Since they only accept the Bible as their source of Revelation, when Protestants fancy each other as "theologians", what exactly is the object of their "theology"? Only the Bible?

I'm not sure if i even asked the question correctly, but i just wonder what they mean when they talk about a Protestant "theologian" since they only accept the Bible.

I once spent a snoringly dull hour and 15 minutes listening to a Pres-byterian "minister" giving a lecture about how the Church Fathers (yes, Irenaeus, Chrysostom, etc) taught "faith alone" and were actually crypto-Calvinists!

People them conveniently IGNORE many of the plainest and most unambiguous statements ever made about Catholic doctrines, which can be found in the writings of the Fathers.

Others are "forced" to start with the arch-heretic Luther and his progeny, because they are too stupid to recognize that there WAS NO OTHER LEGITIMATE, ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN CHURCH in the WORLD before the Reformation/Revolution (and there isn't another since, either).

Cardinal Newman said, "To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant." Absolutely true; it's even happened to a dumb cinder-block like me.

Kyrie eleison.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.

Vinikias is right!  Protestants are scuмbags!

:soapbox:
By all means, go into the tent meeting and challenge the Protestant "theologian," but before you do, make sure you can quote chapter and verse better than him (or her).  Protestants are indeed largely ignorant of history, believing whatever they've been told by the experts of their particular denomination.  Why?  Because of the same reason most Catholics give, "obedience."  It never occurs to Lutherans, for example, that Luther might have been a bad guy, or to Pres-buy-terians that  there was a reason John Knox was burned at the stake. Lay-Lutherans don't read Luther; lay-Presbies haven't read Knox.  You'll convince no one by refuting writings of which they've heard about small portions.  If you study the Bible only, and have been raised in a sect, you can interpret it in only one manner.  Don't get mad and resort to name-calling.  No Protestant was ever converted that way.  Pray to the Holy Ghost to take the spiritual blinders off their hearts and minds.  And again, make certain you can out-quote the "evangelist" or you'll only end up strengthening him/her in heresy.  Most Catholic lay-folk are not intimately familiar with the Bible as an entire Book, hence Protestants dismiss them and the Catholic Faith as superstition for the blind, ignorant populace.  (See now, what is so dangerous about "Pray, Pay, Obey"?)
 :reading:

I actually think that you shouldn't even give a Protestant the chance to start quoting Bible passages, i would tell them from the start: "Where did you get the Bible? Who wrote it? Why do you accept it as the Word of God?" and prove to them right from the start that THE CATHOLIC CHURCH gave the world the Bible, and that they wouldn't even have one were it not for Her.

I find Bible-passages battles offensive because it makes it seem as if we are two "Bible-believers" just arguing over the interpretation of It and it makes it seem as if they actually believe in the Bible when they don't. I believe it is giving them too much credence or putting them in a place where they most certainly don't even belong, because the fact is that CATHOLICS wrote It and the Catholic Church decided which Books were going to constitute the Bible.

I'm not saying i would never quote passages to refute them all the more of course, but im just saying that i believe it is best to tell them to their faces from the start that they wouldn't even have a Bible were it not for the Church.

If they start thumping passages i would just keep asking them "Where did you get it?" until they answer.

I know a Protestant who doesn't believe in the Deutero-canonical books because supposedly there were many years of "silence" in Israel when nothing was written; they say there were 7 or 700 years of silence to account for these 7 Books so that's one reason i have heard they reject them.

I just wondered if they actually had some arguments against those facts so they don't cath me unawares, because if all they can do is start passage-thumping, then it is all the more easy.

The New Testament is based on the Septuagint version of the Old Testament. Luther preferred the Masoretic version because it doesn't include Maccabees with the reference to praying for the dead. The King James version is Masoretic. The same Authority that gave us the New Testament, endorsed the Septuagint.

:dancing-banana:  
Agree.  Do NOT allow yourself to be drawn into a "proof-texting" contest.  Nobody ever wins, even when the contest is between two Protestants.  But should you succeed in getting a Protestant to listen honestly, you will lose him if he discovers you don't "know your Bible."  Your average "devout" Protestant believes Catholics don't read the Bible or study it because the Church forbids it.  They are told that Catholics blindly obey their priests, who don't permit Bible study lest they discover the "truth" that the Church has kept secret in order to extort money and keep the people in fearful submission.  Ignorance of the Scripture "proves" to Protestants their errors concerning Catholicism are in fact, correct.

I agree. Even though all their "bibles" are heretical and corrupt translations, you can still refute them with the King James.

The irony!

When I explain the Catholic religion to Protestants I quote scripture. You can use their bible to explain the truth of the Catholic Faith.
 :reading: :reading: :reading:  

Blessed Vladimir Ghika proposed holiness as the indispensable means for promoting Christian unity.