Catholic vs Protestant debates online in RA format : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Whether you are a Catholic or non-catholic, you may be interested to hear some debates from Protestant Evangelist James White of Alpha & Omega ministries.

This evangelist has a number of debates with Catholic theologians, available to listen to at All sorts of doctrines are debated - e.g. the papacy, mary as the queen of heaven, etc.

-- someone (, March 23, 2003


James White loses all his debates with Catholics.

He is also in a state of shock over the fact that his own sister has become a Catholic. She has appeared in a long interview on Catholic TV (EWTN) explaining her "journey home," her brother's errors, etc..

God bless you.

-- J. F. Gecik (, March 23, 2003.

I agree, John, he does lose all of debates. I have listened to many of them, but he is good to listen to, in order to sharpen your own skills.

He is very artful at honing in on one small and perhaps insignificant element of a debate, and then hammering away, but then he dodges the greater evidences opposing his view, sometimes completely ignoring them, and then declares himself the winner! He "strains out the gnat, but swallows the camel."

Actually, in a round-about way, he helped me be even be more certain of my way into the Church. Perhaps he did the same for his sister.

Lots of Love,


P.S. Glad you're back, John!

-- Gail (, March 24, 2003.


Hi, Gail.
You have interesting observations about J. White.
Here is a page about his sister, Patty.
Thanks for the "welcome" back. Your sentiments are not shared by some, to whom I have been giving a hard time for a couple of weeks! (;p)

-- J. F. Gecik (, March 24, 2003.


The Patty Bonds conversion story is very moving. Thanks.

Pax Christi.

-- Anna <>< (, March 30, 2003.

James White loses all his debates ?

please click here

-- someone (, April 02, 2003.

Yes, that's right, "someone." He loses all his debates.
He tries to sell non-truths, so he is always automatically the loser, both in competition and spiritually.

Concerning the linked page, I can say two things:
(1) I have heard Tim Staples speak many times, and Mr. White could not touch him.
(2) I have listened to a different debate (involving a decent Catholic man and a vile anti-Catholic), in which the same kind of thing occurred -- i.e., too many anti-Catholic lies and errors for the Catholic to refute in the limited time enforced by the rules of the debate.
Therefore, I totally reject the claims made on the linked page.

I first heard Mr. White being defeated in debate more than ten years ago. Not only is he loaded with errors and deliberate deceptions, but his hatred of Catholicism burns in his voice. He is a most unappealing and pathetic wretch. We can only pray for his conversion.

God bless you.

-- J. F. Gecik (, April 03, 2003.

The truth is, a Protestant apologist, armed with nothing more than misconceptions about Catholicism and personal guesses about the meaning of scripture, is never a worthy opponent for a Catholic apologist armed with a thorough knowlege of Christian history, in- depth scriptural exegesis, and the infallible doctrine of Christ's Church. A practiced Protestant apologist may come off looking good when facing a typical rank and file Catholic layman, or, sad to say, even a lot of Catholic clergymen. But when a practiced Protestant apologist faces a practiced Catholic apologist, lay or clerical, there is simply no contest. The truth will always prevail.

-- Paul (, April 04, 2003.

John and Paul, Right on, guys! John, your perceptions of Mr. White's personal hatred for the Catholic church is right on target.

I heard his debate on the Primacy of Peter and he LOST sooo big time! HISTORY is irrefutably against Protestantism.

Sorry, Someone, you'll have to go proslyetize somewhere else.

God Bless,


-- Gail (, April 04, 2003.

The fact is, every single "main" doctrine which Catholics believe is present in the second century apologetical works of Irenaus and Justin (both martyred by pagans). This includes Mary, Eucharist, the Papacy, Tradition and a slew of other things which James White was surely raised to believe were "made up" in the "dark ages" when "all the half pagans started importing their pagan beliefs". Never mind that Christ promised his Church would last forever(matt 16:18;28:20). Even the art in catacombs is Catholic(ex. Mary as a living type of the Church holding peter in one hand and paul in the other(Rev 12)).

-- Joseph Gerard Breslin (, April 05, 2003.

Can anyone make any specific references to claims that were incorrect in any of the debates in particular. What material was cited incorrectly or what lies were spoken.

I'd like some specifics.

-- someone (, April 06, 2003.

Hey Joe, great points!


Let me see if I can describe Mr. White's technique. Say for instance (just for an analogy) he's being debated on the issue of Peter as the Rock, or the primacy of Peter. Mr. White's opponent could present perhaps 35 to 40 good solid quotes not only from the Bible but early church writings. Mr. White will then find the weakest quote he can find. He will then hammer away at the weakness in that one quote. If the opponent tries to bring him back to look at the rest of the evidence, or the bigger picture, Mr. White can only retreat back to that one weak quote. He does that all the time.

He also argues against things that Catholics don't even believe. Like that Catholics worship Mary, or that Catholics believe only in tradition as authoritation. No matter what his opponent says in trying to correct him, he just keeps on beating away at the air.

He has some very skillfull techniques, I will say that for him. He seems to fancy himself as some sort of boxer in the ring. Fancy foot work and sucker punches is all he can offer, however.

These strategies or techniques are used most often in courtrooms by sharp, skillful attorneys. I worked as a legal secretary for big- time litigation attorneys for a very long time. Perhaps that's why I can see these maneuvers so clearly.

But at any rate, I don't think anyone here is accusing the guy of lying. He is a great debater, and would be quite a lawyer. He loses because the truth is NOT on his side. When I listened to him debate Mitch Pacwa and Tim Staples (just to mention a few) I did so for the sole purpose of finding the truth. I did not listen in order to "see who could win."

God Bless,


-- Gail (, April 06, 2003.

Let's get one thing straight:James White is a very skillful debater and I would say that he doesn't lose all his debates as a debater, but he loses them in fact. What I mean by that is that it is rather silly to just say "James White stinks", because he obviously has researched very well, but it is equally ridiculous to say that because James wins many debates he is right. Debating is very much like practicing Law. Johhn Cochran(sic) got OJ off the hook. I rest my case.

-- Joseph Breslin (, April 07, 2003.

Case in point: I listened to a debate between James White and Gerry Matatics on justification. Gerry very beautifully tore apart the protestant concept of faith alone which protestants base on Eph 2:8- 9, Rom 3:28 etc. He showed very clearly that the Bible teaches justification by faith working in love, and that the "works of the law" were circumsizion etc. Mr. White did not touch a single one of his arguments, instead he asked rhetorical questions to the audience to the effect of: "Are anyone of you guys perfect" etc etc and attempted to win the debate by heaping sarcasm on Matatics arguments. Mr. White knows that the early Christians believed in baptisimal generation and the real prescence of the Eucharist but instead of facing those clear historical and scripural facts, he tried to compare sacraments to "the works of the Law", which only moments before he had said were "good works". This fast talking may have won him the debate before a group of individuals who think truth is a democracy, but he was balatantly wrong and changed his own position in minutes in order to avoid the obvious truth. The tactics which men like White and Webster use to twist the facts and hijack the church fathers are shameful.

-- J Breslin (, April 07, 2003.

In a debate between Mitch Pacwa and James White that I heard on the papacy, James tried to use the argument that "the Pope didn't even attend the Vatican Council". This is similar to the whining of various fundamentalist writers who say things like "in such and such year, the Catholic Church took the cup from the laity". The impression given in both situations is that there was some breach of etiquite or some wrong done. But Catholics know that Christ is present Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity under both forms(John 6, 1 Cor 5:7, 11:22-29) and that there is nothing demonic about taking the cup from the laity. Similarly, there is nothing strange about the Pope not attending a council. As Pacwa pointed out, the Pope did not attend the council of Trent! In the same debate, James White tried to smooth over Isaiah 22:15-25 and the OBVIOUS allusion to it in Matt 16:18-19 by pointing out that all the apostles where given the power to bind and loose in Matt 18:15-18(verses which protestants in practice apply to themselves on an individual level!) and claiming that all of the apostles therefore had "the keys to the kingdom". It doesn't faze Mr. White that the Bishops of Rome obviously recognized they had this authority(Clement) as did the theologians and apologists of the early church(Ireneaus, Ignatius). Instead of giving the impression that they are searching for objective truth, persons like White and Webster look for loopholes in history, writing ridiculous "Hunt-esque" works such as "Another Redeemer?" and trying their very best to weasle through a history that is all Catholic, picking up a phrase here and a phrase there and stringing them together so that they almost sound protestant. Mr. White knows his readers won't actually read the Church Fathers, so he can afford to try to fashion them into proto-protestants. His readers won't read the Church Fathers for fear of what they'll find, for fear of being exposed to ridulousness of Protestantism and for fear of having to place their childish American conspiracy theories against Christ's words(Matt 16:19, Matt 28:20). Mr. Webster has demonstrated by the title of his book which claimes that the Bible is "the pillar and ground of faith", that he, like James White, is willing to dilute, alter and even satire Scripture(1 Tim 3:15) in order to argue for the Protestant postition, which is really a non-postition. Mr White its quite simple: There is either one Church, or their is no Church. There is either on authoritative teaching body or there is no authority to teach. Either the Church did not fall into apostasy or Christ was not God because he promised it wouldn't. Perhaps "someone" would agree with Mr. White, that this form of argumentation(namely: argument by common sense") is too provincial and not scholarly enough. I defy Mr. White and all his colleuges to find a single Christian theologian before Calvin who did not believe in baptisimal re-generation. I defy Mr. White to explain why the Bones of St. Peter were buried under St. Peter's or why Sant Tarsisus was stoned to death by pagans on the way to bring the Eucharist to imprisoned Christians. I defy Mr. White to follow the truth where it leads him and submit himself to the wisdom of Christ's one and only Church. Oh and one more thing: I'm not one for cheap shots and I think it is shameful the way that some people have used Patty Bonds as a waepon against James White, but I have just a few things to say about that anyway. I just want to point out that the fact that Mr. White would refer to his sister as "Mrs. Bonds" and take cheap shots at her on his website is ridiculous. He implies that because she enjoyed the liturgy, she is impressionable and makes the claim that she never really cared about her faith anyway. I think it is interesting that Patty spoke in an online letter to James, of him running into the street with his hands on his ears, refusing to listen to the impending truth. He claims her conversion was "emotional", quite an hilarious claim for a protestant evangelical to make! No Mr. Bonds, your sister saw the obvious truth and followed it. She put two and two together and got four. I suppose if she were a scholar she would have been able to find negative four also, then fusing them together they would cancel out and "amid such doctrinal confusion and corruption", she's be forced to write another best-selling book for th "unfortunate less scholarly". Methinks the death of rationalism will bring about the death of protestantism. There can no more be multiple true churches than there can be multiple true religions.

-- Joe Breslin (, April 07, 2003.

Joe, Great reply. Your response embellished my own with details I could not remember. Yes, yes, and again I say, Yes to everything you said. I too listened to the Gerry vs. James debate as well as Mitch Pacwa, and came to the same conclusions as yourself. His Protestant version of justification is based solely on the book of Romans. If you get him off that territory, he's lost, and can only insult his way back to "safe ground."

Ahhh, the Church Fathers -- they bury Protestantism!



-- Gail (, April 07, 2003.

James White has been OWN3D

-- Vic Shelick (, April 08, 2003.

LOL ROFL AT JAMES WHITE. can anyone send me a debate, cant get nothing much in australia

-- Dimitrios the Greek catholic (, April 08, 2003.

I think it is ridiculous to accuse James White of "lies" or use his sister as a tool for one's own biblical and apologetical inadequacies. You see what I did above? I attacked his arguments. Ad Hominum attacks or for protestants, not Catholics. Attack his arguments not his person. Mr. White is an expert apologist. Yes he twists the facts, yes he doesn't care about the truth, but only love can break through the hatred which blinds us to truth. Argue with his arguments, but please, if you're going to argue list his offenses.

-- Joseph Breslin (, April 08, 2003.

Hey Joe, Could you please direct your comments to someone in particular? I don't know if you're talking to me or someone else on the board. Perhaps we should get a written transcript of one of his debates and go through it bit by bit. Seems to me that Joe Gallegos has a written transcript on his site. The site mentioned above may have one as well.

I would not accuse Mr. White of outright lies, but I would say however that he is "intellectually" dishonest in that he refuses to acknowledge evidences that are presented to him, and then uses fancy debate techniques to wrench himself out of the vice.

Yes, we can all stand to be more charitable, even to Mr. White. However, his vehemence towards the Church is palpable and is well illustrated throughout his debates with snide sarcasms and insults to his opponents. It is hard not to take that personal.

You are right, though, he does not lose his debates based on his bad behavior or good debate tactics, he loses because he neglects the truth.

God Bless,


P.S. It would be great fun to post a written debate as a separate thread and respond with evidences. Sharpen our skills too!

-- Gail (, April 08, 2003.

Would anyone on this channel be confident enough to debate James White in his chatroom on his website concerning Roman Catholic doctrines. It would seem by the attitudes in here that Mr. White's material is easily refuteable. In a chatroom situation, you would have the opportunity to address the points Mr. White brings up.

Anyone up to it ?

-- someone (, April 09, 2003.

Victory in debating is ALWAYS in the eyes of the beholder . . . both sides always declare themselves the victor, both sides always accuse the other of dodging facts/arguments whatever.

And most importantly, debating (as has been pointed out) is as much an art/skill as anything else. Not everyone can think on their feet as well as the next person - that doesn't mean they are wrong, just that they are not as skilled or prepared.

A Catholic obviously wants the Catholic apologist to win and by nature keenly listens for winning points while lending less weight to the Protestant's points because of underlying disagreements with the stated principle. The same goes in reverse.

If a Protestant points out that there are several early church letters and Catholic history texts that state that the early Roman church was governed by multiple bishops and that Peter was not listed as ever being a bishop of Rome and then the Catholic responds with several different letters that indicate Peter was considered the first bishop of Rome and how over time the other churhces began to look to Rome as the primacy, each side perceives they have "won" the argument fully confident they have proven their point.

In the James White arguments I've heard, he's clearly "won" the debate without question, both from a skill and fact perspective, but like I said, it's all in the eyes of the beholder and I realize this as I listen. I even find myself agreeing with some conclusion Mr. White gives even if I disagree with one or more of the points he makes to get there mostly because I also have researched the topic and have arguments in my mind that I bring in my evaluation of the debate. We can't disengage our own knowledge and bias however much we'd like to think we can.

But debating really isn't the best way to argue the faith. In all honesty, I find a formal verbal debating format to be academically childish. The debaters look to trick and bully their opponent based on the skill of their argument. It's not at all an honest and well- thought out discussion that's really the only true way to understand each other. I prefer a written approach in which both sides are given ample space to think about what they want to say and make their case and then respond to each other arguments. My favorite text for this is the book Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences by Norman Geisler. It seems to be the best I've come across at addressing the differences between mainline Protestantism and Catholicism allowing each side an honest ability to respond to each other. But even there, it has it's weaknesses - what doesn't.


-- non-Catholic Christian (, April 09, 2003.

Good points, "non-catholic Christian"(protestant.) I think the point was made above though that Christians of both persuasions tend to makes broad generalizations about eachother. I think you are right in pointing that out, but what the Catholics above and myself are commenting on is the deceptive means which James White employs in his debates to avoid the facts which are simlilar to those used by Dave Hunt and Lorraine Boettner. That James white is a good debater there is no question, but listening to him debate like listening to a car saleman and an automechanic giving their presentation to a customer as to why they should or should not by a car. James is a car salesman. He also takes sarcastic swipes at people while they are deabting him which only demonstrates his hatred for Catholicism and his inability to think clearly because of it. I agree with you, and said so above, that to simply throw vague charges is non-sense(and I was not speaking about you specificallly Gail, love), but Mr. White distorts the early church records and uses them falsely in his debates, out of context before an audience of protestants who are living under the delusion that there was a great apostasy(which Jesus promised would never happen(Matt 16:29, Matt 28:20) after the apostles died. There certainly were evil heresies that popped up after the apostles died and it was he job of the people who were instructed in the faith by the apostles, to debate them and preserve the true faith. One example is Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of John the Apostle and Bishop of Antioch who, on the way to be maryted wrote this: Ignatius of Antioch

"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2– 7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Less than ten years after John died, Ignatius who was thrown to pagan lions wrote this:

"Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

"Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

"You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force" (ibid., 3:1).

As for you little book by Norman Geisler, I own it and it is by no means a good book. I'm surprised that Jimmy Akin would sign the back of something as blatantly distorted as this book, which presents one or two catholic arguments for x doctrine on one page, then spends 3 or 4 pages "refuting" them, claiming to present both sides, it does no such thing. The ecumenical appeals made are overshadowed by the obvious protestant slant. Also protestants expose their doctrinal and historical hypocrisy by speaking of Ignatius of Antioch and Ireneaus as "the fathers" yet rejecting the doctrines which they taught. Why do they do this? Well, protestants have to try and prove the authenticity of the new testamnent some other way besides appealing to the catholic councils in the 390's which defined the canon. So they appeal to the writings of the Church fathers to but never mention what it is that the Church Fathers believed. Answer me this protestant:

1) Did or did not Jesus say that the gates of Hell themselves would not prevail against his Church(matt 16:19)? 2)And did he promise it would last forever and he would remain with it until the end of time(Matt 28:20) 3) And was his church not to be unified higherarchy with the ability to cast out dissident Christians(Matt 18:15-18,Rom 12:4-6, Jude 11) And if Jesus Christ's church was to last forever, even against the very gates of hell, how is it that is "fell into apostasy" and when exactly did this happen? If the Church didn't "fall into apostasy" where is this supposed remnant who are real "Christians". Can you find me a single Church father in the first thousand years who didn't beleive that "born again" means baptism or that "eat my flesh " means that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist? Find me some evidence of Protestantism before the protestant reformation. Its not enough to sift through the church fathers looking for obscure places where this or that Church father says something that sounds kind of protestant, before a doctrine is defined there is lots of debate about it, so we wouldn't excpect people always to say the same thing. But can you find me a non-catholic christian before Luther(and Wycliff doesn't count)?

-- Joe Breslin (, April 09, 2003.


I realize you're itching to engage the debate, but that wasn't the purpose of my post. Had I the time, I would love to take you up on the offer. But such an endeavor does take quite a bit of time, which I don't have.

I agree that James White does take cheap and unsubstantiated shots, but I also realize that the Catholic apologists tend to make sweeping generalizations that are just as unsubstantiated (e.g., this or that doctrine was the same from the very beginning handed down from the apostles, etc.). It takes a particular character of debater from both sides who are willing to cut through the propaganda to get at the truth and that's why I mentioned the book that I did. Geisler yields more ground and is far more charitable in his analysis than almost any other Protestant writer I've come across - he seems willing to meet Catholics half-way as do the Catholic writers who are featured in the book. It's far from perfect, but it has the right tone. And 'yes', it was written for a Protestant audience, but it does quite a lot to foster understanding of true Catholic beliefs as opposed to the normal pack of exaggerations and lies that circulate in the debate crowds.


-- non-Catholic Christian (, April 09, 2003.


One other thing, the reason I refer to myself as a "non-Catholic Christian" rather than a Protestant Christian is because not all who are outside of Rome are Protestant (resulting from the Reformation). I could say "non-Roman Catholic Christian" since that would be more precise - there are, afterall, denominations that are "catholic", but not "Roman Catholic" plus there's the entire Orthodox world which is just as much apostolically-founded and can truly say they are "the church that Jesus founded" as the Roman Church. My current denomination actually considers itself "catholic" - the Charismatic Episcopal Church (ICCEC) - it's not Episcopal as in Anglican, Episcopal refers to the type of government (bishop-centered). They refer to the Pope as the "Holy Father" and consider him the rightful bishop of Roman Catholics and a highly influential leader of all of the catholic church. But that's another thread I guess.


-- non-Catholic Christian (, April 09, 2003.

Hi Everyone:

You guys all bring up some excellent points.

Dave, I just encourage you to read the church fathers yourself rather than reading someone's interpretation of them. is great, having literally volumes and volumes of writings. Joe Gallegoes' Corunum website is great also breaking out quotes on various "controversial" subjects.

I have learned through this expedition not to trust anyone's interpretation of history, but to "go to the horse's mouth" so to speak.

Joe's point earlier that there is no evidence of apostacy from the pens of the greatest fathers is overwhelming evidence against the Protestant claims.

My question was this: If the Catholic church is apostate (as some claim), because of their doctrines on Mary, purgatory, the saints, etc., why is it that you kind find these beliefs practiced all the way back, and by men like Augustine, Jerome, Ignatius, Ieraneus, etc. (men esteemed by Protestants)? I even called Hank Hanengraf (President of the Christian Research Institute) who had Paul Meier, noted Lutheran church historian, on his Bible Answer Man program as a guest. I asked the question, and guess what . . . they couldn't give me an answer!



-- Gail (, April 09, 2003.

Hey Dave, I was able to pull some old threads back up which may interest you. They are quotes from the fathers on "Peter as the head dude" (my paraphrase) and "apostolic succession."



-- Gail (, April 09, 2003.

Thanks for the links Gail. I've done quite a bit of personal reading of the early church fathers and am familiar with the quotes you've pointed out as well as quotes that contradict them. It's not as clear a picture as one would hope.

That one site you referenced that's dedicated to documenting the early church father's thoughts on specific doctrines doesn't quote those fathers who disagreed - yet they exist. In order to take an honest approach to this, he should have listed the contrary quotes as well, acknowledge that they exist and discuss them openly rather than trying to pretend they don't exist. The same goes for the Protestant sites that do the same thing. It just fuels the fire. It becomes a "you have your quotes, I have mine so we both think we're right" ending. Perhaps this is asking too much.


-- non-catholic christian (, April 09, 2003.

Dave, I appreciate the charitable response to my ranting...some thoughts. As far as your being a non-catholic Christian but not neccesarily "protestant", I must respectfully disagree. Were you an Orthodox Christian I could recieve your sacraments in extreme circumstances and I could trust that your Bishops and priests had the authority and ability to give absolution, consecrate the Eucharist, but unfortunately the Anglican orders are completely null and void. Priests have ordained woman who have ordained priests etc etc until the entire higherchy of Episcopal/Anglicamism is outside the Catholic Church. I understand that you don't agree with this but I think its demonstratably true. Also the Anglican church changed its position on birth control in 1930, thus falling into heresy and presuming to "change a doctrine". In regards to Church Fathers "disagreeing",here we must define our terms. Thomas Aquainus didn't believe that Mary was immaculately concieved, but that doesn't mean that the belief doesn't go back to the early church. Why is that? Well Thomas did believe in the sinlessness(as did the early christians, and I can give you quotes), but he did not believe that a person recieved their soul at the same time they recived their body but during what he called "the quickening" which was a concept I think he got from Aristotle. The method of HOW Mary was sinless had not yet been worked out but the fact that she was widely believed. Others did debate it. Church fathers bitterly argued about doctrines which had not yet been officially defined. That's where we get theology from. Now James will find a Church father who "disagrees" and then use that to prove that the belief doesn't go back to the early church, when all that proves is that the doctrine was contested because it was not offically "doctrine" yet. Almost nobody contested the ever-virginity of Mary. Everybody who did was looked on as a heretic or "an ignorant boar who has hardly learned to speak"(Jerome to Helvidus),or fell into heresy anyway like Tertullian. But we have second century christians calling Mary "Mary the Virgin, the Virgin Mary, Virgin Undefiled," and generally testifying to this belief so we can say it goes back to the early church even if there was disagreement about it. Since the protestant rationalist is convinced that Catholics are zombies who can't think, he doesn't consider that the Catholic pressupposes the historical clash of brilliant theological minds on all issues. But you are right about Catholic Answers apologists leaving out some facts. I think James is right to point that some of the "Church Fathers" which are on the Catholic answers sites are actually Gnostic Works like the Odes of Solomon. I disagree with his disregard for the proto-evangelium of James and the scenario it sets up in regards to the "brothers of Jesus" but I think Catholic answers is wrong to list it as "an important document" and not "a second century apocryphal gospel written in bad taste with Gnostic influences". I find the scenario between Adonijah, Bathsheeba and Solomon theologically interesting(1 Kings 2:1-25) but I wish somebody would mention that Solomon DID refuse Bathsheeba. If you are interested, I deal with many Catholic doctrines from scripture on a weblog of mine, I'll mail you the address. As for the book by Norman Geisler, I'd be more than happy to provide you with specific examples of what comes of to me as extremly biased. There are many things in the book which I find insulting and I get the impression that the Catholic arguments listed are being presented by Protestants, simliar to the way in which Catholic answers sometimes has very wooden and unfair imaginary dialouge type articles.

-- Joseph Breslin (, April 09, 2003.

"Someone", you seem to be on pretty intimate terms with James White, especially of can arange a deabte with him. I read somewhere that James White dips in all over the web under fake names, if you see him tell him how childish a thing it is...but alas, I've opened my mouth. Alright someone, I'll take your challenge. But since I'm only twenty and have never been in a formal debate in my life, nor do I know the exact rules or have a lot of free time: I pick the topic, I pick the time. If James has the time(and the patience) to kill, I'm game. Just as long as James agrees not to go bragging and falling over himself like he likes to do and has no promblem debating a college kid, I'm all for it. It will be a learning experience. Fair enough?

-- J Breslin (, April 09, 2003.


I mentioned that our church is NOT related or derived from the Anglican/Episcopal church. Our priests were ordained by a bishop of the Catholic Church of Brazil, which has a fully recognized apostolic lineage much like the National Catholic Church of Poland. I believe that we have a valid priesthood and Eucharist an have some sort of relationship/understanding with the Vatican. I don't really know all of the official terminology so I'm probably not describing it properly.

Just wanted to clarify that.


-- non-Catholic Christian (, April 09, 2003.

Hey Dave,

I have only heard a few quotes in opposition to various church teachings, and most often they are taken out of context or used dishonestly in debates.

But the thing is that I had been lead to believe that the Catholic Church just sort of has some little guy up there in a corner office at the Vatican penning all these "wacky unbiblical doctrines." Or worse yet, they "come from Satan." I was quite stunned to find out that ain't so. The Church's beliefs are deeply and steadfastly rooted in Christian history. That's a fact whether or not some within the church may have questioned or argued against some doctrines.

The quotes on these various subjects lends GREAT credibility to the doctrines of the Church, and certainly, at the very least, the Church cannot and should not be deemed apostate on account of them!

Lots of Love,


-- Gail (, April 09, 2003.

Just surfed in saw the old thread thought I'd add a line. Dave in regards to the Charismatic Episcopal Church ( Of which I am a deacon ) you are correct in stating that our communion holds an unquestionabe apostolic succession, however we do not have an 'understanding' or agreement with Rome. Although Rome cannot and has not denied or attempted to deny our sacraments and apostolic heritage and validity, they nor we have made any formal move towards union or communion or any other "understanding" as you put it. There has been contact between the vatican and our bishops but the extent of those conversations are unknown. Joe, just a quick note on catholic studies. There are Catholic juridictions other than the Roamn church, although you are correct that the american Anglican Church ( in essence the Episcopal church USA) is in heresy for ordaining women, and now a 'gay bishop elect' the rest of the worldwide anglican communion ( epescially in Africa ) is very much catholic and within the guideline of the ecumenical church prior to 1054 AD. We in the CEC are not Anglican, our succession is actually Roman, and does go back to St. Peters seat.

-- Rev. Chad Kyler (, August 04, 2003.

... in regards to the Charismatic Episcopal Church (Of which I am a deacon) you are correct in stating that our communion holds an unquestionable apostolic succession ...

It is not for a deacon of a non-Catholic religious community (possibly protestant, possibly schismatic) to declare what is "questionable" or "unquestionable." It is only for the pope to declare it, and he has not yet done so.

Rome cannot and has not denied or attempted to deny our sacraments and apostolic heritage and validity ...

By "Rome," I will assume you mean "the Bishop of Rome," the pope. If that is whom you meant, then you are obviously wrong, because the pope (and only the pope) CAN deny the validity of the CEC's apostolicity and sacraments. It's part of his "job description."

... neither they nor we have made any formal move towards union or communion or any other "understanding" as you put it. There has been contact between the vatican and our bishops but the extent of those conversations are unknown.

The second sentence shows the first to be baseless. If the "extent of those conversations" is truly "unknown" to anyone outside the "conversations," then it is impossible for you to say that the CEC has not "made any formal move towards union," etc.. The heads of the CEC may have done just that, in those "conversations."

There are Catholic juridictions other than the Roamn church...

The term "Roman church" can be misleading. Technically, it refers to the pope's Diocese of Rome -- his local church. It is not clear if you are improperly using the words "Roman church" to refer to the "Catholic Church," over which the pope is the chief visible shepherd. If that is what you meant, then your comment is wrong, because there are no "Catholic jurisdictions" other than the Catholic Church. But if, by "Roman church," you were referring to only that portion of the Catholic Church which is sometimes called the "Western" or "Latin" church, then your comment is not wrong. The Catholic Church includes not just the Western church, but also the "Eastern" Catholic churches that are fully in union with, and obedient to, the pope (e.g., Byzantine Catholic Church). Contrary to your claim, the Catholic Church, does not include schismatic churches, (such as the Eastern Orthodox and, potentially, the CEC), and it does not include any Protestant bodies (such as any part of the Anglican Communion and, potentially, the CEC).

Opinion: Any member of the CEC who is an ex-Catholic but now hopes that the pope will recognize the validity of the CEC's sacraments is not thinking very clearly. If the ex-Catholic wants to believe some things that the pope teaches are errors, or if the ex-Catholic wants to commit acts that the pope teaches are gravely sinful, then it follows that the ex-Catholic ought not to care about papal approval of his "sacraments." But if papal approval is something seen as necessary (and it certainly is), then the ex-Catholic implicitly acknowledges the pope's authority, so he ought simply to return to his former religious practice, where certainty about doctrine and validity of sacraments is immediate and guaranteed.

When the Vatican approves the validity of the sacraments of a schismatic church (e.g., Orthodox, PNCC, etc.), the pope does NOT give the schismatic people approval to receive the sacraments, in their own rites or in Catholic rites, if those schismatics are in a state of mortal sin (as are, objectively speaking, all who use contraception or sterilization, all who are "divorced and remarried," all who are ex-Catholics, etc.). Those schismatics need to avoid desecrating the sacraments by unworthy reception thereof.

-- Art (ars@gratia.artis), August 05, 2003.

THE ROMAN CURIA CENSURES THE POPE! I suggest you ALL go to and type in l'Osservatore Romano + June 14 + 2001 OR enter "Roman Curia Censores the Pope" Where you MUST MISPELL the word Censures as "Censores" . You can ALSO go to and look at the PROPHETIC words spoken to Vassula Ryden about the Reunification of the Church, about coming under PETER, as the ROMAN church understands that, and it talks about TRAITORS in the VATICAN, VICARIATE, and the ROMAN CURIA. ALSO GO TO AND SEE THE 20 EUCHARISTIC MIRACLES OF BLEEDING HOSTS that have been BLASPHEMED by CARDINAL RUINI, the CARDINAL VICAR for the Congregation of the Clergy - and COMPARE this to CHRISTINA GALLEGHER, COMPARE this to and where KATRINA RIVAS WARNS US OF TRAITORS IN THE VATICAN - KATRINA RIVAS HAS THE FULL IMPRIMATUR OF HER OWN ARCHBISHOP. ALSO or (JULIA KIM) as well as Sr. Agnes Sasagawa of AKITA JAPAN HAVE WARNED US time and again. GARABANDAL IS THE SEQUEL TO FATIMA said JESUS to VASSULA RYDEN. Fr. Stefano Gobbi, recognized by VASSULA RYDEN as a TRUE PROPHET said basically that Pope John Paul 2nd was sincere in his attempt to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and IN SINCERITY deferred to ONE OF HIS CARDINALS (Possibly a traitor without him realizing it?) who suggested to him that for DIPLOMATIC REASONS we should NOT mention RUSSIA specifically, BUT THE WHOLE WORLD. So on March 25, 1984 JP2 in ALL SINCERITY consecrated the WHOLE WORLD in UNION WITH all of the Bishops in COMMUNION with the Holy Father. NOW the Mother of GOD said to Fr. Stefano Gobbi, that because the Holy Father consecrated the WHOLE WORLD (In union with ...) that the PERIOD TRIAL to try ALL MEN on the Earth will be shortened, and that she would grant much grace, BUT BECAUSE RUSSIA was not SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED to be consecrated, RUSSIA WILL STILL SPREAD ITS ERRORS AND TROUBLES to the world. NOTE: The Fall of Communism can be attributed to the Worldwide consecration -- BUT Communism is NOT dead, but is PLAYING DEAD. RUSSIA is STILL NOT CONVERTED - a GOOD SIGN that we need to CONSECRATE RUSSIA SPECIFICALLY. SO FR. GRUNER IS RIGHT AFTER ALL, and the statements made by Fr. Gruner regarding Cardinal Ratzinger ARE TRUE. I ask that Cardinal Ratzinger read this with sobriety and come to REPENTANCE and do what the Church said needs to be done. I ASK that the HOLY FATHER become aware of Bishop Don Claudio Gatti's statements which state that Cardinal Ruini has made repeated attempts at defining the Eucharistic miracles in Rome Italy as "tricks of the Fair booths", "Jokes of Mountebanks" , "Interventions of the Devil" - etcetera. I do not know if the Holy Father is aware of ANY of the Eucharistic miracles, because it seems that HIS VERY CARDINALS are NOT TELLING HIM. I BASE THIS ON WITNESSING TWO EUCHARISTIC MIRACLES, and SEEING THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE OTHERS, including the photograph of a Eucharistic host that folds into a shell, BLEEDING and FORMING VISIBLE FLESH. UNLESS I HEAR THE AUDIBLE VOICE OF JOHN PAUL 2ND MAKE HIS STATEMENTS ABOUT THESE EUCHARISTIC MIRACLES, I WILL HAVE VERY LITTLE DOUBT THAT THE EUCHARISTIC MIRACLES ARE GENUINE AT ALSO LOOK AT THEIR LINK ABOUT "The Roman Curia Censures the Pope." that is on their website.

-- David Swanson (, August 19, 2003.

Regarding mentioning Cardinal Ruini - I mean to say "allegedly" to give him benefit of doubt for some of us - and I hope that it is "allegedly" also myself, - BUT the EUCHARISTIC MIRACLES speak for themselves and are usually a VERY STRONG SUPPORT to the statements made by those who have WITNESSED the Miracles, in telling the truth. So, I have very little doubt that Don Claudio Gatti is telling the truth. For this reason -- I am leaning quite well towards the belief that Cardinals who hate the Eucharist HAVE BEEN NAMED. I am sorry that I have had to find out all of this - as I am forced to realize that somebody in the sacerdotal ranks of Rome have blasphemed repeatedly over this issue.

-- David Swanson (, August 19, 2003.

This is something that has puzzled me. When pressed on the issue of transubstantiation and the literalness of the words blood and flesh, Catholics will say that the appearance remains the same when the substance itself is changed, so you are left with unbloody blood and unfleshy flesh physically.

Then there are claims to eucharistic miracles, where the appearance is changed. Firstly, people can be deceived by appearances, just like the claims of healings from the pentecostals. Secondly, you can't have it both ways, either it is changed physically or it isn't.

Finally, I think the whole matter of transubstantiation is rather far- fetched. I'm not saying that it's beyond God to allow such a thing to take place. God is God and He can do what He likes. However, I think it is rather unusual that Christ Himself would drink His own literal blood at the last supper.

-- confused (, August 20, 2003.

Christ did not receive His own body and blood at the Last Supper. The Scripture plainly says that Christ consecrated the bread and wine, and then offered it to the Apostles, who received it. Since that first Mass, it has happened exactly the same way at every other Mass. It had to, because Christ Himself commanded it, saying "DO THIS in remembrance of Me". And so, at every Mass we do exactly what He did, and what He commanded would continue to be done. The priest, a direct successor of the priests ordained by Christ that evening, stands in His place and obeys His command by reciting exactly same words He recited, over the same substances He used - simple wine and unleavened bread. Once again, Jesus offers Himself, and we, not He, receive, exactly the same way the Apostles did - the true presence of His body and blood, under the physical appearance of bread and wine, fulfilling the promise of Christ, "My flesh is REAL food, my blood REAL drink".

The fact that you "think" transubstantiation is "far-fatched" is pitifully irrelevant, in view of the fact that God Himself said it is REAL, and that His infallible Church has constantly taught that it is REAL, according to His divine word, for 2,000 years. What it boils down to is - you either believe what God plainly said, or you reject it, which amounts to calling God a liar.

-- Paul (, August 20, 2003.

Shalom Someone,

You asked:

>>>Would anyone on this channel be confident enough to debate James White in his chatroom on his website concerning Roman Catholic doctrines. >>>

We have no desire to partake in a chat-room, however we would accept to debate James White on a neutral message board. Since we are new here, we believe this would be a good location.

We believe Scriptural understanding takes time and should not be discussed at a fast pace unless the intention is to lead astray from truth. If HaShem could give us His Word for nearly 4,000 years and still have debates, what makes anyone think it can be resolved in a matter of moments, unless there are “pre-programmed” responses just to cause confusion?

>>> It would seem by the attitudes in here that Mr. White's material is easily refutable. >>>

We will not assume as such, but we would be willing to review a transcript of some of his materials to prepare some responses. Presently we have a few Scriptural studies on our website that may help defend our Church and her doctrine; one such study is on the Eucharist. You can find it at This also would give you a feel of what you may be coming up against.

Shalom, C & C

-- C.Foegen (, August 22, 2003.

Shalom Dave B,

You said,

>>> It's not at all an honest and well- thought out discussion that's really the only true way to understand each other. I prefer a written approach in which both sides are given ample space to think about what they want to say and make their case and then respond to each other arguments. >>>

We agree with you for this has been similar to our approach as well. So if you are willing, we would be happy to discuss /”debate” issues. Although we are often quite busy, which makes for a slower response anyways. If the interest is to find and understand truth, then we all can dialogue without concern for proselytizing for His truth can lead all hearts that are set upon Him.

So if you are seriously interested, please let us know when you want to start.

Shalom, C & C

-- C.Foegen (, August 22, 2003.

Shalom Confused,

Maybe we can help ease you from your confusion a bit. In regards to your post you wrote:

>>>This is something that has puzzled me. When pressed on the issue of transubstantiation and the literalness of the words blood and flesh, Catholics will say that the appearance remains the same when the substance itself is changed, so you are left with unbloody blood and unfleshy flesh physically. >>>

You may not know this, but the Hebrew word for “offering” found in Mal.1.11 states that our Church offered a “pure bloodless sacrifice” (min’chah t’horah) upon a “table”, while the Temple was still standing and which the Sanhedrin called “polluted” as well as the “fruit” they called “defiled”. Still as Yeshua said: “It is the Spirit that gives Life, the flesh (sarx- carnal in the sense of “human nature”) is of no avail; the Words that I have spoken (about His Flesh being food INDEED) are SPIRIT and Life.” Jn.6.63. We therefore suspect you maybe thinking in a sarx like manner unknowingly and the Eucharist by definition isn’t sarx/carnal, but Spiritual as G-d is Spirit and G-d IS REAL and LITERAL, just as Yeshua above affirms His Body and Blood indeed are. For a more in depth study in this, please read on our website, .

>>>Then there are claims to Eucharistic miracles, where the appearance is changed. Firstly, people can be deceived by appearances, just like the claims of healings from the Pentecostals. Secondly, you can't have it both ways, either it is changed physically or it isn't. >>>

Well consider that Eli’sha could see angels surrounding his enemies, even when his servant could not, 2Kgs.11-17. Therefore was Eli’sha seeing things “both ways” or was His sight greater than his servant’s? And might this be true for at least some of those proclaiming those miracles?

Allow us to put it this way. When you were reborn, were you reborn in an earthly reality or a spiritual reality? If the former you’re still in your sins, if the latter you are a new creation, not of this world even if you are still in this world. In the same way the Eucharist is a Spiritual reality and can only be seen in it fullest manifestation with Spiritual eyes! Still Nicode’mus also had trouble seeing beyond his earthly reality when it came to rebirth, and in the same way so do many Protestants when come to His Body and Blood.

Shalom, C & C

-- C.Foegen (, August 22, 2003.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ