Anti-catholic Arguments

[MrsFrozen]

Frozencell and I just met a new couple that moved in. They are nice people, but seem to be rabidly anti-Catholic. Last night we had a long discussion about why he thinks Catholicism is unbiblical. He told all sorts of "historically accurate" stories, which Frozencell looked up and we learned they aren't true. I know there are lots of learned folks on PM who can help me with some of these things so we can explain them to him.

I'll tell you the things he said.

1. Peter is not the Rock. Peter really means "pebble." I looked it up and found out that the Greek word for pebble is "lithos," and Kephas (Peter) really does mean rock. Is this correct?

2. One of the Popes (he thought it was Stephen II) dug someone up from the grave and condemned them--or something. Anyone know anything about this?

3. Councils have elected multiple popes at the same time. Did this really happen? We tried to explain about self-proclaimed anti-popes, but he insisted that there have been times that multiple popes were elected.

4. Pope Leo began apostolic succession. I told him Pope Leo probably had it written down, but did not "start" it. Is this correct? Any info?

5. When Peter tells us to hold onto the oral and written traditions he has given us, it means that all the traditions are written down, and the traditions of the Church are man-made and from the devil.

6. Prayer to saints is condemned because they are dead. When did prayer to angels and saints begin?

7. Catholics added to the Bible because a council before Jesus decided that the deuterocanonicals were not inspired. He referred to the Septuagint, people being locked up in different rooms and deciding what books were inspired. Was the original Bible, the Septuagint, the Greek text with all the deuterocanonicals? Any info?

He used many obscure Bible references and tried to explain what they meant--for instance, Isaiah 8:19-20 is somehow in support of sola scriptura, and somehow Mary wasn't special because when she went to visit Elizabeth, Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, not Mary.

Anyhow, like I said, I'm sure some of you have heard these things before. Can anyone help?

Thanks and God bless.

[MrsFrozen]

Also, I just wanted to add that I really do think these people are well-intentioned. They really do believe that we need some spiritual direction and are trying to give it to us, but they're misguided. I'm not trying to sound like I'm insulting them or anything.

[MichaelFilo]

[quote name='MrsFrozen' date='Sep 26 2004, 08:50 AM'] Frozencell and I just met a new couple that moved in. They are nice people, but seem to be rabidly anti-Catholic. Last night we had a long discussion about why he thinks Catholicism is unbiblical. He told all sorts of "historically accurate" stories, which Frozencell looked up and we learned they aren't true. I know there are lots of learned folks on PM who can help me with some of these things so we can explain them to him.

I'll tell you the things he said.

1. Peter is not the Rock. Peter really means "pebble." I looked it up and found out that the Greek word for pebble is "lithos," and Kephas (Peter) really does mean rock. Is this correct?

2. One of the Popes (he thought it was Stephen II) dug someone up from the grave and condemned them--or something. Anyone know anything about this?

3. Councils have elected multiple popes at the same time. Did this really happen? We tried to explain about self-proclaimed anti-popes, but he insisted that there have been times that multiple popes were elected.

4. Pope Leo began apostolic succession. I told him Pope Leo probably had it written down, but did not "start" it. Is this correct? Any info?

5. When Peter tells us to hold onto the oral and written traditions he has given us, it means that all the traditions are written down, and the traditions of the Church are man-made and from the devil.

6. Prayer to saints is condemned because they are dead. When did prayer to angels and saints begin?

7. Catholics added to the Bible because a council before Jesus decided that the deuterocanonicals were not inspired. He referred to the Septuagint, people being locked up in different rooms and deciding what books were inspired. Was the original Bible, the Septuagint, the Greek text with all the deuterocanonicals? Any info?

He used many obscure Bible references and tried to explain what they meant--for instance, Isaiah 8:19-20 is somehow in support of sola scriptura, and somehow Mary wasn't special because when she went to visit Elizabeth, Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, not Mary.

Anyhow, like I said, I'm sure some of you have heard these things before. Can anyone help?

Thanks and God bless. [/quote]
1. Kepha, an aramiac term means rock. Your friend is reffering to the Greek name, Petros I believe means pebble, and is also masculine. The female Petra means rock, but is feminine. The point is, Jesus spoke Aramiac and he said rock, but your friend may not give up so easily. Point out the fact that Petra couldn't be used to refer to Peter, as Peter was not a female. The male equivilant is Petros. Besides, the verse wouldn't make much sense if it said "And you are pebble, and upon this rock I will build my Church". Why would he just randomly call him Pebble? Besides, Jesus spoke Aramiac, so Kepha means rock, and just point that out.

2. He needs to give you proof, not the other way around.

3. Again the bruden of proof is on him. Councils don't even elect popes, I don't think.

4. Point out other popes, such as all the Popes prior to the first pope leo our 45th pope. There have been 44 other ones.

5. Point out to him that the Bible was made in 393 AD, and they all went by oral traditions until the official canon. If Peter (I think it was Paul really) tells us to hold onto the oral and written traditions he means just that. If I told you to wear a green hat and blue plants, I don't really mean wear blue pants .... I mean what I said. Point that out.

6. Prayer to the saints was actually in existance a while back. 2 excellent articles
[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Praying_to_the_Saints.asp"]1st article[/url]
[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Intercession_of_the_Saints.asp"]2nd article[/url]

7. A council before Jesus decided that the deuterocanonicals were not inspired? Please ask him for some evidence. The Septugiant was the translated version from the Hebrew, and was used prior to Jesus for the Jews who were in Greek speaking areas b/c they wanted to read the scriptures of their fathers. When JEsus took away the power of the Jews later and gave it to His Church, the Jews went back and translated the Septugiant back, rejecting the duterocanonical scriptures because they didn't want to be like the Christians.

I'd ask him why his interpretation of the bible holds any presedence over yours. You do realize that verse he quoted is about necromancers? Isiah 8:19 is clearly about fortune telling and the lies of the necromancers. verse 20 goes on about how the necromancers will say that what they said is instructions is true. IT really has nothing to do with the bible at all...

Just because Elizabeth was filled with the Spirit means nothing. The prophets of old were all filled with the Spirit.

Hope this helps,

Dear St. Augustine, you who struggled to find correct doctrine, we implore your intercession so that the heretics of today may turn to the Truth, just as you did.

Dear St. Ambrose, we also turn to you to give us the strength to speak as eloquently as you did. Your words turned heretics into faithful followers of Christ in the most complete manner. We ask that you assist us in our talking with the heretics of today.

Dear St. Monica, you who prayed for hours upon hours for your son to see the fullness of Truth, we ask that you pray for the neighbors of MrsFrozen to come to understand and know the Truth of God's Church.

God bless,

Mikey

[MrsFrozen]

Michael, thanks for your response! They are VERY helpful. I have gotten all fired up about this and my husband Frozencell is taking over with this Protestant guy. It is very upsetting to me that we are constantly having to defend our Church to them. Frozencell has a gift of teaching and explaining, has the patience of a saint, and easily keeps his cool. You're right that he has the burden of proof here, not us. Everything else he told us is untrue anyway, so I am not going to spend any more time researching these ridiculous stories.

But about petros/petra meaning pebble, according to this article at [url="http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/2.2/nutsandbolts.html"]http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/2....tsandbolts.html[/url] , petros/petra means rock. Is that correct? Thanks!!

[Guest Aluigi]

SIMON means grain of sand

Kephas (which is found in the Bible) means massive rock.

[Brother Adam]

Tell Him to get his head out of Boettner and read a real scholar. There have been several times when more than one person claimed to be Pope. However, during these times there was always proof that there was only one true elected Pope. Tell him it was Innocent.

Praying to the living who have died physically on earth has been going on since before Christ came to earth. Send him to the time of the Maccabees, hundreds of years before Jesus.

Point out that St. Linus, the second pope is in the Bible and Jesus instituted apostolic succession. Point out such related scriptures.

Tell him that the canon was fixed by the early 4th century AD as seen in the Septuagint Bible of the Jewish Diaspora and canonized by the Early Church Fathers. The Jews who formed the Hebrew Bible, (the Protestant OT) rejected Jesus Christ as the Messiah and rejected the entire New Testament. Ask him if he really wants to use a canon that rejects Christ.

[StColette]

[quote name='MrsFrozen' date='Sep 26 2004, 07:50 AM']When Peter tells us to hold onto the oral and written traditions he has given us, it means that all the traditions are written down, and the traditions of the Church are man-made and from the devil.[/quote]

Umm oral tradition means spoken, so how could oral tradition mean written down ?

[quote name='MrsFrozen' date='Sep 26 2004, 07:50 AM']6. Prayer to saints is condemned because they are dead. When did prayer to angels and saints begin?[/quote]

From one argument I ran across they say [quote]Prayers for the dead were introduced in 310  [/quote]

But According to the Bble:

James 5:16; Proverbs 15:8, 29 - the prayers of the righteous (the saints) have powerful effects. This is why we ask for their prayers. How much more powerful are the saints prayers in heaven, in whom righteousness has been perfected.

Rev. 5:8 - the prayers of the saints (on heaven and earth) are presented to God. This proves the saints intercede on our behalf before God, and it also demonstrates that our prayers are united.

Rev. 6:9-11 - God answers the prayers of the saints. In this case, he avenges their blood. We therefore ask for their intercession and protection.

Rev. 8:3-4 - in heaven the prayers of the saints rise up as incense before God and elicit various kinds of earthly activity. God responds to his childrens' requests.

1 Tim 2:5-6 - therefore, it is because Jesus Christ is the one mediator before God that we can be subordinate mediators. Jesus is the reason. The Catholic position thus gives Jesus the most glory. He does it all but loves us so much He desires our participation.

Rom. 8:35-39 - therefore, death does not separate the family of God and the love of Christ. We are still united with each other, even beyond death.

Matt. 17:3; Mark 9:4; Luke 9:30 - Jesus converses with "deceased" Moses and Elijah. They are more alive than the saints on earth.

Matt. 22:32; Mark 12:27; Luke 20:38 - God is the God of the living not the dead. The living on earth and in heaven are one family.


[quote name='MrsFrozen' date='Sep 26 2004, 07:50 AM'] 7. Catholics added to the Bible because a council before Jesus decided that the deuterocanonicals were not inspired.  He referred to the Septuagint, people being locked up in different rooms and deciding what books were inspired.  Was the original Bible, the Septuagint, the Greek text with all the deuterocanonicals?  Any info? [/quote]
I've seen this arugment before, did you know that this same council also told it's followers to curse the name of Christ !!!!

The Jewish Coucil of Javneh

[quote]+++ Even among the Jews the council held no authority to determine what was Canonical scripture and what was not.

+++(Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol. 2, page 174)." In any case, Christians have no reason to accept Jewish canon declared after our Lord ascension "

+++(Errata of the King James 1965)"[b]This counsel (I.E. Javneh 90A.D.) not only declared the Deutero Canonical books as Christian fabrication but went so far as to required all Jews to curse the Name of Jesus of Nazerith.[/b]The council lacking in authority could not bring in end to the issue of the Deutero Canonical books. Even today the Ethiopian Jews still follow the original Canon of the septuagint. It is the counsil of Javneh's Canon that the Protestants accept and use for their Bible."

+++(Errata of the King James 1965)"The counsel had no real authority (even among the Jews) to determine the Canonicity of scripture. Considering this counsel happened 60 years after Christ died there is no reason for Christians to accept their verdict."

+++(Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1146)"There is no evidence that the Rabbis at the council of Javneh (90A.D.), had the legitimate authority to determine scripture for the Jewish religion"

+++(Encyclopaedia of Religion, Vol. 2, page 173)"The authority of council ( Javneh 90A.D.) was rejected by the early Christians and the Jews of Ethiopia and Alexandria."

+++(Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible 1963 p.1324)"The council of Javneh ( 90 A.D.) was made out above Rabbis ( or teachers ) with no religious authority to accept or reject scripture."

+++(The Books of The Bible 1997 p.102)"Jews in many parts of the Roman Empire ( such as Alexandria and Ethiopia ) refused to accept Javneh's ( 90A.D.) claime of authority"

+++(Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible 1963 ) "Even in the second century of the Christian era the Jewish rabbis were not fully agreed on the Canonicity of certan books (e.g. Cant, Eccl; cfr. Also 4, Esd 14,44ff)."

+++(The Encyclopedia of Judaism, vol 15 page 117)" says that the limit of the third part (Writings) was not finalized until mid of second century. In addition, the Hebrew Canon was also not accepted by Ethiopian Jews who accept Septuagint to this day "

+++(Dictionary of Biblical Literacy 1986. p.321)"Precisely when Jewish leadership officially adopted the traditional 39 books of the so-called "Hebrew Canon" is not known; nor is there agreement as to exactly what criteria were used in determining the Canon."

+++(Scripture alone? 1999)"The decision of a Jewish council which was held more than 50 years after the resurrection of Christ are not binding on the Christian community just as the ritual walls of Judaism are not binding on the Christians.... The council was to some extent a polemic directed specifically against the "sect" of Christianity, therefore, was inherently opposed to Christianity. These Jews most likely accept the shorter Pharisaic Canon precisely because the early Christians accepted the longer Septuagint canon the decisions of this council represented the judgment of just one branch of Judaism within Palestine not of Judaism as a whole"

+++(Background To The Bible, An introduction to Scripture Study 1978. p.124)There is no record of a decision reached by an authoritative Jewish body closing the Old Testament Canon. Each synagogue was authonomous;"

+++(Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147)."The group of Jews which met at Javneh became the dominant group for later Jewish history, and today most Jews accept the canon of Javneh. However, some Jews, such as those from Ethiopia, follow a different canon which is identical to the Catholic Old Testament and includes the seven Deutero Canonical books "

+++It was from the council of Jamnia or Javneh ( 90 A.D. ) which the Protestant reformers drew their Old Testament Canon.

+++(DEFENDING THE DEUTERO CANONICALS 1996 p.621)To justify this rejection of books that had been in the Bible since before the days of the apostles (for the Septuagint was written before the apostles), the early Protestants cited as their chief reason the fact that the Jews of their day did not honor these books, going back to the council of Javneh in A.D. 90. But the Reformers were aware of only European Jews; they were unaware of African Jews, such as the Ethiopian Jews who accept the Deutero Canonicals as part of their Bible. They glossed over the references to the Deutero Canonicals in the New Testament, as well as its use of the Septuagint.

+++(The Columbia Encyclopedia, Fifth Edition Copyright 1993)most Protestant bodies, whose canon conforms to that of the contemporary Hebrew Bible. There the books follow the order of the Palestinian Hebrew Canon, which appears to have been adopted by A.D. c.100, although most of the books had clearly received Canonical status well before this time.

+++(Errata of the King James 1965 p.324)"This counsel (I.E. Javneh 90A.D.) not only declared the Deutero-Canonical books as Christian fabrication but when so far as to required all Jews to curse the Name of Jesus of Nazerith.The council lacking in authority could not bring in end to the issue of the Deutero Canonical books. Even today the Ethiopian Jews still follow the original Canon of the Septuagint. It is the counsil of Javneh's Canon that the Protestants accept and use for their Bible."

+++(encyclopedia Americana 1995 Vol 15 p.1496)"The Protestant Old Testament Canon is based upon the Jewish council of Javneh (90 C.E.)"

+++(Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible 1963 p.1287)"It was from Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai and the council of Jamnia (or Javneh) which the Protestant reformers drew their Old Testament Canon."

+++(Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1148)."Protestantism derives its Old Testament Canon from the European Jews who followed the Canon of the council of Jamnia or Javneh (90 CE.)."[/quote]

Info on the Canon of Scritpure Councils

Council of Rome [A.D. 382])"Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus, one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books" (Decree of Pope Damasus).

A council held at Rome in 382 under St. Damasus gave a complete list of the canonical books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament (also known as the 'Gelasian Decree' because it was reproduced by Gelasius in 495), which is identical with the list given at Trent.

(Council of Hippo [A.D. 393])"[It has been decided] that besides the canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon, the twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . ." (canon 36).

(Council of Carthage III [A.D. 397])"[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures. But the Canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Sirach], twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees . . ." (canon 47).

Edited September 26, 2004 by StColette

[MrsFrozen]

Thank you so much, Brother Adam, Aluigi, and StColette. Your information has been so helpful to me! I can't believe that every bit of information he had given us was completely untrue. Frozencell and I often pray for people who need evangelizing. Usually, they seem to be anti-Catholics, and their prejudice brings us closer together and closer to Jesus and the Church. This is one of the most anti-Catholic people I have ever met. It is sad because his wife is very sweet and quiet, and he gives the impression of not being warm and compassionate. I'm not sure what to do in this situation. I can tell he is absolutely not interested in getting any of the truth. Last night, I gave him a book to read ("Catholic and Christian: A Guide to Understanding Commonly Misunderstood Catholic Beliefs") and he wouldn't take it. What would you guys do?

[MrsFrozen]

[quote name='StColette' date='Sep 26 2004, 07:44 PM']
Umm oral tradition means spoken, so how could oral tradition mean written down ? [/quote]
I know!!!! That's what I want to know!

[Brother Adam]

All you can really do is a be part of that city on a hill. Be a light, a candle, a lamp. Tell him you aren't interested in arguing for the sake of arguing when he has no interest in being open minded. Tell him that he comes across as uncompassionate, bitter, and hard-hearted, certianly not traits of a true Christian. Harsh? Yes, but he probably needs to hear it. Tell him if he can't read and listen to what true Catholics believe rather than what anti-Catholic writers have to say, then it's impossible to have an intelligable conversation.

Ask him if it is right to learn about Buddhism from a Muslim. Then ask him if he thinks he can ever be intellectually honest about his thoughts on Catholicism and learn from Catholics what Catholics believe.

[Sinner]

Ummmmm....... kick his head like a mellon?

v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v

OK prob better just to pray for em.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='MrsFrozen' date='Sep 26 2004, 09:50 AM'] Frozencell and I just met a new couple that moved in. They are nice people, but seem to be rabidly anti-Catholic. Last night we had a long discussion about why he thinks Catholicism is unbiblical. He told all sorts of "historically accurate" stories, which Frozencell looked up and we learned they aren't true. I know there are lots of learned folks on PM who can help me with some of these things so we can explain them to him.

I'll tell you the things he said.

1. Peter is not the Rock. Peter really means "pebble." I looked it up and found out that the Greek word for pebble is "lithos," and Kephas (Peter) really does mean rock. Is this correct?

2. One of the Popes (he thought it was Stephen II) dug someone up from the grave and condemned them--or something. Anyone know anything about this?

3. Councils have elected multiple popes at the same time. Did this really happen? We tried to explain about self-proclaimed anti-popes, but he insisted that there have been times that multiple popes were elected.

4. Pope Leo began apostolic succession. I told him Pope Leo probably had it written down, but did not "start" it. Is this correct? Any info?

5. When Peter tells us to hold onto the oral and written traditions he has given us, it means that all the traditions are written down, and the traditions of the Church are man-made and from the devil.

6. Prayer to saints is condemned because they are dead. When did prayer to angels and saints begin?

7. Catholics added to the Bible because a council before Jesus decided that the deuterocanonicals were not inspired. He referred to the Septuagint, people being locked up in different rooms and deciding what books were inspired. Was the original Bible, the Septuagint, the Greek text with all the deuterocanonicals? Any info?

He used many obscure Bible references and tried to explain what they meant--for instance, Isaiah 8:19-20 is somehow in support of sola scriptura, and somehow Mary wasn't special because when she went to visit Elizabeth, Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, not Mary.

Anyhow, like I said, I'm sure some of you have heard these things before. Can anyone help?

Thanks and God bless. [/quote]
All the answers to their attacks you should be able to answer using one of the following sites:

[url="http://www.Catholic.com"]http://www.Catholic.com[/url] <--- VERY good resource in attacks against the Church.

[url="http://www.ScriptureCatholic.com"]http://www.ScriptureCatholic.com[/url] <--- Over 2000 bible verses supporting Catholicism

[url="http://www.Catholic-Pages.com"]http://www.Catholic-Pages.com[/url] <--- Catholic Portal of Resources

[url="http://www.CatholicLinks.com"]http://www.CatholicLinks.com[/url] <--- Catholic Portal of Resources

[url="http://www.Britannica.com"]http://www.Britannica.com[/url] <--- Encyclopedia Britannica - Look up Catholic Church, New Testament Canon, etc....

[url="http://www.USCCB.org"]http://www.USCCB.org[/url] <--- US Conf. of Catholic Bishops - Catechism, Bible, etc...

[url="http://www.IanPaisley.net"]http://www.IanPaisley.net[/url] <--- my page dedicated the charitable education of ian paisley.


Also, remember to ask yourself the following:
"Does this question have anything to do with proving the Church unbiblical."

Then ask the question to them:
"What does "that" have to do with the Church being unbiblical?"

Such as a Pope digging up a body. That has nothing to do with the Church being unbiblical even if it was true.

All anti-Catholic attacks are lies and half truths.

Ask them their source. If you don't know the answer to the attack, tell them you'll get back to them (I'm sure you already do this). Also, in the hunt at the sites, you'll learn a lot of other things about the Church.


Also, something to remember, they trust the people who told them the lies, so it's not entirely their fault and try to realize that. Point out that they can go online and see for themselves what the Catholic Church teaches and why.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[Cure of Ars]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Sep 26 2004, 03:29 PM'] SIMON means grain of sand

[/quote]
Hello Aluigi,

On the Apologetics board we tried to find evidence for this claim but we could not find it. I don’t think it is true. Here is what we found;

[url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=17447&st=0"]http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=17447&st=0[/url]


I think you will find it interesting.

Edited September 27, 2004 by Cure of Ars

[Cure of Ars]

I suggest that you go to the reference section in the apologetics board. It has most if not all of the answers to the questions you posted. Phatcatholic has compiled a great list of links, the best links on the net.

Sorry for the sales pitch. Some people are drug pushers, I am reference section pusher.


If you can't find something or need more help let us know.

Edited September 27, 2004 by Cure of Ars

[MrsFrozen]

[quote name='Sinner' date='Sep 26 2004, 08:52 PM'] Ummmmm....... kick his head like a mellon?

v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v

OK prob better just to pray for em. [/quote]
Heheh.. Yes, kicking his head wouldn't be very Christian! But pray for him I will.