[quote="LatinCatholic1, post:1, topic:291944"]
To make a long story short I am a convert to the Catholic Church ever since the age of 13. I am now the age of 15, and I'm going to be volunteering at my old non denominational Protestant church for the whole week, now the staff know for a fact now that I am a Catholic. I even know how to defend the faith, now I know they are going to attack me because they tried before, and I just wanted a few tips on how I can kind of stump Protestants when it comes to defending the Catholic faith. Most of the staff are ex Roman Catholics, and it seems it would be impossible defending the church against these guys since they know about all the teachings of the Church. Any suggestions?
Give us some examples?
A little tidbit which you may already know since you are posting the in Apologetics section..
The word Apologetics ,means "defense of the faith using logic and reason" actually comes from the Greek "apologos" which is the word used to describe the case that a lawyer would make for his client... It is where we get the english word "apology" because in an apology.. you often end up kinda stating your case as to why you did something.
But defense of the faith is a very BROAD category of study.
So can you give us some examples?
Common mistakes made by Catholics, from personal experience or based on others...
1) Agreeing that something isn't rooted or based on the bible but PURELY on 'tradition' (small "t" emphasized to mean, cultural or historic ) ALL Catholic beliefs are ROOTED in scripture and reinforced by Sacred Tradition (large "T") to emphasize that our teachings don't contradict the bible or are in addition to them. NO, they are in-conjunction with and supported by Sacred Scripture. NOTHING in the bible can contradict a Catholic belief.
2) Along with #1, Agreeing that we've ADDED unnecessary stuff. NO, it is the Protestant faith tradition that stripped stuff away from what had ALWAYS been part of the Christian faith. They reduced things...Catholicism has not added anything.
3) Agreeing that we call Priests by father purely out of tradition and that it does seem to go against the bible's teaching of calling "no man your father" -- NO, Paul calls the Christians he converted his children..making him, their father. Abraham and Moses are called 'father' by the apostles, even though they were not directly related to them. Priests ARE our spiritual fathers in the truest sense because they guide us and teach us.. as our biological fathers do. they are NOT our Heavenly Father... as in God. But they are 'fathers' of sorts. So the term is quite biblical.
4) The bible says that it is profitable for all good works and sufficient. - This does NOT support bible alone, as the bible ALSO says that Wisdom is profitable as well as faith being all you need, or love, or many other things. So clearly simply being profitable and fully equipping does not mean you don't ALSO need other things to follow Christ.
Catholics DO believe that Scripture is profitable and fully equips us. We just don't take it too far and ignore how the early Christians believed and worshipped and RE-interpret things on our own and in a new way that doesn't match with the rest of Christianity.
5) Don't agree that the Immaculate Conception of Mary is simply something that the Catholic church teaches and that everyone has to believe it. -- NO, it may not have been dogmatically stated 'til the 20th century..but we have ample evidence from the bible and early Christian writings that Christians and the Apostles ALWAYS believed this. The Immaculate conception wasn't even debated by the early Protestants like Martin Luther. And you can't say he was 'shy' or 'didn't want to rock the boat' -- Martin Luther actually defended the doctrine, before it was dogmatic. Only more recently in the 19th century has it truly come under fire, which is then why the Church made it dogmatic in the 1950s. -- in order to settle the debate amongst Catholics who were getting confused.
There is biblical support for it...if you interpret things consistently with the earliest Church forefathers who learned from the Apostles.
Keep driving home the point that what Catholics believe NOW is the same as what the Apostles taught the very first Christians and that it is those who broke away who have changed things.
That the bible tells Christians to settle their differences by going before the CHURCH..not the bible. That Christ gave authority to the Apostles not a book and that these Apostles wrote about an organization which had authority to mediate and keep unity.
That power to bind and loose was given to Peter.. a man, NOT a book or the general public to read and interpret things on their own. That the promise of guidance was given to his CHURCH, not to individuals who pick up the bible and interpret things for themselves.
Agree with them that we should ALL read the bible..but not go off on our own tangent and re-interpret things on our own..but remain within the context and boundary set by the Apostles.
Agree with them that the bible is important by quoting St. Jerome and restated by many Popes - "to be ignorant of the bible is to be ignorant of Christ"
You may even throw out the quote by Arch Bishop Fulton Sheen: "People don't dislike what the Catholic church teaches as much as they dislike what they THINK the Catholic church teaches"
And finally.. if you have to ceed that there were bad Popes.. which there were. Use that to prove the extraordinary power of the Holy Spirit to protect Christ's church from teaching error..because none of those awful Popes changed Church doctrine or anything about the faith. This proves that although men ARE corruptable.. The Catholic church does not change.