The RCC and Lizzie the College Student

.

Lizzie is a cute college student who makes a LOT of very popular videos promoting Catholicism (they are often referred to by Catholic evangelists). Ironically, she's actually Church of Christ and frequently states she "much prefers the Orthodox Church" but that's ignored, she's simply noted as pro-RCC and used to promote Catholicism.



Here is one of her popular videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8p9i696K-o




Here are her "Ten Lies Protestants Believe About the Roman Catholic Church" BTW, she never remotely shows that all (or even most) Protestants actually believe these 10 things, but....


1. Catholics are not Christian

First of all, she offers NOTHING to prove Protestants believe that. I'm SURE you can find many among the 400 million Protestants who do believe that, but is that generally ture?

She makes several falsehoods here. Among them, "All Christians were Catholics before Luther." It's an absolute historic falsehood (she needs to study history). All Christians were catholic but not Catholic. It always amazes me how some Catholics parrot such an absurd statement. How in their egoism just ignore the Orthodox Churches. How they foolishly claim that all Christians for 1500 years believed what the RC Denomination teaches (not what the OOC or EOC teach), that they were all registered in a parish owned and operated exclusively by the RC Denomination - specifically CATHOLIC in teaching and parish membership (NOT Orthodox, etc.). It's very unhistorical. There was no denomination before the 5th Century, and when Rome created one for itself, the Roman Church was not more the RCC than it was the EOC. Amazing how she parrots that ALL Christians were officially members of the singular RC Denomination from 31 AD to 1521 AD - holding to the unique teachings of the RCC (and rejecting teachings of the EOC), docilicly submissive to the RCC's Pope in Rome as THE Authority, rejecting any sense of the college of bishops as one united authority. She needs to study history. And she'd benefit from a meeting with an EOC pastor.




2. Catholics have fake books in their Bible

Here again, Lizzie shows that she is just swallowing and parroting Catholic "talking points" .

First of all, the RC Denomination has NEVER had the same Bible as any others, it's always had a UNIQUE tome. She needs to go to the library and check out a Greek Orthodox Bible and look in the index; she'll find books there she doesn't recognize and then ask "When did the RCC rip these books out of the Bible?" She could also check out other tomes of other Orthodox churches and find a bunch of other books not in her Catholic Bible. And she could find Catholic tomes with 28 NT Books (including the Letter to the Leodiceans).

She claims that Luther "removed a bunch of books from the Bible." Oh, she needs to study history and no just parrot falsehoods. She needs to begin by asking WHICH Bible did he "remove" books from? The OOC's? the EOC's? The RCC's with the Epistle to the Leocideans or the ones without it? WHICH Bible? And if one's bible has fewer books than other, does that mean books have been removed? IF so, than the RCC at Trent ripped out a bunch of books because it has fewer books in it than the EOC's and OOC's and even some Catholic Bibles. While she's at the library, she needs to get a copy of Luther's German translation and look in the index. Because it has one MORE book in it than her new, post-Trent, unique, RCC tome - one MORE book in it! So, if his tome has one MORE book in it, how does that prove he "ripped OUT a bunch of books" (from what Bible, she doesn't say).

What Liz doesn't know is that there have been some books considered always to be DEUTERO (the word the RCC and EOC uses here, it means "secondary"), books largely regarded to be useful but not fully, primarily canonical. And the RCC and EOC and OOC have NEVER agreed on which are "Secondary" and which one are simply to be ignored. And of course, the Anglican Church included MORE of them than the RCC now does.... Luther including MORE of them than the RCC now does (together the Anglicans and Lutherans make up the majority of Protestants).

Liz ignores, too, that in practice, the RCC largely ignores these books. Luther actually referenced them far MORE than the RCC typically does. While these DEUTERO books are occasionally included in the Catholic lectionary (as they occasionally are in Anglican and Lutheran lectionaries), any Catholic can tell you the RCC pretty much ignores them. In practice, they've removed them by simply ignoring them. They only bring them up to parrot this lie about Luther's German translation. Liz needs to check out these things. She SAYS she's concerned about "lies" but....



3. Catholics Worship Idols and Mary.

Again, she makes NO effort to confirm that all Protestants believe this..... I don't. But yes, I think one can find some who believe this among the 400,000,000 Protestants in the world.

And she ignores that even in Catholicism, "worship" is used in very different ways. There IS a sense in which Catholics "worship" Mary (I do too in that sense).

But here too, she parrots Catholic stuff but obviously never checked it out. She claims that the current, modern RCC form of "Hail Mary" is just a quote from the Bible. Not so. There is NOTHING in Scripture about Mary praying for us or needing to pray for us at the moment of our death; no, it's NOT just "quoting Scripture." IMO, she is also ignoring what all Catholics and ex-Catholics know: there are some Catholics who are not ONLY asking Mary to pray FOR them but expect her to answer the prayer and give her thanks for answered prayer, there is a common view that the Miracle at Cana shows that Jesus takes his orders from MARY (yup, I was taught that).

Now, I agree with Liz..... I think that some Protestants DO misunderstand the official RCC position on all this, and I find it unfortunately that modern "Evangelicals" have reacted the way they have. But I think Liz is also ignoring some Catholic abuses that has caused some "Evangelicals" to react as they have.



4. Catholics go by the Bible PLUS Tradition.

Liz CLAIMS this a "Protestant lie" and then goes on and on and on to insist that it's true. She shoots herself in the foot. She needs to take a course in logic before she graduates.

Yes, Catholicism claims that the source of its unique teachings is THREE things EQUALLY: It's own unique denominational Tradition (which it claims comes from the 12 Apostles but offers NOTHING WHATSOEVER to substantiate that), PLUS the unique biblical tome of the RC Denomination as it itself uniquely and clurrently "interprets" it PLUS the leadership of the RCC itself as chosen by the RCC itself from among the bishops of the RCC itself. These three things form one inseparable source and authority (Our Catholic teachers spoke of these as "three streams which converge to form one river). So, the reality is that the RCC DOES go by it's own Bible (not the words in it, but the meanings in it as determined by the RCC itself alone) PLUS the Tradition of it itself alone as interpreted by it itself alone PLUS the leadership of it itself alone from among the bishops of it itself alone who parrot the teachings and claims of it itself alone.

Liz SUPPORTS the truth of what she calls "a lie." She needs to think about that...... In college, you should learn to think through stuff.



5. Catholics are intolerant of others.

Again, she doesn't show that Protestants generally think this. I don't think most do.

What I think IS true is that SOME Catholics regard all those not officially members of the RC Denomination as "secondary," "lesser" than they as Christians. They are "SEPARATED" and inferior Christians - not just "wrong" but inferior. But then SOME Protestants have the same 'tude about Catholics. I (as a Protestant) reject this view. I regard ALL Christians as my FULL, EQUAL, equally blessed brothers and sisters in Christ and fellow members of the church that is one, holy, catholic, communion of believers. BECAUSE I reject the RCC idea that the church = a denomination (itself), I can accept that those not officially members of my denomination are FULLY members of Jesus Body, the church. MY PROTESTANT theology of the church makes this "you ain't really Christian" view impossible but for Catholics, they must reject the teaching of their denomination to have the same embrace of other Christians.

But what I found interesting is Liz's claim that the RCC believes that those who don't look to the Cross, who do NOT accept the Savior are nonetheless saved (or at least can be - APART from Christ and the Cross), simply by virtue of their being "sincere" (sincerely WRONG but sincere). She actually quotes the newest Catholic Catechism to support this "salvation apart from Christ, salvation by sincerity" claim. HUMMMMMMMMMM...... Before Liz graduates from college, she should learn to think. And maybe she needs to put her claim here together with her claim in #1. IF a denomination claims there is salvation apart from Christ, it is thus CHRISTian? I don't think she's thought about that (MY view is this new teaching of the RCC is just very poorly worded and conveyed but Liz takes it literally).



6. Catholics are against Science.

Actually, I've never heard a Protestant make that accusation. It's usually non-Christians and liberal Christians making that claim of all traditional Christianity. I think it's largely a false accusation, but I don't see it as a "Catholic vs. Protestant" issue. I think Liz has a "paper tiger" here.


Continues in post # 4....




.

.


Continues from post #1.....


7. The Pope is Infallible and thus the RCC claims that it is infallible.


Again, I don't think Liz is thinking through her own argument. First of all, NO non-RCC'er claims that the pope is infallible so the whole premise is false.

No, the RCC does not claim that everything anyone in the RCC thinks, says or does is "infallible." And I don't think anyone believes that it does. Another "paper tiger."

But what Liz avoids is that this 1870 DE FIDE DOGMA of the individual RC Denomination DOES insist that the official current dogmas of the individual, exclusive RC Denomination are infallible.... and when it's own Bishop of Rome speaks "ex-cathedra" and is parroting the strongly embraced teachings of the individual RC Denomination, he IS speaking infallibly. The RCC does claim there is one infallible entity in the world - it itself alone - but yes this is limited to official, dogmatic matters of "faith and morals". The basis of the RCC Denomination is that there is ONE who is infallible and thus unaccountable..... ONE who when it itself uniquely speaks, ergo GOD HIMSELF is speaking and must agree: and (hold on to your hat), that One is..... itself. So, the essential Protestant "issue" here is true. She glosses over that.


8. Apostolic Succession is Wrong


Well, again.... she's glossing over much and revealing she really has no idea what she's talking about. Many Protestants embrace Apostolic Succession (Anglicans, for example) - they just reject the UNACCOUTABILITY of such and regard a lot of the claims of the RCC as simply claims without historic affirmation. Liz needs to study history.

And Liz offers NOTHING to support the RCC's spin on this to be true. Instead, we get a chain of arguments that all begin with "IF IT'S TRUE....." Liz needs to take a course in logic before she graduates.

She argues that the Papacy is in the Bible. Ah. Since she stresses that she thinks the EOC is a much better choice than the RCC, I think she needs to make an appointment with her nearest EOC priest and ask him about this. She will be shocked to learn some history, shocked to learn how everyone understood all this in the early Church. And maybe she'll learn that this whole thing is a result of a POWER struggle of the RC Denomination.



9. Jesus never intended a powerful hierarchy


Interesting.... because she offers nothing to show that He did. And she ignores one of the 3 things Jesus said to the church existing after His ascension, "You shall not lord it over others as the gentiles do."

The "heart" of the RCC is the extreme, radical individualism and power of the denomination (itself) so this issue is key, central, founational to the RCC. Again, Liz needs to make an appointment with the local Greek Orthodox Church (she says is superior to the RCC) because this is a BIG problem it has with the RCC (probably more so than among Protestants).

Interesting too how she seems to claim that the RC Denomination is a reflection of the power-obsessed, pagan Roman Empire (not Jesus). She even seems to claim the the Papacy is a reflection of CAESAR, the all-powerful Roman Dictator.

I agree that hierachy PER SE is not bad.... but I don't think any Protestant says that (again, a paper tiger). Most Protestant denominations have a hierachy (Anglican, Methodist, most Lutherans, etc., etc.). Its not hierachy per se these Protestants object to, it's the unaccountability, the LORDING over others, the demand that all "with docility" SUBMIT to it itself alone AS UNTO GOD. The obsession with power.



10. If you are Catholic you have to accept what the Catholic Church teaches.


Liz is wrong here. This is NOT at all a "lie." She needs to read that Catholic Catechism. Read #87 for beginners. Sure, this doesn't mean EVERYTHING but it does mean what it itself alone CURRENTLY says in official matters of faith and morals. You are to swallow such "with docilic submission" as unto God Himself.

Now, I'll agree with Liz, in PRACTICE, the RCC (especially since Vatican II) has embraced "The Big Tent" philosophy. Because of the liberalism in that denomination, because it has been gushing members, it has passionately embraced "the big tent" and chosen to be.... um...... tolerant. (The same thing can be seen in much of Protestantism beginning around the same time). I'm Lutheran but I'm absolutely certain that if I returned to my former Catholic parish.... believing EXACTLY as I do.... I'd be fully, completely, joyously embraced as fully Catholic and a full member of my RCC parish. In practice, the RCC now "winks" at LOTS of stuff. Even at what once was the 'hold out' for pure Catholicism - the Eucharist. AS A LUTHERAN, I hold to a view closer to that of the RCC than the vast majority of "Catholics" I know. But this new, "BIG TENT" philosophy is actually in direct conflict with the official teachings of their denomination which insists that what IT ITSELF UNIQUELY and CURRENTLY says (in offical matters) IS to be fully and docilicly swallowed whole BECAUSE it itself is saying it: one DOES need to do this. It's just that for the past 50 years or so, to keep the pews warm, the RCC winks when this doesn't happen (among laity anyway).



Conclusion:


Liz' video relates a LOT of the "talking points" of Catholic apologetics.... And it's obvious she hasn't through any of them through and hasn't evaluated the truthfulness of any of them. She's heard these talking points (she sometimes discloses where) and herein parrots them.

Liz accuses Protestants (she uses the term all-inclusively) of lying. To lie means to spread something that you know is false. She never once indicates that it's even relevant whether that's true or not.... anymore than she remotely indicates that it's even relevant if the talking points she's parroting are true or not.

There is MUCH unfortunate ignorance. A lot of misconceptions (kind of "urban myths") exist among Christians (about EQUALLY in Catholicism and Protestantism) and these do tend to get parroted (exactly as Liz is doing) without checking them out. It IS sad. Places like CH can be extremely helpful! Places like CH enable us to "meet" face-to-face and check out some of these things that just get mindlessly parroted.

What I also see in all these pro-Catholic videos by Liz is she sees only TWO camps: Modern American Evangelicalism vs. Roman Catholicism. She skips right over traditional/orthodox/conservative Lutheranism, Calvinism, Anglicanism (together BY FAR the majority of Protestants). I think all of her "issues" would find answers if she was aware of other options. The world is not post-Vatican II Roman Catholicism OR Some Forms of Modern American Evangelicalism. Liz not only needs to learn more history and theology, she needs to get out more: there's more out there than she's aware of, other options. A LOT of Christians - Evangelical and Catholic - are like Liz.



What do YOU think?



- Josiah




.

Confessional Lutheran said:

I got through about six minutes of it. She really just kind of rehashes Catholic Apologetics ( and doesn't really look too bright in doing so) and goes into the same sort of arguments we've already heard and read about a thousand times before. Yes, she should certainly open a book and read about some of the topics that she so flippantly gets into without having any real knowledge about them.

Click to expand...

Yup, it's a lot of the same old, tired, baseless Catholic apologetic "talking points." She's just framing them in a less common way, in terms of statements she CLAIMS are "lies" that Protestants "believe" (strong word "lie".... sweeping accusation about the 400 million or so Protestants)... and of course, it doesn't seem to matter at all to her (doesn't even cross her mind) as to whether what she's claiming is actually true. But what's also interesting, is she actually defends some of the things she claims are "lies!" I don't think she's yet learned in college how to think.... or to check out things.... She's obviously just parroting the same old, tired, perpetually parroted Catholic Apologetic "talking points."


Now, TRUE, we could get a lot of Catholics posting, "This girl is nuts, these 10 things are lame, she is wrong!" but I doubt we'll get a chorus of that. although it would be refreshing if we did - maybe it would break some ground.


- Josiah




.

MoreCoffee said:

Lizzie is not a Catholic.

Click to expand...

True, which is why some Catholics love her and her videos; they like it when a technically still Protestant echos their talking points or converts. But you evade the ENTIRE issue: this is a pro-Catholic video. You actually want us to beleive that her 10 "lies" are lies she thinks that CATHOLIC CHURCH is making and that Protestants are correct? That this is an anti-Catholic video? Come on, MC.... come on!!!

In case you are a Catholic who somehow doesn't know about Liz, yeah while she says she is still technically "Church of Christ" she is absolutely enamored by the RC Denomination and in many videos, echos the "talking points" of Catholic apologetics. Some Catholics LOVE it when a (technically still) Protestant does that! Some make quite a point of "Even this PROTESTANT says..... Why even this PROTESTANT converted...." It's part of popular, modern Catholic apologetics (although I agree, a bit "lame")

She offers opinions which are not very well researched

Click to expand...

... yup, just the same old, tired, Catholic Apologetic "talking points" we've all heard over and over. I'll give her credit that she frames them a bit differently, but the same old talking points. And I agree with you, my brother and friend, they are false and reveal a really profound ignorance. No matter who is posting them. I've read these points over and over and over and over and over..... sometimes by Catholic priests or teachers, sometimes by Catholic members, sometimes by CatholicAnswers and Catholic radio, sometimes even by this cute college girl, but it doesn't matter - they are false, wrong and ignorant. And yes, I think it often causes people to run.... people who (unlike this college girl) THINK.


Glad to hear you rebuke these 10 points of Catholic apologetics.



- Josiah




.

Well, MC, perhaps something has been achieved if you will denounce her video as "lame" (as you put it in chat), denounce these talking points.

If you would admit these are actually lies some Catholics proclaim, that would advance things. I don't believe any has a monopoly on "lies" and sweeping, all-embracing generalities - but it would be helpful if we could mutually denounce these 10 Catholic talking points as false, wrong (even "lame" as you put it, keeping with the college setting, lol). Without doing a search, I think most of them have been proclaimed here by Catholics, but not often. If you will clearly denounce the things Liz claims as true as rather ignorant, false, lame "lies" - that would advance things. Here at CH if not otherwise. At least one Catholic would be on record saying she's nuts. That would be significant.

BTW, I'm aware that there are "anti-Catholic" apologists and groups that I think are parroting false, ignorant, lies about the RCC and Catholicism. I don't think their views are AT ALL common, and I don't hear them generally from Protestant pastors of most denominations or at quasi official Protestant media but they exist. And rarely, pop up briefly here at CH. I disagree when I see such.

As I noted, IMO this website is a great opportunity to cut through the perpetually parroted "talking points." We can talk "face to face" and put the talking points out there, on the table so to speak. Sometimes to build bridges, you have to tear down old (false, wrong, lying) walls. Your boldly denouncing what Liz says in this video would be a move in that direction.




.

MoreCoffee said:

Josiah, what I "denounced" is you posting that video as if it were Catholic Apologetics. That is dishonest. Not many readers are going to sit through the whole 28 minutes of Lizzie's opinion piece so they may miss that she is a Church of Christ adherent who is in fundamental disagreement with Catholic teaching on a number of matters.

Click to expand...

Then you were wrong when you called THE VIDEO "lame" etc.....

I disagree with you that the video is anti-Catholic and pro- Protestant. I think that's "lame." I think it's OBVIOUS this is a pro-Catholic video, meant to largely support and defend Catholicism; that it is Catholic APOLOGETICS. I realize that some Catholics LOVE it when a (technically still) PROTESTANT parrots them or converts to the RCC, but it's jsut absurd to argue that this is a pro-Protestant video.

And friend, I think generally most will agree with me... these points she raises are VERY common, VERY popular Catholic talking points. I've heard them over and and over and over and over again - from a variety of sources: Catholic priests and deacons, Catholic teachers, from Catholic Answers and Catholic Radio, from rather learned Catholic apologists and from Catholic laity. I seem to recall I've read most of them here at CH but perhaps not. Nothing in her 10 arguments is new to Liz the College Girl.... she's parroting talking points she's heard and obviously never checked out or thought through.



- Josiah

Albion said:

They don't need to do that, do they? OF COURSE it's Catholics who most watch--and like--these videos. You might as well have said that no one knows whether Jack Chick is read and liked more by Protestants than Catholics.
:confused2:

Click to expand...

I think it is OBVIOUS (to all but our friend and brother MC) that this is a PRO-Catholic, DEFENDING Catholicism video. I just don't think anyone is buying that Liz did an anti-Catholic, pro-Protestant video here. I'm not buying it.


Our brother called Liz and the points she made "lame" - indeed, he called the entire video "LAME." Then switched it to I'M "lame" for posting it - and evaluating it.


I think we could survey the group just here at CH (which includes several ex-Catholics, several who have spent time at CatholicAnswers and at Catholic Radio and reading endless posts at CF and elsewhere) whether the numerous points Liz makes are familiar Catholic "talking points". I KNOW they are - because I heard them over and over and over when I was Catholic.... parroted a goodly number of them myself in my Catholic years.....read them endlessly at Catholic Apologetics websites, heard them on Catholic Radio and EWTV, read them endlessly at the Catholic forum at CF, read some of them HERE I seem to remember (maybe incorrectly). Now, MC said they were "lame", that Liz was "lame" and that the whole video was "lame" (which kind of surprised me) but now I'M lame for sharing it and evaluating it.

I evaluated each of her claims - under the 10 groupings she made ("LIES" that PROTESTANTS "believe"). If I'm "lame" then it must be for what I said.... if she and her video is "lame" then it must be for the talking points she parrots.


And... again.... I think part of my point is being, well, bypassed. I think there is MORE THAN ENOUGH falsehood going around. By all. This college student, it seems to me, has heard the classic, tired, worn talking points ... and clearly she's not evaluated or thought them through or investigated any of them for anything... and now she's parroting them - all in a creative fashion of indicating all Protestant LIE about the RCC on these 10 points. Lie means to intentionally, knowingly spread a falsehood (known to be a falsehood). She slams Protestants for these 10 LIES. And under those headings, makes quite a lot of very popular Catholic apologetic talking points. This - just ONE of her many Catholic Apologetic videos - has already had at least 150,000 "hits" and yes, pretty well encompasses the usual Catholic Apologetic points (albeit in a rather flaming format of claiming Protestants LIE about Catholicism). Ironically, she actually DEFENDS some of the "LIES" as truths. And interestingly, does not actually defend or support even one of her talking points. I don't think she thought through even one of them. I think that's sad. And notice, I said it's not unique to Catholics. And I said we here at CH have an opportunity to evaluate these old parroting "talking points" rather than just.... mindlessly..... repeating them (or worse, defending them just because 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend").

I've never been to that Jack Clink website or that Baptist one.... but if I had an opportunity to evaluate some points made, I would. And if they were wrong, I'd say so and denounce it (not say it's "lame" to regard it as accountable and to evaluate it), and maybe, together, as a community, remove some bad claims. Sometimes, in order to build bridges, you need to remove obsticles. Sometimes to get to truth, you have to eliminate falsehoods. I think Liz (cute as she is) parroted a whole bunch of them. That they are popular ones makes them even MORE relevant to evaluate rather than just mindlessly parrot. IMO.


The video is up. Posts 1 and 4 include MY evaluation of some of what she claims. It's up for evaluation.



- Josiah





.