How We Interact
|
In this article, I am going to look at three ways that Catholics and Christians interact theologically. I am prompted to provide this information by the clear evidence of the emails that Catholic soi-disant apologists send me with great regularity. On the rare occasions that these usually anonymous writers identify their purpose to me, it is to claim that they are apologists engaging in apologetics. In all but a very few of their missives, what they actually are doing is far from being apologetics. Let us look first at what apologetics is not. Apologetics isn't about technique or style. It is not a process for protecting people from emotional distress resulting from exposure to doctrinal truth that does not agree with their own belief system. In fact, it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with feelings. My electronic dictionary defines apologetics in these terms:
"Defending or proving the truth of Christian doctrines." That is what apologetics is about. Doctrinal truth is the issue in apologetics; not feelings, not techniques, not promises nor even threats. Perhaps the difficulty lies in the Roman Catholic understanding of apologetics. One Jesuit apologist offers these definitions:
Did you notice? The Christian apologist seeks to defend or prove the truth of Christian doctrines. The authority against which his efforts are measured is the Bible. The Catholic apologist, on the other hand, seeks to defend "Christian Revelation" by drawing arguments from history and philosophy. The Christian looks to God for truth. The Catholic looks to man. It seems to me that Doyle's reference to philosophy and history is simply another way of saying 'Tradition', that illusive and variable source of doctrine that Catholics consider to be on a par with Scriptures and the Teaching Authority of the Church.
The practice of apologetics is, or should be, an intellectual exercise requiring careful preparation and more than a casual understanding of the faith one attempts to defend. The effective apologist must be able to not only present his defense cogently, but he must be able to back up what he argues with authoritative evidence. Examples of what are not apologetic arguments are such statements as: “Why do you hate Catholics?” or “You don't understand Catholicism.” These are, in fact, ad hominems, the last refuge of a person who doesn't know what he's talking about but is too proud to admit it. My dictionary defines ad hominem in these terms:
Similarly, an effort to disprove the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura by appealing to the jargon and opinions of men schooled in the esoterica of Catholicism must fail, for the non-Catholic apologist is likely to consider the sources drawn from to not be authoritative. Jargon is a useful term to describe writings considered by Catholics to be authoritative:
The Roman Catholic Church surely does like its Tradition, as one can see in just about every document that issues forth from the Vatican. Rare indeed is the encyclical, bull, constitution or motu proprio that is not liberally salted with citations from and references to the writings of the Early Church Fathers (Tradition). Did the Fathers all look to philosophy and history for doctrinal truth? Here's one example of the opinion of one of the Fathers on this matter:
Another of the Fathers had similar thoughts:
In the above quotations, both Augustine and Chrysostom point to the authority of Scripture in doctrinal matters. Despite what it may say in the Catechism, The Roman Catholic Church does not have such a high view of Scripture. In fact, as the Catechism clearly states, God-inspired Scripture is but one element of the triune source of Catholic doctrine. The other elements, Tradition and the Teaching Authority of the RCC, are man-inspired. When I write as apologist – or polemist – my purpose is to show how the man-centered sources of Catholic doctrine have shouldered, and are shouldering, aside the God-centered source. The above are examples of why one must be careful not to appeal to sources to support his position when his opposition might cite the same sources to attack it. Some people, Catholics in particular, appear not to understand that the apologist is not acting as evangelist. He is not dealing with ways to share the Gospel. He is, or should be, attempting to prove or defend some article of faith against efforts to discredit it. The evangelist is interested in getting the Good News to the four corners of the world; at least so much as he is able to reach. He isn't concerned about making a defense for his faith, though he may well be called to show why people should believe the message he is sharing.
When I examine Roman Catholic doctrine or practice, my goal is to demonstrate that a particular Romanist teaching is heretical and cannot in any way be found to conform to biblical authority. I consider myself to be a polemist and what I mostly engage in is called polemics, which my dictionary defines as:
What do you call a person who engages in polemics? You call him a polemist:
What I provide, as best I am able, are close looks at the inconsistencies and heresies that are so much a part of Roman Catholic theology. In doing this, I do not state my opinion and rest my case, as it seems just about all Romish apologists who choose to communicate to me are wont to do. What I do is draw from RCC documents, the writings of Catholic theologians, church historians and others in preparing my case against a particular Catholic doctrine or practice. To flesh out my argument, I may draw upon the writings of Christian researchers and theologians and even secular writers. In all cases, I am careful to identify my sources so that the serious reader might go to them and read in context what I have cited. When I declare that a Roman Catholic dogma that is to be believed by all Roman Catholics de fide definite cannot be supported from Scripture and is, in fact, quite contrary to Scripture, I am not forcing anyone to accept anything. What I am doing, quite simply, is stating fact. A fact is just that, a fact. A fact of itself has neither positive nor negative connotation. It simply is. Period. For example, one dogma of the Roman Catholic Church is that:
That this indeed is a dogma of the RCC, defined by the Council of Trent in the Decree on Original Sin (1546), can be verified by reading Denzinger 789-91. (BTW, I use the 30th Edition of Denzinger -- the last edition not corrupted by the addition of material that is neither authoritative nor universal) I have no trouble at all with this dogma of the RCC, for it indeed can be supported from Scripture:
When I direct my readers' attention to the inclusive modifier "all," I am asking people to read what God's Holy Scriptures say. And, so far as I have gone, there is no reason why even the most devout Roman Catholic should object to reading Scripture that his own cult leadership cites in support of this dogma. All I have done thus far is accurately quote a Roman Catholic dogma, providing sources, and two passages from Scripture. Just facts. However, everything changes, it would appear, when I cite another dogma of the Roman Catholic Church that all Catholics must assent to de fide definita:
When I point out that this Marian dogma cannot be supported from Scripture, something even respected Roman Catholic theologians admit, I am uncovering a Catholic heresy, but I am not forcing anyone to accept what I write..
So what do we have now? We have one RCC dogma that tells us Adam's sin is transmitted to his posterity by descent, calling upon two passages of Scripture that clearly tell us that all men have inherited that sin and its consequence, which is spiritual death. And then we have another Catholic dogma, of equal weight with the first, which tells us that not all Adam's posterity -- specifically the vessel used by God to incarnate Messiah -- bore the stain of Adam's sin. When I point out that the dogma of Mary's Immaculate Conception not only conflicts with Sacred Scripture but also Roman Catholic dogma, I am doing nothing the Apostle Paul would not have done:
When I write to demonstrate that a particular teaching is heretical and cannot in any way be found to conform to biblical authority, what godly purpose would be served to dress it up in party clothes? Would God be served were I to write my challenge with politically correct generalizations and sweet words so that the content would be lost in euphemisms? I find no instruction in Scripture telling me to carefully choose my words in order that those of whom and to whom I am speaking might not be offended. Quite the contrary, in fact. After pointing out the heretical of RCC dogma to the Catholic faithful, I usually close an article by referring my readers to the Sacred Scriptures. If God's Word is not sufficient guide for the reader, then I suspect that he is submitted to his flesh and not to God. Those who know me even a little should know that I rarely 'evangelize' online. I do not consider the Web to be a tool that I personally am able to use effectively to that purpose. When I share the Gospel, I do it eyeball-to-eyeball. I am not saying this is the only way to share the Gospel, or even the best way. All I am saying is that I prefer to open the Gospel to someone in a situation where I am able to observe his reaction and respond to his doubts and questions at once. This is what works for me. Something else may work better for others. On the other hand, I believe the Web is the ideal medium for doing what I do: laying bare the many heresies and blasphemies that make up the dogma and doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. By having time to research and write, I am able to present an accurate document, complete with source citations so that readers might verify my claims. For those who do not wish to know the truth, I imagine some of my postings can be very bitter pills indeed. That is not my problem, but theirs. I have encountered a number of people who seem to prefer a kinder and gentler way, as compared to my approach. Let's take a moment to examine their favored way in a realistic setting. Is it indeed kinder to stand by idly, knowing that someone is bound to a false doctrine? Is it gentler to permit someone to hold heretical or blasphemous beliefs in order not to injure their sensitivities? Is it godly behavior to see someone walking the path that leads straight to Hell and do nothing? I think not. In fact, I think it the cruelest of acts toward the lost -- to stand back and watch them drowning in the muck of false doctrine without doing anything to help them cast off the ballast that is dragging them under.
Could Peter have been describing the Catholic Church when he wrote the following? He may well have been:
|
 | Home | More Apologetics | Catholic Stuff | PTG Forum |  |