Question for Catholic Caucus (Catholic Caucus) (Vanity)

2/18/2007 | self

[markomalley]

I would like to take a straw poll of the various members of the Catholic Caucus:

There are a huge number of tracts out there that attempt to question various elements of Catholic theology. When they invariably surface on Free Republic, several of us take the opportunity to debunk them; however, as those tracts are invariably posted by Protestants, the threads become 'general discussion' threads and usually end up being several hundred posts (or several thousand) long; the hard work done by caucus members end up being swallowed up in the sheer volume...making those posts difficult to use as reference in the future.

My idea is for us to, from time to time, post one of those tracts, and go through and debunk the claims. Primarily from the Bible, but where history is misquoted, a proper source showing what that history IS would be appropriate, as well.

Now since thes would be 'caucus'-type threads, examination of the doctrine or practices within various Protestant denominations would be off-limits: the scope would have to be carefully restricted to understanding the scriptural defense against those denominations' attacks on us.

The question for the caucus is: would there be any interest in the above?

[AliVeritas]

What if it's laid out as Catholic Catechesis-Subject?

Scripture, Tradition, Magisterium, Catechism Reference to start and go from there.

That way it could clear up teachings for Catholics and others would know the purpose.

[markomalley]

Oh, well.

I appreciate your consideration...

[Religion Moderator]

That is fine (and a great idea in my view) -- providing the material posted in the article does not make comparisons to (or speak on behalf of) other confessions.

If it does, then the other confessions might need or want to post a rebuttal and the thread would have to be opened.

[StJacques]

Theoden's point about the reposting of Catholic Caucus threads gives me pause about the wisdom of keeping doctrinal and interpretive issues entirely within the caucus. But the question was put as a "once a month" type of post and, on that basis, given that we will not be silencing any discussion, I can go along with it.

I think we all need to face up to the fact that many articulate and well-formed responses to Protestant critiques of Catholic theology are simply ignored on this board and the same misconceptions, though answered many times to the very posters who continue to put them up, are perpetrated continuously without attention to dialogue. I view this as a debating tactic designed to show that they are simply capable of "posting something" rather than engaging in a true back-and-forth discussion, which makes so much of the effort we expend fruitless.

markomalley; I know you're trying to find a solution to this problem, and yes I do see it, but the real underlying problem from my viewpoint is a lack of willingness to respond to what is posted rather than an ability or an inability to control the debate. If people just want to "talk at" us rather than "talk to" us, we're never going to be able to change their ways.

Other than that, I am generally an optimist about human nature. LOL!

[Frank Sheed]

Confessions of Faith

Advanced Information

Variations on the term "confession" are found in the NT (e.g., I Tim. 3:16; 6:13). In the early church the word was used to describe the testimony of martyrs as they were about to meet their deaths. Its most common usage, however, designates the formal statements of Christian faith written by Protestants since the earliest days of the Reformation. As such, "confessions" are closely related to several other kinds of brief, authoritative summations of belief. The term "creed" most frequently refers to statements from the early church which Christians in all times and places have recognized, the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Definition of Chalcedon, and (less frequently) the Athanasian Creed.

(Elwell Evangelical Dictionary)

The Christians (or Church) referred to in blue is what is commonly known as the Catholic Church.

[Religion Moderator]

What term would you use?

[Theoden]

I view this as a debating tactic designed to show that they are simply capable of "posting something" rather than engaging in a true back-and-forth discussion, which makes so much of the effort we expend fruitless.

I agree with you. I have noticed that within the last year and a half the number of Protestant posts have increased many times over. I would estimate that half of these posts are devotional and genuinely doctrinal in nature, but the other half are purposely anti-Catholic.

Case in point, all of the posts and reposts about abusive Priests, the actions of people who say they act in the name of the Church or that they are "Catholic", but are contrary to Church doctrine, etc... It is an aggressive "ad-hominum" campaign against the Catholic Church perpetuated by a very few pseudo intellectuals. They will believe what they want to believe, and they have no interest whatsoever in finding out the truth of what we as Catholics believe. It is not our problem that their Theology is largely based off of how not Catholic they are. They can tell St. Peter, and our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ face to face what they think of his pilgrim Church on Earth.

[siunevada]

Oh, well.

I have seen in the past few months threads posted closely following "Here's why Catholics are wrong" - type threads on exactly the same subject from a Catholic apologetics viewpoint laying out the Scriptural and historical foundation for what the Catholic Church teaches. It seems a more positive approach than attempting to "Fisk" Protestant tracts.

[Frank Sheed]

Personally, I see what Mark is trying to accomplish. As someone who has read these threads assiduously over the years, I have seen very capable apologists for both sides of a discussion. In almost all cases, the "Catholic" view is greatly enhanced by our Orthodox brothers, for example.

It is a shame that on a periodic basis, a post could not be made in the form of "Be it resolved that...." with a small "team" of several individuals from both groups calmly going back and forth with NO ad hominem or personal attacks. This is best done, of course, when a single apologist from each side has a give and take (as on a radio format), but as I've said, I've recognized great posters on both sides.

I have no idea how a team would be formed, but for the purpose of these "periodic discussions" extraneous posters would be ignored. The purpose would be to examine the doctrine as it unfolds by knowledgeable individuals and the exposition could be quite illuminating to read. As one who frequents threads on a variety of subjects, I have learned a great deal this way--by reading and paying attention.

If only FR and JimRob could find a method to see this put into place! I know that open discussion always finds the diamonds in the rough in many, many areas, but in a thread like religion discussions, the same turf is beaten to death over and over or relevant questions are simply ignored or finessed. The subject would not have to be done in real time either. It is often the case that a point needs to be examined or researched so that false information is not given.

If we could ever pull this off, everyone involved could "bookmark" the thread. Then, when some "newbie" comes aboard and is feeling his or her oats, the link could be posted for them to "read and learn."

Could it work on FR? I don't know, but it would be a real learning experience if it was done with honesty and with integrity.

[Carolina]

Could it work on FR? I don't know, but it would be a real learning experience if it was done with honesty and with integrity.

I know that irenic discussions can happen. Witness the discussions on the Pontificator's blog. How did Fr. Kimel accomplish this? I've been reading his blog now since it started and his posts have had very meaningful and civil discussions. Very rarely did they get ugly. I've learned a great deal from him and other commentors. Not to mention getting stretched intellectually

Sometimes, a post of his makes its way here on FR and it quickly disintegrates and the substantive points that he makes are lost in the fray. Very disheartening to see.

[Alex Murphy]

Someone pointed me the other day to the keyword search function. Type in the phrase catholic bashing and then search by keyword. It's most illuminating.

It certainly is - especially when better than 80% of the threads that come up are mine. I'd love to know who's been attaching the keyword "catholic bashing" to my threads, especially since some of them have never been posted to.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

People find all sorts of foolish ways to distract from discussing a topic and instead arbitrarily throwing tomatoes. Anyone can (and apparently has) put "catholic-bashing" into any thread they choose. So what? It means nothing except someone thinks they're being cute.

Should we Protestants start putting "protestant-bashing" onto all the threads for which we can't mount a good defense.

Oh, wait. I haven't found a thread like that yet.

[alpha-8-25-02]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1786631/posts

i'll post a loving sermon and not have 1 view.

then compare protestant to muslims and there's a gathering.

[P-Marlowe]

Someone pointed me the other day to the keyword search function. Type in the phrase catholic bashing and then search by keyword. It's most illuminating.

I suspect that whoever told you about it is probably the one who has been planting that keyword on every thread which in any way criticizes the Catholic Church.

Carry on.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Yes, a sad commentary.

I hope you know how valuable your Spurgeon threads are to many of us who read them every day. I send them to my children and to friends across the country. Thank you for taking the time to preach Christ risen.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Yep. And the problem is exacerbated by the fact that Protestantism is in direct rebuttal to Catholicism so it's difficult to proclaim the Gospel without making reference to past and current errors.