Download: Refuting professor’s anti-Catholic objections


This is a refutation regarding some anti-Catholic statements that were made in a history class that I attend. The history class is based on ancient civilizations to the 16th century. The professor originally stated that the reason that the Catholic Mass used to be completely in Latin was because the Church did not want the people to understand what was going on, since the Church wanted to oppress the people. I refute this argument in my first response. In this response I describe the use of Latin in the Catholic Mass and why it continues to be used.

The professor then responded and gave further anti-Catholic objections which are addressed in the second response. The objections which the professor brings up in his response is that the Church has historically monopolized knowledge, as a means of social oppression. The professor further states that the Catholic Church has also historically supported the notion of the “Divine Rights of Kings” which is not a Catholic concept. I help refute both these two objections in my secondary response.

Up to this day the professor has not responded to my secondary response. Let us pray that it plants some seeds of conversion.


The professor never responded to this specific email. I wonder why? Nevertheless throughout the school year these historical inaccuracies did not end. Rather in one hand you can say that they became even more obnoxious. Many of these things are common objections against the Church, while others are not so. Others were allegations that had already been repeated earlier in the year. Amongst these historical inaccuracies  include the common case against the Church in regards to the Crusades, that the Church was a “monopolizer” of knowledge,” false allegations that the Church has changed its teachings in a variety of fields, and a host of other things.

This time I wrote something directed not at my teacher but at my fellow students.

refutal of professor for students

Categories: Uncategorized

2 replies »

Leave a Reply