Resource help: Apologetics/Polemics and what Catholics actually believe

A while back I started a project of an argument map for sola scripture vs. scripture-apostolic tradition-church; I have not dropped the project but rather I came to realize that that distinction is not the core of the issue but rather the result of a deeper issue. So, I started reading Protestant apologetics books against Catholics. However, this has been extremely discouraging. As I put it in one of my notes:

[quote]A basic rule of communication should be “If A says they do not believe doctrine B, believe them.” Assume that if it appears to you from reading a reasonable range of their theology, that they do believe B, assume either that you do not understand what you read OR that they misunderstood what you meant by B when they denied believing it.

What are your suggestions for best of class anti-Catholic apologetics/polemics works ... one where I'm not constantly saying "but that's not what Catholics believe?" An example of what I'm trying to avoid: Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics | Logos Bible Software

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Frank Sauer

A while back I started a project of an argument map for sola scripture vs. scripture-apostolic tradition-church; I have not dropped the project but rather I came to realize that that distinction is not the core of the issue but rather the result of a deeper issue. So, I started reading Protestant apologetics books against Catholics. However, this has been extremely discouraging. As I put it in one of my notes:

[quote]A basic rule of communication should be “If A says they do not believe doctrine B, believe them.” Assume that if it appears to you from reading a reasonable range of their theology, that they do believe B, assume either that you do not understand what you read OR that they misunderstood what you meant by B when they denied believing it.

MJ,

Have you checked out any of James White's work? He usually does his best to accurately present the view that he is speaking against and has numerous debates against many Catholic Apologists. Most of the debates are on Youtube and one of his more popular writings is The Roman Catholic Controversy. Scripture Alone also touches on some of the conversation as he presents the Scripture Alone view.

His collection of works available in Logos may have a couple more that would fall into your study.

Carmen Gauvin-O'Donnell

Actually I've found this is an issue that hits both sides equally. Some Catholics saying doctrinal things that are not actually true about Cathlicism, and some Protestants as well. This also goes with groups like the Mormons where the avreage joe really has *no idea* what the church has taught over the time it's existed.

My answer to that is, for example, in the case of Catholics, is to take out the Catechism of the Catholic Church. That document IS what Roman Catholicism teaches and believes, no matter what the average man or woman standing in front of you says.Same goes with the you average Protestant. There I go back to the Scriptures. I find myself doing this these days a lot because of how the new age is trying desperately to push its way into our churches. Sigh.

(‾◡◝)

What are your suggestions for best of class anti-Catholic apologetics/polemics works ... one where I'm not constantly saying "but that's not what Catholics believe?"

James R White is, as someone previously suggested, a good reference. So, too, might be a delve into various articles at the Trinity Foundation.

But is Catholicism as monolithic in it's beliefs as you imply by your statement, "but that's not what Catholics believe"? Would a Catholic from, say, Louisiana in 2024 even recognize, much less acknowledge, the Catholicism of Francis? Or, Father Justin? Ditto, 19th century Catholicism v. 20th century v. 21st century?

NB.Mick

What are your suggestions for best of class anti-Catholic apologetics/polemics works ... one where I'm not constantly saying "but that's not what Catholics believe?"

I'm not as confident as others that James White really is much different than that author you found unhelpful (I must admit that I don't recall studying any anti-Catholic apologetics from him - but some years ago I checked in on his writing and speaking regarding the Calvinist/Arminian controversy and found him very unhelpful, especially his way of ridiculing rather than really acknowledging those of a different opinion. Maybe he has changed, I don't know. I was surprised that Trent Horn debated him recently, but haven't watched the videos).

The only suggestion that comes to my mind is Gavin Ortlund. His book on theological triage is in Logos and makes some mentions of the Catholic church. He has a lot of content, probably half of which is clearly anti-Catholic apologetics, on his Youtube channel 'Truth Unites'. His book "What It Means to Be Protestant: The Case for an Always-Reforming Church" is coming out in August (I preordered the Kindle version).

MJ. Smith

in the case of Catholics, is to take out the Catechism of the Catholic Church. That document IS what Roman Catholicism teaches and believes, no matter what the average man or woman standing in front of you says

This is not precisely true. The catechism is designed for catechesis, a handbook for those teaching the faith within the Western rites to others. It does not take into account the degree of certainty of a doctrine - which ranges roughly from dogma you must believe to pious opinion - nor does it cover the subtleties of edge cases or the expression of the same doctrines from outside the Aristotelian Western framework. For example, some "differences" between Lutherans and Catholics are actually the same doctrine expressed in different philosophies. The catechism is accurate but incomplete, a simplification for teaching.

MJ. Smith

But is Catholicism as monolithic in it's beliefs as you imply by your statement, "but that's not what Catholics believe"?

I did not mean to imply that. Catholic teachings are "rated" from dogma one must believe down to pious opinion even down to opinions that are simply tolerated. But my interest at the time is the misrepresentation of core dogma even to the point of claiming Catholics believe views that have been declared anathema.

MJ. Smith

Gavin Ortlund. His book on theological triage

This looks useful even more generally.

MJ. Smith

one of his more popular writings is The Roman Catholic Controversy. Scripture Alone also touches on some of the conversation as he presents the Scripture Alone view.

The first may be promising; the second I am familiar with and consider useful to that particular debate although I think "scriptura sola" is a surface effect not the actual disagreement.

Frank Sauer

There are further books recommended through his blogs and ministry - Here

As has been mentioned, he has recently debated Trent Horn, also Jimmy Akin a few days ago and other Catholic apologist on pretty mush every major disagreement in doctrine....

Jerry Matatics, Robert Sungenis and Patrick Madrid included.... Most are on Youtube, many can be found here in audio

Br Damien-Joseph OSB

Gavin Ortlund. His book on theological triage

This looks useful even more generally.

Gavin Ortlund published a book through CUA Press on St. Anselm's Proslogion. I have no idea his theological tradition or his education, but it is a tremendously good book, very helpful for my MA Philosophy thesis. A gifted researcher.

Jon

I found this one quite helpful, but I’d be curious to hear if your reaction to it is “but that’s not what Catholics believe!” I’ve never been a part of Roman Catholicism so I just assumed the author to be accurate based on his background as a devout Roman Catholic for close to 40 years.

https://www.amazon.com/Preparing-Eternity-Mike-Gendron/dp/0615921248/ref=asc_df_0615921248/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=693372639575&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=7162332100102185596&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=m&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9021541&hvtargid=pla-570641318608&psc=1&mcid=77e0bceec63b34b68cc619a42613f6be&gad_source=1

Yasmin Stephen

in the case of Catholics, is to take out the Catechism of the Catholic Church. That document IS what Roman Catholicism teaches and believes, no matter what the average man or woman standing in front of you says

This is not precisely true. The catechism is designed for catechesis, a handbook for those teaching the faith within the Western rites to others. It does not take into account the degree of certainty of a doctrine - which ranges roughly from dogma you must believe to pious opinion - nor does it cover the subtleties of edge cases or the expression of the same doctrines from outside the Aristotelian Western framework. For example, some "differences" between Lutherans and Catholics are actually the same doctrine expressed in different philosophies. The catechism is accurate but incomplete, a simplification for teaching.

Is there a resource you would recommend for getting a good overall take on what Catholics believe? Something big-picture, without the need to resort to multiple sources, unless I want to go deeper.

Justin Gatlin

Gavin Ortlund. His book on theological triage

This looks useful even more generally.

Gavin Ortlund published a book through CUA Press on St. Anselm's Proslogion. I have no idea his theological tradition or his education, but it is a tremendously good book, very helpful for my MA Philosophy thesis. A gifted researcher.

Ortlund is a Baptist and, in my opinion, far more irenic and fair than James White. This recent debate he did on Sola Scriptura with Trent Horn is probably a good intro to his approach and thought.

Roy

I ran across this word awhile back and completely forgot it but remembered a rough definition of it.

It may be a good category your map.

[quote]

adiaphora A Greek term, used in Stoic philosophy to denote things that are ethically neither right nor wrong but used in Lutheran theology especially for practices that are not specifically commanded or forbidden in Scripture.

Wengert, Timothy J. A Formula for Parish Practice: Using the Formula of Concord in Congregations. Edited by Paul Rorem. Lutheran Quarterly Books. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2017.

MJ. Smith

thank you - that is interesting and useful

Christopher Esget

Adiaphora is a term frequently used in Lutheran liturgical theology.

It's written in a vastly different time from ours, but the Augsburg Confession was an irenical attempt to distinguish the early Reformers from those supporting Leo X, written in 1530 when reunion was still very much hoped for.

Chemnitz's Examination of the Council of Trent is the work, from a Lutheran perspective, distinguishing Lutheran theology from Rome's. (Obviously, much has happened since then on both sides.) Chemnitz was, among other things, a patristics scholar.

To my knowledge, nothing responsible exists in the way of "apologetics" from a Reformation perspective contra Eastern Orthodoxy. (I pitched the idea of it to a publisher a few years ago, but there is apparently little market for such a book.) I like the responsible way A.S. Damick approaches the issue in his Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy. He seems to genuinely strive to understand the positions of other churches.

Jan Krohn

Norman Geisler defends sola scriptura in his systematic theology (vol. 4). Since he had a PhD from Loyola, I assume that he doesn't misrepresent Catholicism.

MJ. Smith

In my work on solo/sola scriptura vs. indivisible scriptura-apostolic tradition-church I found very little misrepresentation of each other's positions, although I don't recall reading Geisler.