Disgruntled Ex Catholics


Just found this website.


That’s a well-known sola scriptura, Catholic-bashing site. I don’t know as it has anything to do with “disgruntled ex-Catholics” particularly.


Please explain :thinking:

I just thought I would check out the adversary while I am still learning about the Faith


“Sola scriptura” is the term for Protestants who believe that scripture alone, interpreted by them of course, is the basis for all faith. In other words, if it’s not in the Bible (their version of it, of course) then it’s not from God. The phrase “From a Biblical perspective” is the tip-off.

Catholics do not believe this.


When I read that they say Catholics do not call themselves Christians I thought the site is a joke by some unhappy individuals


We definitely call ourselves Christians. We rather consider ourselves THE Christian Church, in fact, insofar as we hold that we have the fullness of truth and and adhere to the deposit of faith left to us by Christ and his apostles.


Catholics in USA sometimes make a point of emphasizing “Catholic” rather than “Christian” because they do not want to be thought to be a Protestant Christian. “Christian” in USA is often used to refer to Protestant evangelicals. Those groups also sometimes will claim Catholics are not true Christians. I had a street evangelizer tell me I wasn’t a Christian once, which is baloney and I walked away, but his position was that Catholics (in his opinion) haven’t personally accepted Jesus Christ so we’re not really Christians to him.
That was also baloney as plenty of us Catholics have personally accepted Jesus Christ, it’s not like we have to call up a priest to be the go-between in order to pray to Jesus or accept Him as our savior or build a personal relationship with him.


If they were to ever go to Catholic mass, I’m sure their first reaction would be, “wow…they talk about Jesus…a lot.”


The bolded is actually a misrepresentation of sola scriptura. Properly understood, SS is opposed to individual interpretation. Using scripture as the final norm is a hermeneutical principle, and hermeneutics is a practice of the Church, not the individual.


My experience with Baptists suggests their understanding of sola scriptura is different than how Anglicans or Lutherans would understand it. As I’m not an adherent to sola scriptura, I’m not going to argue how it should be properly understood, but you can certainly speak to your (or your organized denomination’s) approach.


Your quote brought to mind an incident related by Steve Ray on YouTube:

This was like my family - always ready to start a Bible war on some topic or another…


Yes. Later groups do not hold to the traditional understanding of SS. Another reason for not using the term Protestant when speaking of doctrine, or in this case, practice.


Don’t count on GotQuestions.org for the truth about Catholics and the Catholic Church. It’s one of the two most anti-Catholic websites I’ve ever seen.


I’m sure the average Protestant waving a Bible to debunk Catholicism wouldn’t know a hermeneutic from Herman Munster, couldn’t even spell the word and couldn’t care less.
I sometimes also think we need a forum for people who don’t sit around studying -ology all day to discuss things in real world terms.

“Got Questions” is obviously not run by mainline Protestants. I’ll stick by my original explanation, thanks.


And that makes them exactly like the average Catholic who hasn’t looked at the Catechism since childhood.

My experience is you would not qualify. :wink:

Got Questions doesn’t set doctrine or practice, but you are welcome to your opinion


I love that idea. I have often said that one of the people that lead me to be Catholic was John MacArthur, for that very reason. Just read very carefully if you do this. As I said on another thread, one’s own proficiency at the language arts is essential. Take for example the very first questions:

I am a Catholic. Why should I consider becoming a Christian?

This is so obviously illogical. The very point it is making is assumed in the question. They say the mean no offense, but the only offense should be their own ineptness at reasoning. So, here is an irony. The very mistake the usually careful MacArthur makes, they make, in the very first question!


Consider these two phrases:

“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for… (2 Timothy 3:16)

Scripture is perfectly and fully sufficient for… (paraphrase of 2 Timothy 3:16)

This substitution (“sufficient” for “useful”) is used often, in fact, everywhere I have seen, as proof that the Bible teaches sola scriptura. After all, if the Bible does not teach sola scriptura, then the principle is a self-contradiction.

Everyone knows, if they take any time to think and not just accept what they read, that “useful” is not “sufficient.” A hammer is useful in building a house. A hammer is not sufficient to build a house. Shelter is useful to live. Shelter is not sufficient to live. Scripture is useful to build us up to be all God wants us to be. Scripture is not sufficient (necessarily) to build us up to be all God wants us to be.


Sadly, I have come across numerous practicing Catholics over the years who seem confused over this, and who have said things like, “My mother left the Catholic Church and became a Christian.”


This reminds me of an incident a couple of weeks ago when my son and I were leaving for soccer. A rather rude kid in the neighborhood saw his uniform and said to him, “No offense, but I think you’re gonna lose!”

I thought, what possible reason to say such a thing could there be but to offend? Saying one means no offense doesn’t actually mean that one means no offense.


Agreed. That’s a fundamentalist based site and not only is it anti-Catholic, it is completely wrong about things it says about our faith.

I wouldn’t use that as a resource to discover the Catholic faith any more than I’d use a Jack Chick book.


Another way of looking at it is that CC has the biblical perspective, the bible as source of truth, but also Tradition as equal source of truth. Further, bible is also interpreted by same said church, the CC, just as P churches do for themselves. The big difference is that CC church puts its tradition, it’s teachings , equally as authoritative and inspired as Scripture itself, while P churches do not. Both churches look at tradition (council decrees, church father writings).

So for P’s, Scripture is not alone for source of truth or wisdom, but alone as final norm, inspired in a class by itself.

But yes, the P norm is for something to be scriptural, while CC norm is that plus that it can also just be “not contrary to scripture”.

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