1) Anti-Catholic apologists who take a contrary position to some straw man and, despite all attempts to clarify and correct, refuse to acknowledge that their understanding was in error, even in the interest of developing more relevant arguments against Rome. They've got their arguments pat, by gum, and there's no need to let facts get in the way.
Not that this is always the case, but it happens often enough that I'm left with the impression that lame arguments are favored because good ones just aren't available.
e.g.:
"Catholics think they get a second chance at heaven with purgatory."
"No we don't. Our fate is sealed at the moment of death; purgatory is just a matter of how Christ's sanctifying graces get applied to us once the judgment is rendered."
"That still sounds like a second chance."
"No, it really doesn't. We're saying that for those of us who get invited to the wedding feast of the Lamb, some of us are met at the door by the maitre'd and told we will be provided with a shower and formalwear before the party starts. It's a service that is only offered to people holding an invitation. It's not the same thing as a bouncer stopping you and telling you to go make yourself presentable in the hope of finding an invitation that had blown into a storm drain or something."
"Seems like it to me."
"Well, it shouldn't. Purgatory does not get you saved. Purgatory gets people sanctified. Only saved people get to have it. Even if you don't accept it, if you won't recognize the distinction I'm trying to make here, I can only conclude you are willfully or shamefully declining to engage the argument, and are persisting in your misconceptions, that the Church teaches something it doesn't teach, and therefore your arguments are not intended for my ears, and I will not bother myself with more of us talking past each other."
"Well, it still sounds like..."
"I'm sorry, but 'it sounds like' isn't really an argument."
"Well then, it looks like--"
sigh.
Do not judge as man seeth, for man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart.
As it has been said, if this is the best argument that can be made against Rome, then the argument for Rome must have some meat to it.
2) Anti-Catholic apologists who are apparently so zealous about saving Catholics from Rome they forget to be charitable and develop sweeping powers of telepathy that they handily employ in alternatingly attempting to prick our consciences and flat-out judge us (perhaps with only intent of doing the former). The amateur ones tend to demand that Catholicism be proven by Protestant means (which is largely impossible, unless one proves that Protestant means are self-defeating, since non-Catholic policies of exegesis and ecclesiology had to be invented to justify the Reformation in the first place), and failing the presentation of a compact answer, declare themselves head and shoulders above the confusion. The professional ones (of this sort--not conflate them with people who make a living doing this sort of thing) tend to dredge up the material that usually goes into Catholic arguments, declare the preponderance of history to be on their side, and conclude that we Catholics are too stupid or lazy to find our own way out of the maze of Romanism. These claims are quite bold, considering they are often repeated liberally, and often applied to individual arguments that are only intended to rebut particular claims, often to individuals who have not contributed enough to the debate to allow any fair party with the normal range of senses to judge the extent of their education, let alone the quality of their motivation or the state of their soul--and oddly, often paired with reminders that they are only being rude out of a charitable concern for our eternal destiny.
Some people do have a gift of discernment, but applying it so sloppily, like a politician would twist the words of an opponent, only suggests that the alleged discerner is not accurately gauging the knowledge intuited to him, or that he is merely speculating being judgmental for political or personal reasons, or that he is lying. In none of these cases can he be relied on to provide meaningful information at face value.
Not that this is always the case, but it happens often enough that I'm left with the impression that lame arguments are favored because good ones just aren't available.
e.g.:
"Catholics think they get a second chance at heaven with purgatory."
"No we don't. Our fate is sealed at the moment of death; purgatory is just a matter of how Christ's sanctifying graces get applied to us once the judgment is rendered."
"That still sounds like a second chance."
"No, it really doesn't. We're saying that for those of us who get invited to the wedding feast of the Lamb, some of us are met at the door by the maitre'd and told we will be provided with a shower and formalwear before the party starts. It's a service that is only offered to people holding an invitation. It's not the same thing as a bouncer stopping you and telling you to go make yourself presentable in the hope of finding an invitation that had blown into a storm drain or something."
"Seems like it to me."
"Well, it shouldn't. Purgatory does not get you saved. Purgatory gets people sanctified. Only saved people get to have it. Even if you don't accept it, if you won't recognize the distinction I'm trying to make here, I can only conclude you are willfully or shamefully declining to engage the argument, and are persisting in your misconceptions, that the Church teaches something it doesn't teach, and therefore your arguments are not intended for my ears, and I will not bother myself with more of us talking past each other."
"Well, it still sounds like..."
"I'm sorry, but 'it sounds like' isn't really an argument."
"Well then, it looks like--"
sigh.
Do not judge as man seeth, for man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart.
As it has been said, if this is the best argument that can be made against Rome, then the argument for Rome must have some meat to it.
2) Anti-Catholic apologists who are apparently so zealous about saving Catholics from Rome they forget to be charitable and develop sweeping powers of telepathy that they handily employ in alternatingly attempting to prick our consciences and flat-out judge us (perhaps with only intent of doing the former). The amateur ones tend to demand that Catholicism be proven by Protestant means (which is largely impossible, unless one proves that Protestant means are self-defeating, since non-Catholic policies of exegesis and ecclesiology had to be invented to justify the Reformation in the first place), and failing the presentation of a compact answer, declare themselves head and shoulders above the confusion. The professional ones (of this sort--not conflate them with people who make a living doing this sort of thing) tend to dredge up the material that usually goes into Catholic arguments, declare the preponderance of history to be on their side, and conclude that we Catholics are too stupid or lazy to find our own way out of the maze of Romanism. These claims are quite bold, considering they are often repeated liberally, and often applied to individual arguments that are only intended to rebut particular claims, often to individuals who have not contributed enough to the debate to allow any fair party with the normal range of senses to judge the extent of their education, let alone the quality of their motivation or the state of their soul--and oddly, often paired with reminders that they are only being rude out of a charitable concern for our eternal destiny.
Some people do have a gift of discernment, but applying it so sloppily, like a politician would twist the words of an opponent, only suggests that the alleged discerner is not accurately gauging the knowledge intuited to him, or that he is merely speculating being judgmental for political or personal reasons, or that he is lying. In none of these cases can he be relied on to provide meaningful information at face value.
No comments:
Post a Comment