Expert: Griff Ruby - 6/28/2006

Question
What do you think is the best argument one could give to a fundamentalist/evangelical Protestant to convince them of the truth of our Faith?

Answer
Different people respond to different things.
For myself it was what Jesus called the bread and wine in the Mass, He called them His Body and Blood.  He did not say that it "means" His Body and Blood; He did not say that it "contains" His Body and Blood; He did not say that it "symbolizes" His Body and Blood.  he said "is."  Protestant interpretations cannot acount for what He said nor have they ever attempted it, other than to just brush aside the question with a "well, He must have meant 'means' or 'contains' or 'symbolizes' or some such thing."  They have no scriptural basis for denying the literal presence of Christ in and as the Eucharist.
For others, iit might be Mary, as in her perpetual virginity.  When the angel announces to her the she is to be the mother of the Messiah, she questions that on the basis that "I do not know man"  She does not say (as some sloppy bible translations put it) "I'm not married" as she already knows she will soon be married to Joseph.  She does not say "I have not known man" as that would not mean much either, but "I have not known man."  And this is "know" in the sense that Adam "knew" Eve his wife and she concieved Cain.  When someone says "I do not ..." they speak of a policy, as for example see the difference between saying "I have not voted" versus "I do not vote."  in the first, well maybe I will vote next time.  in the second I have made it clear that I have no intention of ever voting.  Or again, someone who says "I do not drink" (alcohol) or "I do not dance" or "I do not wear blue."  Mary said to the angel Gabrial "I do not know man."
For still others, it is the idea of "Did Jesus found a Church or did He just leave a bunch of gold plates on an altar somewhere and that was supposed to be the Bible?"  When Bible "expert" disagrees with Bible "expert" about such important things as "how do I get saved?" or "What do I do if I sin after coming to Christ?" or "Do I need to be baptized in water?" one can't just write off such questions to the realm of "Well, God didn't see fit to address these details in the Bible very clearly so they can't be very important, so feel free to believe whatever you want to believe about them."  Where is the arbiter to rule on how and what to believe regarding those things the Bible is not clear on?  To be Catholic is to believe in such an arbiter but to be Protestant is to try to explain things without such an arbiter, and to descend into a world of A's word over B's word about how the Bible is to be "rightly divided."
For still others, it must be the moral and doctrinal stability of the Catholic Church.  Protestants of today believe considerably different from what Protestants believed only a hundred years ago.  For example, a hundred years ago, all Protestants believed as Catholics do that contraception is always a sin, but over the course of the 1920's and 1930's the Protestants changed.  Even only twenty years ago, homosexuality was universally condemned as an unspeakable sin that cries to heaven for vengence and now whole denominations think it fine to have openly practicing homosexual pastors and to bless homosexual unions.  Abortion was also almost universally opposed at first but now only a very few still wave that flag.
But for others it could be any of a variety of different things.  It really depends upon the particular soul with whom you are conversing and who you are trying to bring to the Church and Faith.  The best thing you can do is simply ask the person what their main objection would be to the idea of becoming a Catholic.  Whatever their chief problem is, that's the place to start in attempting to address this whole apologetic question for that person.