Calling all apologists ... new anti-Catholic Arguements that need addressing!


While I do not consider myself an apologist, I usually do pretty well when it comes to defending the Catholic faith. However, the other day I came across some arguements here – some/most of which I have not heard before and not sure how to address if it presented to me.

Anybody want to take a crack at them?

PS: There are several dozen different points presented – follow the individual links.


No there is nothing new[FONT=“Arial”][/FONT]there. Same stuff- same rationale same misinterpretation etc. blah,blah blah-I;m not going to convince them(if you’ve read some of the boards you’ll know that no matter how solid the arguement is) and they sure as heck ain’t going to convince me:confused:


It isn’t a matter of convincing YOU but convincing a neutral party. They present arguments for Sola Scriptura that I haven’t heard replies for before. Same for a lot of the other areas and I’m curious how we are to counter these misrepresentations?


John Martignoni, president of the Bible Christian Society, has several newsletters devoted to discussing/debating with Joe Mizzi (author of the Just for Catholics website you posted) quite a few of the assertions he makes. That should help you out some!


There is way to much on that site to answer in one thread. Do you have a specific question?

Interestingly, I did get this from that website:

Question: Did the early Church Fathers really believe that baptism washed away original sin?..

As a matter of historical fact, there was a general consensus among the Fathers that baptism was the instrument of regeneration and washing away of sin. That settles the question for the Roman Catholic, who is also amazed that Evangelical Christians have the audacity to disagree with the Fathers on this matter.

They admit that baptismal regeneration was taught by the early church fathers (who are the next generations of "Christian leaders) but they go on to say the Bible is infallible therefore (there interpretation–my insertion) overides the ECF’s. True the Bible is inerrant (they use infallible) however the ECF’s show us what early Christianity believed and taught; they were taught by the Apostles themselves so their writings give us evidence to what Christ actually taught.


What I find interesting and different about this site is that it it presented in a very catholic friendly way. At first you think your lookng at a pro catholic site. Then as you scroll down it leads you in an arguement. This could be a dangerous site for people to simply trip over.

The testimony is damaging. When a catholic finds error in the teaching of the church… The problem is that he himself is in error. It boggles my mind that someone who knows the church teaching would find error in one of them and suddenly bring up all the arguements that typical anti-catholics have.

I wonder how true some of this is. I think thats the tactic here. The gentle massage away from the church, instead of the foaming at the mouth approach.


Now I’m a little confused. Would you rather that Protestants were hostile towards you? And may a Protestant not argue against Catholic doctrines in an irenic spirit … or is it your stance that no such thing is possible, and that Protestant apologists who sound friendly can only be hiding insidious intentions? A lot of us dash off our posts quickly, me included, but a casual reader might gather from the tenor of your post that you consider it wicked and hostile as such to ask that a Catholic explain or defend a point of his faith, or to find certain explanations or defences unconvincing.


Is there anything in particular that’s giving you trouble? As you said, there are several dozen, and that’s a lot. One trouble spot at a time would likely prove more profitable.

EDIT: Well, okay, one big thing that I’m seeing is his argument against the Magisterium is essentially, you can’t prove that God gave us a Magisterium using the Bible or Magisterial teachings. Which, in a sense, is true. However, his solution is that we can be confident that God gave us Scripture. :confused: This is just as unprovable, and relies solely on his opinion and gut feelings, rather then Church teachings that we can trace back to the beginning.

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight


Here’s another site with even more anti-Catholic arguments.



[/list]As I said, the parts on Sola Scriptura and Church authority.


Again, we need you to be more specific. What about Church authority and Sola Scriptura do you need help with?


Sorry, I didn’t look into Sola scriptura but I read what he had on the Immaculate Conception. He quoted from the New Advent site (Catholic) AND included a link. However, he didn’t quote in full which is very misleading. The complete quote (from St. Augustine) is on the New Advent page, but unless the reader reads it carefully they could be end up swayed.

I imagine he uses similar tactics with the other points.


My challenge to Protestants

Show me one single non-heretical reference to Sola Scripture before Luther and I’ll begin to address your points.

Until then, you’re the little guy on the block who doesn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt.


What would you accept as a reference to sola scriptura?


Sola Scriptura isn’t one belief, it’s a complex of beliefs. An appeal to the authority of Scripture by itself is not necessarily a reference to sola Scriptura.

I would accept a reference to sola Scriptura one that claimed all these beliefs:

  1. Only those things found within the pages of Scripture are binding on the conscience of the Christian.

  2. The Bible is materially sufficient (contains all things necessary for a Christian to believe).

  3. The Bible is formally sufficient (the Bible clearly explains itself and needs no infallible interpretor).

  4. The Church has authority, but it is does not have infallible authority, and therefore, cannot bind the conscience of the Christian.

  5. Individual Christians have an absolute right to private interpretation when they read Scripture since the Bible alone can bind the Christian conscience.

The ECF’s often appeal to Scripture, but they appeal to the authority of the Church as well. I’ve never seen evidence of the complex of beliefs known as “sola Scriptura” described in the ECF’s writings.


I agree with the others, nothing new here.


They appear to counter-argue the points that we make here, here, here, here & here.


Yeah but the person who may be neutral – will they be convinced by us or them?

I submit that I do not have counters for some of these – such as this one.


**Disagreement Among Protestants And Sola Scriptura

The apparent unity of the Roman Catholic Church is illusory, as any informed Catholic would know. The unity is structural and organizational, but there are serious divisions at all levels, especially between the more liberal and conservative Catholics. Take the charismatic movement for an example. In Protestant circles, Charismatics form separate denominations (and so the distinction from other denominations is obvious). Whereas in the Catholic church, the charismatic groups remain under the Roman umbrella. Their differences from non-charismatic Catholics are hidden though they are just as real as in Protestant churches.

The unity we have as Catholics is the unity of authority. It may be the human heart that keeps people from embracing the Truth, but any Catholic who desires to know the teaching of the Church can find it.

It is easy to discover what the Catholic Church teaches, but where do I go to find out the official “sola Scripturists” teachings on:

–In vitro fertilization procedures
–Artificial birth control
–The death penalty
–Stem-cell research that entails destruction of human embryos
–Homosexual behavior
–Married priests
–Ordination of women

If you try to answer the question, you will see the difference.

The Church teaches with the authority given her by Jesus Christ. All are free to reject what she proclaims and teaches, but she continues to teach nonetheless. Anyone who desires to know the Truth she teaches knows where to go and can easily find it.


Let me take just one to start, from “Sola Scriptura Proved.”

Question: Where does the Bible say that our beliefs should be based on the teaching of the Bible? ‘Bible only’ is plainly unbiblical.

Answer: Every disciple of Christ is obedient to the Lord and is committed to believe and obey His Word. The Christian will not permit any man or creature to usurp the throne of his Lord. Moreover, every Christian believes that the Bible is the Word of God. He is therefore committed to its teachings, commands and instructions.

And on and on, blah, blah. Note the trick here: He asks a question, and never answers it!!

Demand he answer the question he, himself has asked!!


Absolutely great answer.

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