Help me respond to this letter from protestant minister


#1

I am hoping that some of you could write a letter back to this person in a loving way in response to their errors and misunderstandings of Catholicism and their statements against it. Please read it carefully and respond to what is stated in the letter by writing a letter in return if you have time.Thank you dealry!! justin

"I love you, man. And I am OK if we agree to disagree. You are a good guy and it seems to me that you love Jesus. I actually enjoy having a friend who is a hard-core Roman Catholic, since I know so many RC’s who obviously have no clue. So I enjoy the banter, but please know that I’m not out to win an argument.

It is clear that you have bought the Roman Catholic system hook, line, and sinker… And that’s the genius of Catholicism: it’s a really good system. Once you buy it, you are a slave to it, because grace comes through the church, so you have to stay connected for life or risk missing out on heaven. I think the system is pretty airtight… Unfortunately I am convinced it is a system built on human wisdom and not on the Word of God.

For instance, doctrines like the perpetual virginity of Mary, praying to Mary and to the saints, the immaculate conception of Mary and not just Jesus, etc, are foreign to the pages of Scripture. I’m not sure how you can say the Roman Catholic Church has “never changed its position on faith and morals”… I can objectively walk you through church history and show you the development of these types of doctrines that have no basis in Scripture.

I have told you this before, but it is intellectually preposterous to claim that the Catholic Church as it currently exists has been around since Peter. The primacy of the Roman See was not established until Gregory the Great, circa 600 AD. Of course, when you are the bishop of Rome, and you are in a fight with the bishop of Constantinople over whose see is more authoritative… Wouldn’t claiming apostolic succession from Peter help you win that argument? SO many Roman Catholic doctrines, David, come down to this sort of political expediency. Even the condemnations of Luther at the Council of Trent were WAY stronger than many Roman Catholics wanted them to be… But the church was in a political struggle for its life, so it had to pronounce Luther as a heretic in order to have any chance of keeping its political power in Western Europe.

I have nothing against Catholics, … I love them. But I have much against the Roman Catholic Church as an institution, because when it comes down to it, their end goal is not the glory of God in the gospel of Jesus Christ, but the glory and power of the Roman Church against all opponents. The gospel of Jesus is a gospel of weakness, a gospel of brokenness, a gospel of persecution and suffering… Not a gospel of political power and ecclesiastical authority.

So yes, you are right… There are unconverted people in every church. And there is error and human weakness in every church. And that’s why the GOSPEL must be the main thing, not the church. In the Roman Catholic system, the gospel exists to serve the church. In the Reformation heritage, the church exists to serve the gospel. And that is the crucial difference.

PS – one clarification… I’m OK if you get riled up in the midst of debate, but please agree that I do not have a “religion started by me.” I planted a church – one that believes Scripture and professes the Apostles’ Creed and stands within the historic Christian faith. I know you are bothered that I am not Roman Catholic… But come on, give a little grace. “Starting a religion” is something cult leaders and heretics do. Planting churches is something Christian missionaries do, for the proclamation of the gospel and the spiritual formation of families and the transformation of cities. "


#2

Easy:

Dear Sir,

Jesus Christ was also greatly misunderstood by those who claimed to have “a relationship with God.” As a matter of fact these same people Crucified God, as you, with your words crucify His Church.

It is with great sadness that I read the fallacies you have written as facts, but that sadness also gives me great hope and joy because it is in your ignorance of the Truth that I find such a grand opportunity to share with you the Gospel of Jesus Christ. A Gospel so old that it will seem like New to you!

I look forward, not to banter, but to the communication of His Truth to you.

In His Most Sacred Heart and His Ever-Virgin Mother’s arms,

your name here.


#3

I would never try to reply to such a letter. It’s too scattered, tossing in too many claims (with zero substantiation). And I would say that.

Now, if you want to have discourse with this person, what I would do is focus on one thing at a time. Absolutely refuse to respond to “shotgun attacks” that toss out a dozen “errors” at a time. And I’d focus on that last part that he wrote. He says he founded a church based on scripture and historic Christianity. So focus on either (a) how come other “bible-believing” churches teach different things (some even rejecting the Trinity or the nature of Christ), or (b) where are distinctly Protestant teachings found in the early Church, in opposition to Catholic teachings?


#4

[quote=justinthemartyr] am hoping that some of you could write a letter back to this person in a loving way in response to their errors and misunderstandings of Catholicism and their statements against it. Please read it carefully and respond to what is stated in the letter by writing a letter in return if you have time.Thank you dealry!! justin
[/quote]

Here is my response. Feel free to tweak it.

"I love you, man. And I am OK if we agree to disagree. You are a good guy and it seems to me that you love Jesus. I actually enjoy having a friend who is a hard-core Roman Catholic, since I know so many RC’s who obviously have no clue. So I enjoy the banter, but please know that I’m not out to win an argument.

**
We are discussing this to clarify correct Catholic doctrine, but assumptions of what we believe. I do appreciate your honest approach on this matter.**

It is clear that you have bought the Roman Catholic system hook, line, and sinker… And that’s the genius of Catholicism: it’s a really good system. Once you buy it, you are a slave to it, because grace comes through the church, so you have to stay connected for life or risk missing out on heaven. I think the system is pretty airtight… Unfortunately I am convinced it is a system built on human wisdom and not on the Word of God.

The Catholic Church is founded by One Man, God incarnate. The Word Made flesh. Jesus before he died, established One Church upon Peter. The Catholic Church history basis is on Jesus Christ. Jesus established a authoritiative Church. Just as the Father send his Son authority in heaven, so too, the Son send his Apostles with authority especially when it deals with faith and morals.

For instance, doctrines like the perpetual virginity of Mary, praying to Mary and to the saints, the immaculate conception of Mary and not just Jesus, etc, are foreign to the pages of Scripture. I’m not sure how you can say the Roman Catholic Church has “never changed its position on faith and morals”… I can objectively walk you through church history and show you the development of these types of doctrines that have no basis in Scripture.

**The Perpetual Virginity of Mary has been believed by the Early Church Fathers as early as the second Second Century. Second in Scripture in Luke’s Gospel when Jesus was twelve years old, he went to Jerusalem with his mother and father. If he indeed have other brothers or sisters, they would be mention.

Mary’s Immaculate Conception though not explicit in Scripture is implied. Luke 1:28 states that Mary is full of grace. When taken literally, this term means, "one who is endowed with grace. In Biblical typologically, Mary is the type of Ark. Just as the Ark was is pure so must Mary be. Since Mary herself carried the Jesus, the Word made flesh in her womb for 9 months. I hardly think God would allow a sinful woman carry his only begotten Son.

Second, everything in Christian belief is not explicitly thought in Scripture. For there are many things Jesus did that was not written according to John.**


#5

I have told you this before, but it is intellectually preposterous to claim that the Catholic Church as it currently exists has been around since Peter. The primacy of the Roman See was not established until Gregory the Great, circa 600 AD. Of course, when you are the bishop of Rome, and you are in a fight with the bishop of Constantinople over whose see is more authoritative… Wouldn’t claiming apostolic succession from Peter help you win that argument? SO many Roman Catholic doctrines, David, come down to this sort of political expediency. Even the condemnations of Luther at the Council of Trent were WAY stronger than many Roman Catholics wanted them to be… But the church was in a political struggle for its life, so it had to pronounce Luther as a heretic in order to have any chance of keeping its political power in Western Europe.

**Actually speaking the first recording term Catholic Church was in 107-110 AD by St. Ignatius of Antioch.

St. Ignatius Letter to the Smyrnaeans

Chapter 8: Let nothing be done without the bishop.

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

In those days, there were 5 Patriarchiates.

  1. Rome being the first Protos.

  2. Jerusalem.

  3. Alexandria.

  4. Antioch

  5. Constantinople.

All 5 constitute the entire One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. There was no Orthodox Church. It was just Catholic Church period. The authority of Rome was very clear in the first 5 centuries. Clement’s letter attest to this as well as others.**

((continue))

I have nothing against Catholics, … I love them. But I have much against the Roman Catholic Church as an institution, because when it comes down to it, their end goal is not the glory of God in the gospel of Jesus Christ, but the glory and power of the Roman Church against all opponents. The gospel of Jesus is a gospel of weakness, a gospel of brokenness, a gospel of persecution and suffering… Not a gospel of political power and ecclesiastical authority.

**The problem you have is not with the Roman Catholic Church as a mere institution. I believe you have a problem with Jesus Christ’s Church which is the original Church of Jesus Christ. I think your comments sir are rather bias against the Catholic Church.

How many times have you heard Pope Benedict XVI speak about the Christians being persecuted in Iraq, or his call to end the war and asking for peace to the whole world. How many other Protestant preachers speak the same level of authority as Pope Benedict XVI has done or other Popes before him? I find none of them can compare to the Pope.

The Church has authority because Jesus gave his Church authority when it comes to teaching moral and faith issues.**


#6

So yes, you are right… There are unconverted people in every church. And there is error and human weakness in every church. And that’s why the GOSPEL must be the main thing, not the church. In the Roman Catholic system, the gospel exists to serve the church. In the Reformation heritage, the church exists to serve the gospel. And that is the crucial difference.

Well, you got this one wrong my friend. The Church exists only to serve Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh. The Church also came to serve the People of God (Christians). Remember, Jesus send his Apostles to preached the Gospel. Whom did he send? Did he send the Apostles with the Bible on their hand? Nope. He told them to preach orally the Good News of Jesus Christ.

**The Church my friend, is the Bride of the Lamb. You know who the Lamb is right? John said to Jesus. “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.”

I see in your post, that you lack proper beliefs of Catholicism as a whole. Your writing indictates bias opinions, which holds no truth. Rather, you distort Catholicism as a bad institution, and that the Church is trying to oppress the Gospe by claiming the Church to profess un-biblical beliefs since many of our doctrine are not explicit in Scripture.

PS – one clarification… I’m OK if you get riled up in the midst of debate, but please agree that I do not have a “religion started by me.” I planted a church – one that believes Scripture and professes the Apostles’ Creed and stands within the historic Christian faith. I know you are bothered that I am not Roman Catholic… But come on, give a little grace. “Starting a religion” is something cult leaders and heretics do. Planting churches is something Christian missionaries do, for the proclamation of the gospel and the spiritual formation of families and the transformation of cities. "

Christianity is a religion my friend. Jesus founded a perfect religion. Unfortunately, the sins of men cause division within Christian but the One Church which existed since Apostolic times exist today. 100% of that Church is founded in the Catholic Church, 90% of that is founded in Eastern Orthodox Church, and 50% or less of that is founded in Protestantism, which exist only in the 1500 hundreds.

Protestantism itself is man-made. It is not founded by Jesus Christ rather it is founded by Martin Luther, John Calvin, and other Reformers. You want a Real Christianity, you ought to convert to Catholicism. Because we have Apostolic Succession and Real Presence of Jesus Christ, and the Pope. This Church is unbroken. This Church is old. This Church was born from the side of Christ, which water and blood flow.**


#7

I would agree that this is probably the best approach.

I would begin by stating that he did not “plant a church,” only one person in history has done that: Jesus Christ: “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18). Is the church started by Christ not good enough inasmuch as it is necessary to start a better one?

The most likely response is that ours is not a true lineage of apostolic succession. I would then lay the lineage of Bishops of Rome from Peter to Gregory the Great. A good question to pose is that if the early Christian church fathers (Paul, Timothy, Titus, etc.) saw the need for a bishop so much as to define the requirements for such a position, why does he not have a bishop? If, of course, it is a biblical notion, not just a manifestation of “human wisdom.”

If you use any of my suggestions, feel free to reword them, I seem to be sounding a bit arrogant this evening :o


#8

Spoken as a true future Catholic priest. God bless you, and I look forward to future posts when you get out of the Army and actually enter Seminary. May all Catholics have the courage to speak out as you do.


#9

Catholicism is not a “system”. It is an organism. Jesus founded a Church, HIs Body, not a ‘system’. Jesus instituted the sacraments as avenues of His grace. However, His not bound by the sacraments, and can reach people by His grace any way He chooses. But He identifies Himself 100% with HIs church. We can se this in the book of Acts, when Saul is persecuting the Church, and Jesus says to Him “why are you persecuting Me?”. He further identified Himself with the Church when He said “He who hears you, hears Me”. Jesus is the Head, and we are the body.

T’his is because all these beliefs and practices began long before the canon of scripture. The Catholic Church is not founded on the Bible, but upon Jesus Christ. He is the chief cornerstone. The Catholic Church produced the New Testament, and selected the canon of scripture, but the NT is a reflection of the Church Teaching, not the Source of it.

There was only one Deposit of Faith through Jesus:. "…contend for the faith which was **once for all delivered **to the saints.Jude 3

However, there are some concepts that it has taken us a long time to understand, and this understanding develops over time. “6 His disciples did not understand this at first;” John 12:16

You are correct, they are not based in scripture, but the Teaching of Jesus through the Apostles. “…but privately to his own disciples he explained everything.” Mark 4:34

Notice Jesus did not write it down, nor did He instruct them to write it down, but to Teach.

When do you think the Catholic Church started? :shrug:

This is actually erroneous. The primacy of Rome can be seen in the writings of the Fathers since the second century.

Not necessarily, because Peter is the founder of several Sees, the first in Antioch. The Primacy is not about the politics but the accuracy of doctrine. Rome became a source for settling disputes because both Peter and Paul taught there, and the community held the Apostolic Truths in abundance.


#10

Catholic doctrines are based on the Teaching of Jesus, and nothing else.

The Teachings of Jesus were WAY stronger than many of HIs disciples wanted them to be. That does not make them less true.

The duty of the Church is to define right doctrine from wrong. The Church has always condemned error whenever it was necessary to do so, from the Judiazers in Galatia to the present day denial of the life giving nature of love.

If that is the case, then these misrepresentations of the faith must proceed from ignorance.

There is no separation between Jesus and His Body. And yes, the Church will stand against all the opponents of Jesus. That is why the Church is maligned by many, including yourself.

THese statements about the gospel you make are true, but to say that Jesus did not leave Apostles in a position of authority is to deny what scripture says.

The two are one and the same. The Church exists to preach the gospel. Jesus did not separate the two, and neither should we.

When the Reformers separated themselves from the authority appointed by Christ, many errors resulted, and remain to this day.

Clearly, to some extent, you are Catholic if you believe in the Creed, one of the elements of Sacred Tradition, along with the Scripture.
[/quote]


#11

I’d pick one topic and just nail him to the wall with it. After he admits that his information is wrong, then tell him, “You know, my brother, you should come to the Catholic Church to learn what
is taught”.

One place I’d start is by explaining the roles of the Papacy.

Pope’s Clement (circa 90 AD) and Pope Victor (3rd century) certainly showed what the Papacy means way before the 6th century.

What he’ll probably say is that, “maybe I was wrong with my Pope Gregory in the 6th century” comment, but the truth still holds. This is where he needs to be shown that his information on the Catholic Church is faulty and that ALL of it should be taken with a grain of salt.


#12

Does this Protestant minister realise that the founding fathers of Protestantism, Luther, Calvin and Zwingili, all believed in and declared in writing that Mary was a perpetual virgin.


#13

"I love you, man. And I am OK if we agree to disagree. You are a good guy and it seems to me that you love Jesus. I actually enjoy having a friend who is a hard-core Roman Catholic, since I know so many RC’s who obviously have no clue. So I enjoy the banter, but please know that I’m not out to win an argument.

Thanks for the gracious acknowledgment.
I am also not out to win any argument, but to simply correct your mistaken thinking with regard to the Catholic faith as displayed in our discussions so far and this letter in particular.

It is clear that you have bought the Roman Catholic system hook, line, and sinker… And that’s the genius of Catholicism: it’s a really good system. Once you buy it, you are a slave to it, because grace comes through the church, so you have to stay connected for life or risk missing out on heaven. I think the system is pretty airtight… Unfortunately I am convinced it is a system built on human wisdom and not on the Word of God.

Really? The n please show me where Our Lord said He would found anything other than His church. Did He not straight off tell the apostles (and through them the church) “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” (Luke 10:16)?

What then did St. Paul tell St. Timothy was “the pillar and bulwark of the truth” in 1st Timothy 3:15?

Can you show from the Bible and the writings of the 1st and 2nd century church that what you believe was also taught by them? I can.

For instance, doctrines like the perpetual virginity of Mary, praying to Mary and to the saints, the immaculate conception of Mary and not just Jesus, etc, are foreign to the pages of Scripture.

Perpetual Virginity of Mary is scriptural and even the 3 pillars of the reformation taught it as doctrine.

The intercession of saints is better understood in the Biblical teachings of the Communion of Saints and is indeed scriptural.

I’m not sure how you can say the Roman Catholic Church has “never changed its position on faith and morals”… I can objectively walk you through church history and show you the development of these types of doctrines that have no basis in Scripture.

Bring it on then. The development of doctrine is not a change, it is a better understanding and explanation of something that the church already believed. Probably the very best example of this is the Trinity, which although implicit in scripture had to be developed, defined, and defended.

However, again I will point out that if we are going to walk through church history, you will be disappointed to find that the ECF were in fact Catholic in what they believed and taught and in spite of modern rhetoric to the contrary modern n-C faith communities do not maintain those same doctrines. In the end, such research will refute n-C assertions that they hold the same beliefs today as the early church did.

I have told you this before, but it is intellectually preposterous to claim that the Catholic Church as it currently exists has been around since Peter. The primacy of the Roman See was not established until Gregory the Great, circa 600 AD.

Apostolic Authority and the Pope Tons of evidence

Of course, when you are the bishop of Rome, and you are in a fight with the bishop of Constantinople over whose see is more authoritative… Wouldn’t claiming apostolic succession from Peter help you win that argument?

If you say so… the actual historic facts say otherwise.

SO many Roman Catholic doctrines, David, come down to this sort of political expediency.

This is just rhetorical assertion without substance. If you provide a list, I can and will refute every one of them. I would suggest that the “political expediency” charge actually lies elsewhere.
(Cont’d)


#14

Even the condemnations of Luther at the Council of Trent were WAY stronger than many Roman Catholics wanted them to be…

Prove this. I don’t think he can.

Moreover, Luther brought it all on himself, refusing to accept it when his errors were exposed. His ego was greater than his scholarship.

But the church was in a political struggle for its life, so it had to pronounce Luther as a heretic in order to have any chance of keeping its political power in Western Europe.

Though there were political influences involved, it in no way excuses the errant departures from Christian doctrine that Luther taught. I doubt that even you believe the same things that Luther taught though you are a modern post reformation step child of that era.

I have nothing against Catholics, … I love them. But I have much against the Roman Catholic Church as an institution, because when it comes down to it, their end goal is not the glory of God in the gospel of Jesus Christ, but the glory and power of the Roman Church against all opponents.

Sorry, but this is an offensive rhetorical allegation that cannot be substantiated with facts and it appears that you know very little of actual Catholicism, have likely never been to a Mass, or actually read the Catechism.

The gospel of Jesus is a gospel of weakness, a gospel of brokenness, a gospel of persecution and suffering… Not a gospel of political power and ecclesiastical authority.

Really? Well it’s interesting that you just essentially described the gospel as preached by the Catholic Church consistently for 2,000 years.

And so Protestants are not guilty of the self same political control? Even today, the election news is full of “evangelical Christians” this and that as politicians continue to use them as their political power base. My own Irish ancestors suffered hellatious persecutions at the hands of the occupying Protestants.

So yes, you are right… There are unconverted people in every church. And there is error and human weakness in every church. And that’s why the GOSPEL must be the main thing, not the church. In the Roman Catholic system, the gospel exists to serve the church. In the Reformation heritage, the church exists to serve the gospel. And that is the crucial difference.

This is a load of anti-Catholic rhetorical junk. You can believe that if you want to but it shows both a severe bias and ignorance of any real knowledge of Catholicism.
It would be about the same as a Catholic alleging that “In the Non-Catholic system, the gospel exists to serve the financial prosperity of preachers. In the Roman Catholic heritage, the church exists to serve the gospel. And that is the crucial difference.”

PS – one clarification… I’m OK if you get riled up in the midst of debate, but please agree that I do not have a “religion started by me.” I planted a church – one that believes Scripture and professes the Apostles’ Creed and stands within the historic Christian faith.

I can prove that this is not true. You “planted” a faith community to suit & support whatever doctrinal interpretations you teach, but in spite of your profession of the Apostle’s Creed, you do not actually share the same beliefs as the early church that you say you hold in such high esteem. A careful reading of their writings with prove you are dead wrong about this.

And if you do give great credence to the ECF, then what will you do to bring your own beliefs into line with theirs, and how will that affect your faith community? Do you have the integrity to teach the same things that both the New Testament and the ECF did?

I know you are bothered that I am not Roman Catholic… But come on, give a little grace. “Starting a religion” is something cult leaders and heretics do. Planting churches is something Christian missionaries do, for the proclamation of the gospel and the spiritual formation of families and the transformation of cities.

This is just your interpretation. For instance…who is in authority over you as pastor? Who authorized you to “plant a church”? Who insures that your doctrine remains faithful.


#15

I rejoice in preaching the truth. I do hope God is calling me to the priesthood.


#16

Thank you so much to all of you for your help on this matter of importance to me and to the church.

Please continue to respond on these individual issues and I will keep you updated with any other responses I receive from this person.

Thank you so much for helping me to answer in concise and loving ways, not to mention factual. :slight_smile:

peace, justin


#17

When you do write to him, do so with charity and love.


#18

, Mary is the type of Ark. Just as the Ark was is pure so must Mary be. Since Mary herself carried the Jesus, the Word made flesh in her womb for 9 months. I hardly think God would allow a sinful woman carry his only begotten Son.

I agree with everything you say except one thing: If Mary had continued having children after Jesus, that, in and of itself would not make her a “sinful woman”…

Even so, i believe as Church teaches… She is the new Ark of the Covenant and therefore needed to be untouched by sinful humans

St. Joseph was a good man, but not immaculately conceived as Mary was. I am sure St. Joseph knew the story of Uzzah & what happened to him when he touched the Ark improperly??? :eek: It’s not that sex is less pure than virginity (per se)… it’s the fact that some “things” are set aside for God only!


#19

Saying “hook, line and sinker” implies that you are prey and that the Church is out to have you for dinner.

How is what you practice any less “slavery” than what I practice?

Grace comes from God, and the Church as the Body of Christ only acts as the natural pathway through which as much grace as possible can be given to man.

Do you have to “stay connected for life” to your “church”, and if your “church” is not the Body of Christ then why do you “belong” to it at all?

Please show me who ANY wisdom is not from God?

Do you consider “the Catholic Church” to be just “a system”, and do you also consider your own “church” to be “a system”?

Please show me how what you call “our system” is not the Body Christ?

Show me how Mother Mary being ever virgin violates some “stricture” of scripture?

Show me how asking Our Blessed Mother Mary and the Saints to help us by praying for us violates “Christianity”?

Do we only ask Jesus to help us, or do we also ask our friends and other loved ones to help us?

Please DO show me specifically how the Church (Catholic) has “changed” it’s doctrines on faith and morals?


#20

Then please explain to me what you mean by “church”, because by Church we mean “The Body of Christ” which even you would have to admit has been around since Jesus walked!

The primacy of the Roman See was not established until Gregory the Great, circa 600 AD.

So by “church” you mean some “man made human institution” then! Then how old is your “man made human institution”?

Of course, when you are the bishop of Rome, and you are in a fight with the bishop of Constantinople over whose see is more authoritative… Wouldn’t claiming apostolic succession from Peter help you win that argument?

Yes it would and yes it does. Sometimes facts trump wishes. Please prove that the current Pope is not the successor of Peter.

SO many Roman Catholic doctrines, David, come down to this sort of political expediency. Even the condemnations of Luther at the Council of Trent were WAY stronger than many Roman Catholics wanted them to be… But the church was in a political struggle for its life, so it had to pronounce Luther as a heretic in order to have any chance of keeping its political power in Western Europe.

You confuse the Church (Body of Christ) with the people that occupy positions of authority within it’s temporal human structure.

Just as your tongue may be “imperfect” by being swollen, lacerated, numb and paralysed, it is still your only tongue and will eventually heal and do it’s job of communication better in the future.

To cut out your only tongue, the only one given you and the only one you will ever have, because it is swollen, sore and hard to use is to be a fool.


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.