Nowadays, I have seen quite a bit of this pugnaciousness both in person and on-line, and as you point out, something seems missing from it. I would like to think of Catholicism as more a way of life than anything else: a set of relationships that determine how we get along with God, our neighbors, and our ancestors. If I were to teach someone the Catholic Faith, I would start out with what I started out with as an infant: I would teach that person to say his or her prayers. Then I would go from there.

As a student of Latin America, and being that my family is from there, the reason that Catholicism is losing faithful there to Pentecostalism has little to do with doctrine. While a lot of it has to do with the reasons usually cited (poor catechesis, the material aide that Protestant sects give, etc.), a profound driving reason is the de-mystification of Catholicism coming out of the Second Vatican Council. This process includes the de-emphasis on the saints, the venacularization of the Mass, and the vanishing of certain traditions in the Catholic ethos in general. In many parts of Latin America, one cannot accuse the Protestants sects of being rationalistic and overly argumentitive. Many of the Pentecostal antics of these groups would make Benny Hinn blush. In a common stunt in Brazil, a preacher tells the television viewer to put a glass of water on top of the television set and the preacher over the airwaves proceeds to “bless it”, and afterwards tells the viewer to drink the glass of water. Not a whole lot of apologetics going on there.

In spite of how one might regard the dangers of “superstition” in pre-Vatican II Catholicism, in Latin America at least, such things made people feel close to the divine. Nowadays it seems, in many places they see the Pentecostals providing that immediacy. It has little to do with arguments. That perhaps is a very Anglo-Saxon trait that other parts of the world don’t share.

certain Protestants who tout the perspicuity of Scripture while neglecting to mention that the fine print says you must know Greek, Hebrew, read all the major works on various issues, the writings of the ECF’s if you intend to use or criticize them, etc., etc.

Uh…quick point.

Either you’re misunderstanding “the perspicuity of Scripture”, or those Protestants are.

From the Westminster Confession:

All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them. — WCF 1.7

I doubt that knowing Greek, Hebrew, the major works, the writings of the ECFs, etc. would be included in “ordinary means”. The Reformation notion of “the perspicuity of Scripture” is something like, “The main things are the plain things.” (Whether or not you agree, that’s the claim.)

In short, if you see a Protestant arguing the way you said, then you’re entirely right to criticize them for inconsistent fine print.

But, if you see a Protestant talking about the value of knowing Greek, Hebrew, the major works, the writings of the ECFs, etc., then they’re not being inconsistent. Not as long as they also say you don’t need that stuff to understand the things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to take away all responsibility from the average Catholic to do substantial study (not even necessarily for apologetics). As a an average Catholic whose faith has been seriously shaken by the errors of Catholic apologists, I have chosen to do the work myself and see if various things are as they had led me to believe so many years ago. Nevertheless, everyon has their calling, Mr. Shea, and some Christians are simply called to be sheep.

I have a brief question about the letter which you cited. You said, “A number of things concern me about this note. But the first and foremost is that somebody’s faith could be disturbed by the fact that a Catholic apologist has erred.”

I was wondering–did the letter writer say that his (her?) faith had been shaken? Perhaps in another part of the letter? In the part that you quoted, he did say that he was disturbed by the realization of certain apologists’ errors. But he didn’t say that his faith had been shaken. (He might be “disturbed” in the sense of wanting Catholic apologetics to be stronger, without being shaken in his personal faith. Or something similar. I have the same reaction when I see Christians defending the existence of God using bad arguments. It bothers me, without any effect on my belief in God.)

Perhaps some Reformed Christians would be correct to claim certain Catholic criticism of them can be mean spirited and unfounded.

Your post could vindicate their claim.

God bless,
Noelfitz.
______________________________________________________________
IN NECESSARIIS UNITAS, IN DUBIIS LIBERTAS, IN OMNIBUS CARITAS.
______________________________________________________________

If he had deep psychological problems — and that seems real likely — he is all the more admirable for having produced a translation of the New and then the Old Testament that ranks today in German in much the same stature that the KJV has in English — there is many a sane and stable man who could not begin such a feat.

And he was right about a great deal, just as he was tragically wrong about a great deal. But, in point of fact, one proves little about Protestants and Protestantism by delving into Luther’s mental state. He was highly regarded by some very thoughtful and intelligent men in his own day. And his theological treatises are read with respect by scholars across the Christian landscape – including Catholics — even to this day. (Remember, he was a Catholic professor of scripture.) Regardless his mental condition, his arguments have to be dealt with on their own merits. In his own day, the Church sent it’s most highly qualified debater to engage him; he was not thought of as easily dismissed then, and neither is he today.

The problem with bringing up the whole psychology issue is that a Catholic who brings it up can appear to be attempting to swerve around having to deal with any of his arguments, kind of like a Protestant who brings up the sex abuse scandal to fend off having to engage with the actual teachings of the Church.