Dealing With A
Catholic Apologist

The Question: I have been corresponding with this Catholic for quite some time. Would you give me some answers for him if you have the time?

The Response: No problem. When you engage a Catholic in an apologetic discussion, it helps to remember that you involve yourself in an impossible situation. I have been discussing points of Catholic doctrine and practice with defenders of Romanism—since 1993. Early in the game, I used to go at them hammer and tongs, just as they often are wont to do when challenging Christians. Once it became clear to me that such behavior neither glorified God nor benefited anyone, I changed my approach to one involving the presentation of a preponderance of facts in support of the Christian antithesis to a Catholic doctrine.

I soon learned that tactic would usually not be effective because my Catholic antagonists would simply discount my information because it had not originated with Catholic sources. I tried another approach to such discussions. This technique involved using Catholic sources as much as possible. Unfortunately, this technique also is only marginally successful when attempting to demonstrate to a Catholic apologist that a particular RCC doctrine or practice is not biblical.

When Romanists discount arguments from Catholic teaching, they argue that “You just don’t understand Catholic teaching.” Then I explain that I was born and raised Catholic, at which point they assure me that things have changed since Vatican II.

I still try to use Catholic sources as much as possible to support my arguments. However, these days I generally inform my Catholic antagonist that I have no wish to debate and that, should he care to explore a particular issue with me, my participation will be limited to no more than two or three exchanges of email. Beyond that point, one usually is beating a dead horse.

In looking over your correspondent’s email, I see a number of favored Catholic tactics. First, he apparently is playing with word definitions and interpretations. This is a much-favored approach that serves Catholics well. The underlying principle here is that Catholicism does not understand many words and phrases in general use as does the Christian apologist. Many of the word definitions they use hark back to Greek philosophy and generally are only understood in the Romish sense by students of philosophy and Romish theologians. I have and use a number of Catholic dictionaries, encyclopedias and reference books to help me get the sense of the Catholic understanding of a term, but even they at times seem to be of no value to my efforts to penetrate the confusing verbiage of Romish documentation. For this reason, when my Catholic antagonist begins to play the definitions game, I generally halt the proceedings and demand that we establish and agree on definitions of a number of terms elemental to the discussion in progress. This usually causes progress on the topic to grind to a complete stop as the RCC apologist attempts to lead the discussion down a variety of alternate paths.

Switching topics, running down bunny trails, building and burning straw men, tossing out red herrings, etc., is standard game play for Rome’s apologists. The only way to block such moves, I have found, is to absolutely refuse to accept the bait, instead compelling the Catholic go back to the original topic at hand.

And now to address issues in the Catholic’s email (red text):

Thanks for the correction regarding summarized. I stand corrected as I left out a step. So I'll restate it in a clearer manner.

First one reads something and as he is reading it he interprets its meaning, then if one so chooses he summarizes the content. One cannot summarize without first interpreting it. It may be that one interprets immediately as he is reading but interpretation has to take place or he would be unable to summarize. This is the human condition. Furthermore, having the ability to read does not guarantee a correct interpretation therefore, can lead to an incorrect summary. (If you so desire I can give an example of this in a future e-mail)

I doubt I would continue to discuss the meaning of ‘summarize’ with this guy. What I would do is throw his own words back in his face: Furthermore, having the ability to read does not guarantee a correct interpretation therefore, can lead to an incorrect summary. That being the case, why should we believe ANY summary presented on ANY subject by ANY person, including the Magisterium or even the Pope himself? How are we to know WHO is capable of rendering a correct interpretation; WHAT subject matter he is CAPABLE of correctly interpreting; WHEN he is capable of rendering a correct interpretation and HOW shall we KNOW these things?

At this point, he may argue that Christ protects His church from teaching error. Whereupon you might ask him to prove that point from a source that both Catholics and Christians consider to be authoritative: The Bible. He probably will throw out some stuff about Peter and the Catholic Church, etc. Simply require him to prove his point, using something other than Catholic doctrine. He won’t be able to, so he’ll blow smoke. Break off the discussion of that issue.

As I am sure you have observed, Catholic apologists like to keep their opposition off-balance and on the defensive. They do this by asking a lot of questions and then pressing you to prove your responses. Don’t play the game. Turn it around and do the asking yourself. Back this guy up with a number of questions of YOUR choice, and then repeatedly demand that he prove his responses to YOUR satisfaction. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Attending to other comments:

It is not possible for one man to prove something is true and then another prove that the exact opposite is true. If [Scott] Hahn can prove that Sola Scriptura is false then it is false. If another scholar can prove that it is true then it is true. (remembering, of course, that proving something to be true does not make it true, it is true in its own right)