Some anti-Catholic quotes I heard


#1

Ever heard of Roger Oakland? I listened to the first of three of his ironically called “Upon this Rock” series. The first “episode” is “Wiles of the Devil”. Apparently he has a DVD series out campaigning against ecumenism, Catholicism, and eastern faiths. Here are some outtakes from the (“http://server.firefighters.org/2007catalog.asp”) file:

*If God has an adversary wouldn’t it be reasonable to suggest that God’s adversary would do everything he could to undermine what God has said.

I came to the realization that one of the greatest threats to Christianity was Christianity that wasn’t Biblically-based. (my comment: Christianity must have been tough in the early days with no Bible. :rolleyes: )

Eastern Religion. That man can be God. That everything is God.

[Satan] wants people to believe that they believe in the Gospel, in the Biblical Jesus. But he has a way of duping people because he convinces people that the Gospel is based on more than just what the Bible mentions…extra-Biblical revelation is a prerequisite to know the truth. (ironically, he calls on the Holy Spirit at the end of the talk to reveal to him what the Scriptures say)

Do you know that there are millions of people who believe that they can receive truth and information from visitations, apparitions of a woman claiming to be the mother of Jesus. And, well, these are messages, they say, from heaven…some of the messages sound quite Biblical; some don’t. Do you know that some of these messages claim that there will never be peace in the world until Mary the mother of Jesus is given her rightful title as co-redemtrix.

[JP2’s] emphasis…was on evangelization to win the world to the Roman Catholic Jesus that requires a priest to take a wafer, transubstantiate, conjure up Jesus, place Him in a container and then be worshipped and adored. Not in the Scriptures.*He also criticizes non-Catholic Christians who meet with the Pope…criticizes people who say evolution doesn’t conflict with religion…and eluded that the vintage Church was not liturgical nor sacramental (in the last 10 minutes or so of the file). He also asserts the classic “Mary OR Jesus” fallacy of anti-Catholicism. He also considers the “Word” the Bible only as evidenced by this talk.

But perhaps his “Freudian slip” of the day: :smiley: *
But I also have a compassion for people that are deceived. We all can be deceived.*Your comments welcome!!! :slight_smile:


#2

The only item I will comment on is the remark about the woman claiming to be the mother of Jesus. All her message has ever been is the same that was said at Cana. “Do whatever he tells you to do”. Sounds like a pretty good mother to me. As to all else, pray for him.
Deacon Ed B


#3

file:

*If God has an adversary wouldn’t it be reasonable to suggest that God’s adversary would do everything he could to undermine what God has said.*A fairly typical SS comment. His interpretation is probably that we Catholics are guilty of same though your quote doesn’t say so.

I came to the realization that one of the greatest threats to Christianity was Christianity that wasn’t Biblically-based. (my comment: Christianity must have been tough in the early days with no Bible. :rolleyes: )

I agree with you. The real problem is that his fundamental premise is flawed in that nowhere in the Word of God does an objective reader find anything that says that the Bible is the only authority for what Christians believe and practice. It’s just not there.

Eastern Religion. That man can be God. That everything is God.

Grossly oversimplified misinterpretation and generalization. Though there are such religions, there are many that are actually more philosophical than religious.

[Satan] wants people to believe that they believe in the Gospel, in the Biblical Jesus. But he has a way of duping people because he convinces people that the Gospel is based on more than just what the Bible mentions…extra-Biblical revelation is a prerequisite to know the truth. (ironically, he calls on the Holy Spirit at the end of the talk to reveal to him what the Scriptures say)

This is unfortunately also a form of anti-intellectualism because truth does not exist in a vacuum. Odd that we have some 2,000 years of Christian history and yet guys like this reject the reference to it as directly relevant to what the Church believed and had received directly from the apostles.

As for his comments about “the Biblical Jesus”, I have found that the Catholic Church teaches a more Biblically based Jesus than the myriad of n-Cs, and that it is consistent with His teachings instead of cherry picking and forcing a man-made interpretation upon the scriptures. :shrug:

Do you know that there are millions of people who believe that they can receive truth and information from visitations, apparitions of a woman claiming to be the mother of Jesus. And, well, these are messages, they say, from heaven…some of the messages sound quite Biblical; some don’t. Do you know that some of these messages claim that there will never be peace in the world until Mary the mother of Jesus is given her rightful title as co-redemtrix.

Where is it stated that one cannot? In fact the discernment that the Church exercises in these matters is far more intensive and careful than most of the n-Cs do concerning their varied interpretations of the Word of God which is informative for us to say the very least.

To reject them all out of hand is in itself unscriptural. See 1st John 4:1-6.

[JP2’s] emphasis…was on evangelization to win the world to the Roman Catholic Jesus that requires a priest to take a wafer, transubstantiate, conjure up Jesus, place Him in a container and then be worshipped and adored. Not in the Scriptures.

He also criticizes non-Catholic Christians who meet with the Pope…criticizes people who say evolution doesn’t conflict with religion…and eluded that the vintage Church was not liturgical nor sacramental (in the last 10 minutes or so of the file). He also asserts the classic “Mary OR Jesus” fallacy of anti-Catholicism. He also considers the “Word” the Bible only

as evidenced by this talk.Well he’s definitely anti-Catholic in that one. The worst problem is that he almost mocks The Eucharistic Real Presence. I demolish this kind of silliness in an article on my blog called, The Eucharist IS Scriptural, because it IS in fact in the scriptures.

But perhaps his “Freudian slip” of the day: :smiley: *
But I also have a compassion for people that are deceived. We all can be deceived.*

Your comments welcome!!! :)Well, as they say, *“Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.” * The really bad thing here is that in so saying, he disqualifies even his own teaching and having any real authority! Why should one listen to him? Because he has a Bible and a pulpit? Posh! The fallacy of that is evident without much thinking.

Since he rejects things that I have found to be scriptural and believes things that I have found to be unscriptural, what does that tell me if I am objective? :dts:


closed #4

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.