by mjmann » October 22nd, 2005, 11:21 am
Hello Hammurabi,
Thank you for your post. Regarding the Christian Witness web site, I must write carefully lest we end up going down the road of repeating the Catholic - Protestant Christianity debate.
First of all, I would say that I respect CWRC's belief that Catholicism represents a different religion to Christianity, though of course, I would argue that its belief is incorrect.
After taking a very quick look at the web site, two things jumped out at me: (1) Assumptions made about Catholics. In the Heart of Roman Catholicism, the writer states that 'Roman Catholics are taught to trust in their priests who perform religious rituals called Sacraments.' Of course a Catholic should trust his priest, but if the writer means that Catholics are taught to be dependent on him, which I suspect is what he is getting at, I would dispute that belief. (2) Incorrect statements made about the Catholic faith. In the passage quoted above, the writer refers to 'religious rituals called Sacraments'. Sacraments aren't rituals. The Mass can be called a ritual so perhaps this is what the writer means. The writer goes on to quote the Catechism saying that sacraments are necessary for salvation. If he wished for a more accurate picture of Catholicsm he would point out - probably another error in his eyes - that Catholicism teaches that non Catholic Christians and even non Christians can still be saved. (3) Incorrect statements about Protestant Christianity. He says, 'Christians, trusting in the Bible alone for salvation and sanctification'. Do all Christians subscribe to the Sola Scriptura doctrine? Perhaps I am mistaking but I am not aware that they do.
Apologetics where you misrepresent your opponent is not good apologetics. It is just you beating up an imaginary ghost. Therefore, if I have a concern with this web site - based upon a very limited reading of it, of course - it is that the writers make their case against Catholicism by taking what the want from it to show how wrong it is while ignoring the points of contact. Perhaps a more in depth reading will show other writers not falling into the same mistake as the one mentioned above.
Malcolm
