Call them on it!

Call them on it!


Protestants go around making wild claims about what is in Scripture. I guess they are confident that 99% of the people with whom they talk will take their word for it. Folks, 100% of what they say is in Scripture, if it contradicts Catholic Teaching or if it paints the Catholic Church as evil, is false. Call them on it. Have them produce the chapter and verse.

For instance, on another website an anti-Catholic Protestant said.

…. Papal Rome is that little horn of which we were warned in Daniel 7,

It ain’t there folks. He is reading it into Scripture. Read Daniel 7 for yourself.

the apparition of “Mary” is the false prophet

Folks, the first apparition of Mary is in Scripture. And its there so that you would recognize her apparitions throughout history.

Revelation 12:1King James Version (KJV)
1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

and the Eucharist is the image that we are supposed to worship, and it comes to life and has the power of speech through Eucharistic miracles (of which we are warned in Revelation 13),

I don’t remember any Eucharistic miracles where the Host came to life and speaks. The Eucharistic miracles of which I’m aware, the Host becomes Flesh and Blood. Which we believe is the Flesh and Blood of our Saviour because Scripture says:

John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

AND Rev 13, mentions nothing about the Eucharist.

Let me give you some facts.

  1. Eucharist means “thanksgiving”.
  2. The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord is called the Eucharist because Jesus Christ used this word when He established the Eucharist:
    Mark 14:23 And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it.
  3. The establishing of this Sacrament was prophecied in the Old Testament:
    Malachi 1:11 For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts.

and the stigmata is the “noisome and grievous sore” that comes upon those who worship the image (Revelation 16:2).

Actually, the stigmata are the marks of Jesus Christ. The very first person to have these was St. Paul:

Galatians 6:17 From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.

And this is recorded in Scripture so that you will recognize those whom Christ has especially united to Himself throughout Church history.

So, folks, call them on it when they make their wild claims. They know nothing about Scripture and even less about Catholic Teaching, if it were possible.


De Maria

The worst part of this is there are way too many non-Catholics allowing them to get away with it. Anyone considering themselves a Christian, Catholic or otherwise, should not be passive about persecution like this. :frowning:



Agreed. Also I am sick of seeing Catholics say how do you refute this that some nutso has posted, and say that the person seems to have a good argument. I do a five minute google search, and can find multiple twistings and purposeful misquotes of the article. If your faith can be so easily shaken by nut job articles, you have other problems with your faith.

Maybe some folks need such distortions in order to reinforce their own non-Catholic religion. :o


All you have done is quote a mismash of stupid anit-Catholic rhetoric and then use that to lamblast all Protestants with it. While the quotes are obviously in error, your response and summary is equally in error. Most Protestants do not believe this junk or promote it. Unlike too many posts on CAF, most Protestants are not as anti-Catholic as a number of Catholics think they are or seem to want them to be.

There are serious differences in attitudes towards Catholics in different areas of the country. Ha! I moved 60 miles and the attitudes are totally different!

And I live in the Bible Belt…

I’m from the Bible Belt and when people from back home learn that I converted to Catholicism, some literally gasp.

Some years ago I was in a car with two Protestant evangelical pastors (one of whom was my boss). The other one, in his 40’s (younger than I) decided it was time to take me on about Mary, and worshiping her.

I let him go for a while, till he finally posed a question.

I asked him if what was in the Bible was true? “Yes”.

Did he really believe it? “Definitely”.

"Well, in the Gospel of Luke, it says… " And then I quoted the Magnificat (it helps to say the LOTH regularly!). All of it,

Then I rounded it up, that all we did was follow the Gospel acclamation “All generations shall call me blessed. The Almighty has done great thinks for me, and holy is His name”.

It takes about 45 seconds, I am sure he is quite good at quoting selected Scripture. I kind of doubt that he had met a Catholic who could quote more than a line or two,

The silence that ensued was almost deafening (the other pastor, my boss, managed to choke back most of his amusement. Most, but not all.)

And that was the last time the younger pastor decided to pull my chain or stick his toe in that water.

Yesterday I had a short exchange with James White on Twitter that began with a question about Matthew 16:18 and its supposedly Aramaic origins. Shortly thereafter, he made the statement that “it is only tradition places Peter in Rome,” and that “it is just as likely that Peter went to Babylon.” I was amazed that he would make that he would make such a statement.

I notified White that in circa A.D. 96 and circa A.D. 116, St. Clement of Rome and St. Ignatius of Antioch, both writing to Rome, associated Peter and Paul with the church in Rome, and Clement implied their martyrdoms there. In about A.D. 170 Dionysius of Corinth expressly declared that Peter was martyred in Rome. Shortly thereafter, Acts of Peter related Peter’s eventful ministry in Rome and concluded that he was crucified upside down (later also referred to by Origen). Gaius of Rome, circa 200, wrote of the martyrdoms of both Peter and Paul in Rome.

In light of the above evidence, there is little doubt about Peter’s being in Rome or his martyrdom there, yet White expects those with whom he discusses the Catholic faith to be ignorant of its history. Needless to say, he blocked me shortly after I refuted his claims.

Good job man, any reality check from historical facts for that sophist is good to hear about. Lol I still see he’s still lying about what the magisterium is (I’m watching his latest podcast on big bad ROME!! since you mentioned him).

It appears he’s interacting with Robert Sungenis again. Maybe they’ll do another debate soon and he can take another loss. I don’t think they’ve done sola scriptura yet, his latest podcast might be a good jumping board.

Edit: I just heard him gloat over a man’s family being broken apart. I think I’m done listening to him even for fun. That was disgusting.

Yes, there are. But coming on here, quoting the worst anti-Catholic dribble and then pinning it on “protestants” is not fair or right. If someone wants to answer anti-Catholic nonsense, then state the source and particular Church. Someone talked about James White and their interaction with him. That is specific and he is a well known anti-Catholic nut. Threads like this do not in anyway enhance the conversation with our Protestant brothers and sisters. All it does is throw up defenses and walls. Is that what we are about? You don’t answer kooks by becoming a kook, you answer this stuff with well reasoned Biblical logic and facts.

Your efforts are very admirable but in dealing with James White and the other proponents of anti-Catholic dribble, he isn’t really going to listen to anyone. He already has had the facts, he isn’t going to change his position no matter how many facts are pointed out to him especially over twitter. The Bible says don’t throw your pearls before swine. Think about that next time you encounter people like him.

When you refer to them as “nursing,” you are not speaking out of love. I use to be one of those. I thought Catholics were going to he’ll. It was from the patience shown to me in refuting my beliefs that helped lead me to the Catholic Church. Be patient and kind with us who are in ignorance.

This is exactly correct.

There are plenty of Catholic nut-jobs out there who think Google is the same as Bible study but have never seriously read the Bible for themselves.

Throwing F-bombs isn’t going to win anyone to the Catholic faith.


John Martignoni, president of the Bible Christian Society says clearly that there is nothing in the bible that conflicts with the teachings of the Church and nothing about the Church, It’s teachings or in the Catechism that conflicts with the Bible.

Something we should always remember when speaking to our non-Catholic friends.

Mr. Martignoni actually says we should agree with them when they quote scripture and say “Amen, Absolutely, I believe every verse of scripture in the Bible!” then go ahead and gently point out the other areas in the Bible that support Catholic teaching with the correct interpretation of the offered quote.

Mr. Martignoni point out that the worst we can expect, and the best your opponent can expect is a tie, since their concept is that anyone has the right to read and interpret scripture in any way they like, then they cannot dispute your interpretation without admitting that their ideas are wrong. We simply say, “Ok, but I don’t agree with your interpretation and I’ll stick by my own interpretation that is taught by the Catholic Church.”

It’s really worth the several hours you can spend listening to all of his talks here: He has some great tools to help us all better defend our faith!

I’ve met Mr. Martignoni and have heard his talks in person.

His style is very confrontational, to the point of condescension.


I don’t know about the Rome part, but there are many biblical scholars and historians who seriously doubt the martyrdom part and/or say there is no sound, reliable, historical evidence for it. White might be one of them.

I’ll get the info and post.


White claimed that the presence of Peter in Rome is based on tradition alone, a claim that is demonstrably false as evidenced by the aforementioned sources. Please cite these so-called historians and biblical scholars who deny that that there is any “sound, reliable, historical evidence” for Peter’s soundly, historically, reliably corroborated martyrdom in Rome in the mid-7th decade of the 1st Century.

Did you reply to wrong post? I never said “nursing”, and I was criticizing Catholics in my post.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit