat this list as an attempt to help avoid some pitfalls in apologetics' methodology and point-making that may prove ineffectual when dealing with non-Catholics. It is indeed "some guy's opinion" (it's actually three guys' opinions) and, as such, is not magisterial nor authoritative in that sense. However, it is not entirely useless as advice on what tactics work more or less effectively than others.
The fact that someone anti-Catholic praises it does not make it bad, anymore than an anti-Catholic calling Fr. Pacwa a gentleman does not make him a reprobate. Criticize its contents if they seem deficient and offer reasons why. Rob already pointed out that some of the arguments mentioned were an impediment rather than an assistance to his conversion to Catholicism. There's no harm in raising the level of discourse above that which is practiced by the enemies of the Church.
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare. |
|
|
|
Jjane
Canada
1464 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2009 : 2:41:53 PM
|
That was very creative Patti. Unfortunately this thread is about shooting ourselves in the foot.
We have lots who will do that for us, see Notre Dame for Catholics who want to shoot themselves in the foot.
|
|
|
|
Patti
USA
7244 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2009 : 3:17:19 PM
|
quote:
Unfortunately this thread is about shooting ourselves in the foot.
This thread is about the list that was recently posted about unsound Catholic arguments and BC requested input on it. That's all that was given.
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare. |
|
|
|
thepalmhq
USA
57 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2009 : 3:28:06 PM
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by rr1213[/i]
I appreciate the list that you all put together. We might quibble around the edges here or there (after all this is an apologetics forum), but for the most part I think that it is a good list that makes good points.
Thanks for your kind comments, Rob. I'm glad the list was helpful for you. And congratulations on your reception into the Catholic Church; what a pleasant surprise it was to see that on your profile. I must apologize again for so abruptly dropping out of our discussion of separation of Church and state last year. I have pondered your points many times since then.
I would like to emphasize again that the entire piece should be read in light of the very first sentence: "The following is a list of arguments against Protestantism which, in our judgment, Catholics should not use,..." And our judgment carries exactly the same authority in the Church as that of everybody else here: zero. So perhaps "opinion" would have been a better word. Those who, like Mon Frere, Rob, and Patti, read it as "food for thought" have it right.
Art, you insist that I am misrepresenting you. In what way? When you apply the phrase "alleged 'Catholics'" to us, I don't know how to read that other than as denying our good standing in the Church. (I would add that you claim to know a great deal about my motives and views which I have never expressed.)
If I had called you an "alleged 'Catholic'", would you have taken it in any other way?
The phrase would appropriately be applied to someone like a Nancy Pelosi, where there is ample public evidence of a break with the faith of the Church. Unfortunately your subsequent postings have done nothing to dispel my initial impression. Will you concede that mine is a reasonable interpretation of your words? And if by "alleged 'Catholics'" you did not intend to question our good standing as Catholics, then what exactly did you mean?
I do apologize for questioning the sincerity of your promise of prayers. Please be assured of mine as well.
God bless,
David
The Reluctant Traditionalist: http://thepalmhq.blogspot.com |
|
|
|
artsippo
USA
5190 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2009 : 3:34:34 PM
|
Patti you are sugar coating it. The list was not an attempt to help sharpen arguments. It was a blatant attempt to set standards and to rule-out certain arguments as being totally unsound. in essence it was an attack on anyone who disagreed with the list writer's personal opinion
I don't know who wrote this list. I don't know if he is even a Catholic. What are his credentials? Who is he to be saying that some apologetic arguments should be abandoned? And most importantly, how does the Magisterium respond to this.
One of the arguments he considers unsound is the LITERAL meaning of James 2:24. I am going to be charitable and merely say that I do not agree with him. Neither is the "33,000 Protestant sect" unsound as I showed earlier.
Who set this guy up as judge and jury for what should and should not be used in Catholic apologetics?
Let me go further. Part of Apologetics is structuring an argument to make a point. Rob is a lawyer and he can tell you that your argument may have limited merit but in the hands of a seasoned orator, it can be wielded effectively and made convincing. Lawyers do this all the time in court.
I don't need some amateur with an ax to grind telling me what I should or should not argue and how I should argue it. The skill of the apologist is to weave arguments together to make them convincing to his audience.
I have no need of any list and I likewise have no need of someone with no authority to tell me what to think and how to defend the faith. The list was a deliberate provocation to cause trouble in the Catholic apologetics community and nothing more. It serves no valid purpose.
Art
Omnes semper - ad Jesum, per Mariam, cum Petro! |
|
|
|
Patti
USA
7244 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2009 : 4:10:41 PM
|
quote:
Patti you are sugar coating it.
No, I just gave my opinion of it.
quote:
The list was not an attempt to help sharpen arguments. It was a blatant attempt to set standards and to rule-out certain arguments as being totally unsound. in essence it was an attack on anyone who disagreed with the list writer's personal opinion.
It pointed to some potential problems with presentation. It is not binding on anyone who disagrees with it since it is, as you stated, personal opinion.
quote:
I don't know who wrote this list. I don't know if he is even a Catholic. What are his credentials? Who is he to be saying that some apologetic arguments should be abandoned? And most importantly, how does the Magisterium respond to this.
David and Ben Douglass are both Catholics with whom you are acquainted. I don't know the third gentleman, but not knowing his identity isn't that important. As for abandoning apologetic arguments, there's no worry and no need to bother the Magisterium with this, since it's personal opinion.
quote:
One of the arguments he considers unsound is the LITERAL meaning of James 2:24. I am going to be charitable and merely say that I do not agree with him. Neither is the "33,000 Protestant sect" unsound as I showed earlier.
I agree that the James point isn't the best one to hold up as unsound; it is not unsound to argue with the average Protestant who rejects works as part of saving faith responding to grace. As for the denominations, that number is too fluid and too controversial to withstand scrutiny. Better to just say there is considerably more than one denomination in Protestantism, which is considerably more than there should be in light of Christ's desire that all be one in Him.
quote:
Part of Apologetics is structuring an argument to make a point. Rob is a lawyer and he can tell you that your argument may have limited merit but in the hands of a seasoned orator, it can be wielded effectively and made convincing. Lawyers do this all the time in court.
Oh, c'mon, no need to get mean by comparing apologists to lawyers.
quote:
I don't need some amateur with an ax to grind telling me what I should or should not argue and how I should argue it. The skill of the apologist is to weave arguments together to make them convincing to his audience.
Hmm... I always thought that the skill of the apologist is to present the Church's teachings in the most clear and accessible form possible for the listener to discover them and make them his own.
quote:
I have no need of any list and I likewise have no need of someone with no authority to tell me what to think and how to defend the faith. The list was a deliberate provocation to cause trouble in the Catholic apologetics community and nothing more. It serves no valid purpose.
David already said there's no authority attached to the list, so we're free to ignore it as opinion. As for provocative, maybe so, though I didn't read it as such. It rather seemed to me to be an attempt to list some things that may no longer work well, especially with professional non-Catholic apologists. They may still work fine on most non-professional non-Catholic average Joes and Jeans.
Just my non-binding opinion, of course.
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare. |
|
|
|
thepalmhq
USA
57 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2009 : 4:57:16 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Patti
quote:
One of the arguments he considers unsound is the LITERAL meaning of James 2:24. I am going to be charitable and merely say that I do not agree with him. Neither is the "33,000 Protestant sect" unsound as I showed earlier.
I agree that the James point isn't the best one to hold up as unsound; it is not unsound to argue with the average Protestant who rejects works as part of saving faith responding to grace.
Patti, I would urge you not to acquiesce too quickly to the spin being placed on these points. For example, the paraphrase above misrepresents what we actually said about James 2:24. We did not say it was unsound to deploy James 2:24 against sola fide. What we said is that one should not go to "James 2:24 in order to counter every Protestant proof-text for justification by faith alone" (my emphasis.) In other words, if confronted with passages from Romans or Galatians, deal with the passages from Romans and Galatians, don't say, "Oh yeah, but what about James 2:24?..." I've seen it happen; perhaps you have too. It's pretty unconvincing. Quite frankly, I'd be surprised if anybody here actually disagrees with this point, when correctly represented.
The Reluctant Traditionalist: http://thepalmhq.blogspot.com |
|
|
|
rr1213
4425 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2009 : 5:15:00 PM
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by thepalmhq[/i]
[br]quote:
[i]Originally posted by rr1213[/i]
I appreciate the list that you all put together. We might quibble around the edges here or there (after all this is an apologetics forum), but for the most part I think that it is a good list that makes good points.
Thanks for your kind comments, Rob. I'm glad the list was helpful for you. And congratulations on your reception into the Catholic Church; what a pleasant surprise it was to see that on your profile. I must apologize again for so abruptly dropping out of our discussion of separation of Church and state last year. I have pondered your points many times since then.
Thank you very much on extending congratulations with respect to my reception into the Church. I suspect that I surprised a number of folks on these boards when I made the announcement. I'll have to go back and take a look at our conversations on Church and State. It might be worthwhile taking another look at the matter.
quote:
[i]Originally posted by thepalmhq[/i]
Art, you insist that I am misrepresenting you. In what way? When you apply the phrase "alleged 'Catholics'" to us, I don't know how to read that other than as denying our good standing in the Church.
As much as I respect Art, I find myself having to agree that his use of the phrase "alleged Catholics" is unfortunate. I know that I would be offended if someone referred to me as an "alleged Catholic." |
|
|
|
rr1213
4425 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2009 : 5:19:14 PM
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by thepalmhq[/i]
[br]quote:
Originally posted by Patti
quote:
One of the arguments he considers unsound is the LITERAL meaning of James 2:24. I am going to be charitable and merely say that I do not agree with him. Neither is the "33,000 Protestant sect" unsound as I showed earlier.
I agree that the James point isn't the best one to hold up as unsound; it is not unsound to argue with the average Protestant who rejects works as part of saving faith responding to grace.
Patti, I would urge you not to acquiesce too quickly to the spin being placed on these points. For example, the paraphrase above misrepresents what we actually said about James 2:24. We did not say it was unsound to deploy James 2:24 against sola fide. What we said is that one should not go to "James 2:24 in order to counter every Protestant proof-text for justification by faith alone" (my emphasis.) In other words, if confronted with passages from Romans or Galatians, deal with the passages from Romans and Galatians, don't say, "Oh yeah, but what about James 2:24?..." I've seen it happen; perhaps you have too. It's pretty unconvincing. Quite frankly, I'd be surprised if anybody here actually disagrees with this point, when correctly represented.
Personally, I do not believe that you can effectively counter the Protestant mindset on faith and works solely by reference to James 2:24. Protestants have quick, albeit unconvincing, responses to James. It would seem to be most effective to argue the point first from Romans and Galations, and then use James as the final hammer. Or, if you believe James to be the strongest argument, to lead with James (giving it the primacy of the argument) and then move on to addressing the Protestant proof texts. James can't be ignored, but neither should a Catholic understanding of Romans and Galations. |
|
|
|
Patti
USA
7244 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2009 : 5:25:38 PM
|
quote:
We did not say it was unsound to deploy James 2:24 against sola fide. What we said is that one should not go to "James 2:24 in order to counter every Protestant proof-text for justification by faith alone" (my emphasis.) In other words, if confronted with passages from Romans or Galatians, deal with the passages from Romans and Galatians, don't say, "Oh yeah, but what about James 2:24?..." I've seen it happen; perhaps you have too. It's pretty unconvincing. Quite frankly, I'd be surprised if anybody here actually disagrees with this point, when correctly represented.
Agreed. However, I've also seen the flipside, in which Protestants try to keep Sacred Scripture as separate pieces instead of the seamless garment God intends it to be. Counter verse for verse whenever possible, but it may not be advisable to keep them too separate from the remainder. James had something definite in mind when he wrote his letter, as did Paul when he wrote his missives. The Holy Spirit prompted the Catholic Church to include them both so as not to pit one against the other but to help one shine understanding on the other.
So in the context offered, using it against Galatians and Romans may not function well, so that is a good point.
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare. |
Edited by - Patti on 05/18/2009 5:26:35 PM |
|
|
|
rr1213
4425 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2009 : 5:25:48 PM
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by artsippo[/i]
Let me go further. Part of Apologetics is structuring an argument to make a point. Rob is a lawyer and he can tell you that your argument may have limited merit but in the hands of a seasoned orator, it can be wielded effectively and made convincing. Lawyers do this all the time in court.
Yes, of course. But the danger is that your opponent and/or the jury turns out to be smarter than you thought and sees the structural flaws in your argument. At that point, you've lost not only the argument but your credibility. On the other hand, I tend to be quick to recognize the flaws in my own arguments while a really, really good lawyer is able to turn those flaws into a convincing structure for why he should win the case. In other words, the truly impressive attorney can transform a hole or pit in his own case into a mountain which stands over and prevails against his opponent's case. I am still working on being able to do that consistently...... |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
"Unsound" Catholic Arguments?
