Posted on 03/06/2003 12:40:07 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
But which one of the 3000 Protestant, and 1500 fundamentalist, denominations has the "unchanging" Word of God? Seems to me that there's a lot of disagreement as to what that Word means.
Simply go in and kill this guy, and liberate Iraq. We have no idea if in the process of saving the house we are going to demolish it or not, however, its the President judgment call. Do it or don't do it! Pay attention to world opinion, American public opinion, but forget the theology part, please!
30,000 Protestant Denominations--Revisited
It looks as though some Roman Catholic e-pologists are beginning to get it. Mario Derksen of "Catholic Insight" has written an article conceding that Roman Catholic apologists who perpetuate the notion that there are 20,000 + Protestant denominations are in error, unfair, or even dishonest, based on the research of my prior article "30,000 Protestant Denominations?" For that concession we can thank Mr. Derksen; he is to be commended for his integrity. I dare say, most Roman Catholic e-pologists would simply ignore the research and continue to perpetuate the error.
On the other hand, Mr. Derksen still has quite a way to go. He still wants to be able to use a modified form of the Roman Catholic argument by positing there are "countless" Protestant denominations and only one Roman Catholic denomination. In my prior article, I cite David Barrett’s work in this area which states that there are sixteen Catholic denominations with four major divisions, including (1) Catholic Pentecostals (Roman Catholic involved in the organized Catholic Charismatic Renewal); (2) Christo-Pagans (Latin American Roman Catholics who combine folk-Catholicism with traditional Amerindian paganism); (3) Evangelical Catholics (Roman Catholics who also regard themselves as Evangelicals); and (4) Spiritist Catholicism (Roman Catholics who are active in organized high or low spiritism, including syncretistic spirit-possession cults). Keep in mind that this is not something I conjured up out of my own head; rather it is what Barrett states—the very same person whom for years Roman Catholic apologists gleefully cited in support of their supposed 20,000 Protestant denominations figure. This little fact notwithstanding, Derksen responds as follows:
"This is the height of Svendsonian impertinence! Spiritist Catholics?? Christo-Pagans??? EXCUSE ME?!! These are supposed to be ‘Catholic denominations’???"
Derksen, at the end of it all, does acknowledge that these figures are "taken straight from Barrett," but cannot resist letting his emotions rule the day and ends up charging me with "impertinence." Remember, all I have done is set the record straight as far as what Barrett’s work really states, as opposed to the distortion of Barrett’s figures that has guided Roman Catholic apologetics for nearly a decade. Just because the Roman Catholic apologist doesn’t happen to like what those figures really say doesn’t mean those figures are incorrect, or that the person who actually cites the figures correctly is somehow "impertinent." Derksen continues:
"Well, in that case, I guess we'd have to readmit the marginal Protestants (JWs, Mormons, Adventists, etc.) into the fold of "Protestant denominations." We might add David Koresh-followers, satanic cults, and animists right to it, if this is the kind of standard Svendsen endorses."
Derksen has already conceded that Roman Catholic apologists have skewed Barrett’s figures; and here Derksen engages in a renewed attempt to skew them by suggesting that if we allow Spiritist Catholics and Christo-Pagans within Catholicism then we’d have to readmit "marginal Protestants" into the Protestant category. Unfortunately for Derksen, Barrett classifies the former as "Catholicism" while separating the latter two groups and treating them as different classifications. Derksen clearly does not like these figures, as is evident from his use of exclamation points. Clearly Derksen would like the case to be otherwise; but it is not. Derksen continues:
"While this list of four major divisions Svendsen has taken straight from Barrett, it seems clear in his essay that he himself is endorsing this categorization (at least nothing in his essay leads me to believe otherwise)."
I hope the reader does not miss the full weight of what’s being requested here. For the better part of a decade Roman Catholic apologists—including Derksen himself—have been gleefully citing an erroneous figure of 20,000 + Protestant denominations without even once taking the time to verify the accuracy of this figure. Let’s assume for the moment that they endorsed this figure under the honest albeit false assumption that the figure was accurate. Now they have been shown not only that they have been grossly misrepresenting the figure, but worse, that the very same source actually cites numerous Roman Catholic denominations. Now the tables have turned, and suddenly the Roman Catholic apologist chides us for—get this—accurately citing the source that they have been misquoting all these years. Does not true honesty and integrity dictate to the Roman Catholic that we allow the source to speak for itself and let the chips fall where they may? Where was all of this outrage and righteous indignation when they were endorsing the 20,000 + Protestant denomination error for so many years? Why should we suddenly dismiss Barrett’s findings just because we now know they don’t happen to favor the Roman Catholic apologist’s argument? Did someone mention the word "impertinence"?
The main reason I wrote my "30,000 Protestant Denominations?" article in the first place was to suggest to Roman Catholic apologists that they cease throwing stones while living in a glass house; that they cease using the 20,000 + Protestant denominations argument—or any equivalent, such as Derksen’s revised "countless Protestant denominations" argument—or suffer the consequences by having it thrown back in their faces. I have stated this principle in a number of venues, including my book, Evangelical Answers, Christian radio interviews (such as "The Bible Answer Man"), my forthcoming book, Upon This Slippery Rock, and, most recently, my article "30,000 Protestant Denominations?" Here is how I stated it in my article:
"In short, Roman Catholic apologists have hurriedly, carelessly—and, as a result, irresponsibly—glanced at Barrett’s work, found a large number (22,189), and arrived at all sorts of absurdities that Barrett never concluded. One can only hope that, upon reading this critique, Roman Catholic apologists will finally put this argument to bed."
Unfortunately, Derksen has indicated that he has no intention of putting this argument to bed—nor do I expect any Roman Catholic apologist to do so—hence, Barrett’s real figures are fair game. The question becomes, Why in the world would I not endorse Barrett’s figures? On what basis do I dismiss them? Just because some Roman Catholic apologist who doesn’t happen to like the figures thinks (on absolutely no authority) that they are wrong? Barrett clearly has done his homework as is evidenced from the massive volume he has written. No one else that I’m aware of even comes close to having done the meticulous research that he has. I’m perfectly willing to live with the Barrett’s true figures regarding denominational breakdowns, so long as they are applied across the board and so long as Roman Catholics are not picking and choosing which figures they are citing. A moment ago we gave Derksen and other Roman Catholic apologists the benefit of the doubt that they were citing the 20,000 + figure because they honestly thought this figure was accurate. Let’s test their mettle. If it truly was honesty that guided them in their perpetuation of an erroneous figure ("we’re just reporting the facts, and you Protestants will just have to live with it"), then let honesty guide them even more in perpetuating the correct figure—and yes, live with that figure even if they don’t happen to like it. That’s what honesty and integrity demands. We shall now see what Roman Catholic apologists are made of. Let’s continue with Derksen’s comments:
"Unlike Protestantism, the Catholic Church has doctrines that must be followed in order to be able to call oneself Catholic. Unlike Protestantism, a Catholic must be in communion with Rome, the Pope, and acknowledge his jurisdiction over all Catholic dioceses and orders. This is certainly not met by "Spiritist Catholics" and "Christo-Pagans," and for Svendsen to argue that these are two major divisions within Catholicism is just about the most absurd thing I've heard since I started doing apologetics in 1996."
First of all, let’s get it right: it is Barrett who makes these breakdowns. All I am doing is citing Barrett’s work. So if Derksen thinks they are "absurd," let’s be clear that it is not "Svendsen’s argument" he thinks absurd, but rather Barrett’s argument. Second, Derksen has resorted to an epistemological fallacy about which he has been corrected many times: "Unlike Protestantism, a Catholic must be in communion with Rome, the Pope, and acknowledge his jurisdiction over all Catholic dioceses and orders." So what? Unlike Roman Catholicism an Evangelical must uphold the Scriptures as the sole infallible authority and acknowledge its primacy over all true Christians and denominations. More on this later.
"What about "Evangelical Catholics"? This is another nebulous category Svendsen has drawn up in order to try to squeeze Catholicism through his denominations stencil."
Derksen again mischaracterizes the issue. If he can convince his readers that it is Svendsen who is making these charges, then maybe that will lessen the severity of the charges. Let me say it again, it is not Svendsen who makes these charges, it is Barrett—remember; the very same source that Derksen used to cite with glee? Suddenly Derksen’s source is "absurd," and creates "nebulous categories," and attempts to "squeeze Catholicism through his denominational stencil." One can almost hear a tone of desperation in Derksen as he attempts to project Barrett’s figures onto yours truly. Derksen continues:
"What in the world is a Roman Catholic who also regards himself as Evangelical? Your guess is as good as mine. Is it the kind of ‘Catholic’ who goes to Mass every now and then but also goes to Calvary Chapel and Promise Keepers? A refusal to reject the errors of Protestantism, and/or participation at Protestant meetings or ‘worship services’ makes one ipso facto a non-Catholic. There simply is no such thing, by definition, as an ‘Evangelical Catholic.’"
Perhaps Derksen should ask the webmaster of evangelicalcatholic.com what he means by the term, but I’m sure it has something to do with Vatican II (which council Derksen is not particularly fond of). Whatever the case, Barrett has indeed classified it, there are indeed "Evangelical Catholics," and Derksen’s denial of it amounts to nothing more than a pontificating of Derksen’s private (and uninformed) opinion. Derksen places himself in the position of pope, and simply declares for all Catholicism that there is no such thing as Evangelical Catholics. The better question might be, on what basis does Derksen think he has greater authority than Barrett or Vatican II to speak on these matters? More importantly, what leads him to believe that the rest of us would value his private opinion over the meticulous research of Barrett, or that we would look to him for official Roman teaching rather than to the official decisions reached by Rome at Vatican II?
"Lastly, there is also no such thing as a ‘Catholic Pentecostal.’ Unfortunately, the Catholic hierarchy has not condemned at this point what is now called the "charismatic renewal," but that doesn't make it right. . . . hence no Catholic may knowingly engage in the charismatic movement, even if the bishops have failed in their duty to oppose the errors being spread among Catholics this way. "
Here again we have nothing more than the same pontificating by Derksen as in our last quote. Let’s get this straight. By Derksen’s own admission, "the Roman Catholic hierarchy has not condemned at this point what is now called the ‘charismatic renewal’"; yet Derksen feels free to pontificate that "no Catholic may knowingly engage in the charismatic movement," and that "the bishops have failed in their duty to oppose the errors being spread among Catholics this way." Does anyone else see the strange irony here? The pope and the bishops have failed in their duties, and so the mantle of infallibility has fallen to . . . Mario Derksen, amateur e-pologist for "Catholic Insight"—a person Rome has never even heard of. He alone speaks for Rome when Rome won’t speak. Why should we believe that the Catholic Charismatic Renewal is wrong? Well, because Mario Derksen has spoken; the matter is closed. Isn’t this just a bit . . . what’s the word I’m looking for? . . . ah yes . . . "impertinent"? Let’s continue with Derksen’s comments:
"So there go Svendsen's ‘four major divisions.’ In fact, did you notice something? Svendsen did not include in his divisions the only real category there is: plain Roman Catholics!"
Again, the reader is reminded that these are not "Svendsen’s divisions"; they are Barrett’s divisions. And Derksen is betraying the fact that in spite of his research he did not read Barrett very closely. For if he did, he would know just why "plain Roman Catholics" are not included in this analysis. Barrett classifies "Roman Catholic" as one of the seven major "ecclesial blocs," on the same level as "Protestant," and under which falls countless Roman Catholic denominations. One may as well ask why Barrett didn’t include a category for "plain old Protestant" and make that a separate category from "Protestant." In other words, there is no such thing as Derksen’s "plain Roman Catholic"—a category under which Derksen thinks he falls, when in reality he falls under Traditional Roman Catholic, an extremely small minority branch within Roman Catholicism. Derksen continues by commenting on four additional divisions within Roman Catholicism that I cite in my article: namely, moderate Roman Catholics, Conservative Roman Catholics, Traditionalist Roman Catholics, and Sedevacantist Roman Catholics:
"Now, here at least Svendsen is mentioning some true and existing distinctions. But these aren't denominations. They're the result of the current crisis in the Church, a crisis of such immense proportions that different faithful Catholics have divided into camps that can, in principle, easily be merged together again--namely, by an authoritative pronouncement by the Pope."
Interestingly enough, I cite these groups apart from Barrett (who does not mention them). And so as it turns out, the only groups that come from my own "impertinent" analysis are also the only groups Derksen sees as true and legitimate distinctions. But, at the end of the day, these are not "denominations," mind you. God forbid. Rather they are "camps." Pray tell, what in the world is the difference? A tagline? These "camps" are somehow viewed by Derksen as "legitimate" since they can "in principle" (though not in reality) be "easily" merged together. Derksen is betraying just a tad bit of naiveté here. If this merging is so "easy," why hasn’t it been done? Something as all-important as the unity of the church, for which Jesus himself prayed, should in the true church be an issue of first priority, shouldn’t it? After all, isn’t this the very thing that distinguishes the true church from all those Protestant divisions? Derksen says this can be done "in principle." So what? So too can Protestants be united in principle, if all Protestants just decided to heed the Bible. The proof is in the pudding. For every instance where the Roman Church has attempted to define an issue—once for all—it has resulted in even more divisions. When Rome decided to define the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son during the filioque controversy, it resulted in the Great Schism of the eleventh century. When Trent defined the "gospel" in the sixteenth century, it ipso facto excluded from the fold those who believe in justification by faith alone; hence, it created Protestantism (Luther had no wish to leave the Roman church; he was forced out). When the pope proclaimed that he was infallible at Vatican I, it resulted in the formation of the Old Catholic Church. And when Vatican II defined the new evangelism, it resulted in a host of new groups, including Sedevacantists, Traditionalists, Moderates, Charismatic Catholics, and Conservative Catholics, among others. So when Derksen comes along and claims that the current divisions within Roman Catholicism can be "easily merged," I can conclude nothing less than that Derksen is just a tad bit historically uninformed. Indeed, Derksen himself, who claims to be a Traditionalist, takes issue with the decisions reached at Vatican II. Gerry Matatics thinks those decisions will one day be overturned. These are opinions reached by Roman Catholics after an ecumenical council (Vatican II) has spoken. In other words, Roman Catholics don’t change their opinions and "merge together" after Rome speaks; rather they conclude that perhaps Rome has not really spoken, or that the seat of Peter must be currently vacant, or some other such thing that allows them to continue to believe what they really want to believe. Let’s continue with Derksen’s comments:
"I have no idea precisely whom Svendsen means by ‘moderate Roman Catholics,’ but I presume it's the modernists, like Raymond Brown, Richard McBrien, and Karl Rahner (nothing ‘moderate’ about them. They're not Catholics because they're modernists)."
Just as a point of fact, the term "moderate" is a term that Roman Catholic scholars widely use of themselves. Once again, Derksen has pontificated that these are "not Catholics," even though their works bear the nihil obstat and the imprimatur, and even though many of them have been officially recognized by Rome by virtue of their being chosen to serve on the Pontifical Biblical Commission, or to teach at Roman universities and seminaries, or by service in other official Roman capacities. It hardly needs mentioning that, in stark contrast, none of Derksen’s writings bear the nihil obstat or the imprimatur, and no one from Rome has ever asked Derksen his opinion in the settling of disputes. Why Derksen would expect anyone to give any weight to his private pontification that such and such person—who, after all, has been embraced by Rome, whose writings bear official stamps of Roman approval, and who has even served on the Pontifical Biblical Commission—is not really Catholic is really quite baffling. So now we’re to believe that Derksen not only speaks for Rome when Rome won’t speak; but he also speaks for Rome when he deems Rome to be in need of correction. Let’s continue:
"Sedevacantist Catholics, as such, are not Catholic because they do not acknowledge the rightful Pope as the Pope. "
But this is the very point at issue. The Sedevacantists would argue that Derksen is not really a Catholic because he’s been duped into believing in the legitimacy of the current pope. Again, we are left with nothing weightier than Derksen’s private pontification. Hopefully, Derksen will absolve those of us who require just a bit more than that. Let’s continue:
"The only real division between Catholic exists in the so-called ‘conservative vs. traditional’ Catholics."
Ah yes; Derksen has defined "Roman Catholicism" by the process of elimination, leaving us with the two smallest groups within Roman Catholicism, both of whom are considered to be on the far right-wing fringe by nearly all the other Roman Catholic denominations that Derksen, by private pontification, declares are "not really Catholic." What’s really ironic is Derksen’s subsequent statement later in his article:
"Of course Svendsen can define ‘true Protestants’ ever more and more narrowly, until in the end it's only his own convictions that would remain as a ‘single ecclesiastical tradition.’"
The careful reader will note, however, that this is precisely what Derksen has done with his own denomination of Rome; paring it down further and further till all that is left are Traditionalists and Conservative Catholics—and then accusing someone else of doing the same. Psychologists call this "projection." Let’s continue:
"Ah! We got it now. Only Evangelical Protestants are true Sola Scriptura believers! That's certainly something non-Evangelical Protestants would like to hear. The fact of the matter is that every Protestant denomination will tell you that their version of Sola Scriptura is correct. Sola Scriptura is such a shaky principle that the very people who hold to it can't even agree on a definition of that very principle! (E.g., does it mean the Bible is the sole authority or merely the highest authority? Etc.) How about that! Mr. Svendsen won't get away with this sort of argument. There are plenty of Protestants out there who are not Evangelicals and still believe in Sola Scriptura. And it is entirely unwarranted of Svendsen to suggest that these are liberals who only hold to Sola Scriptura as a formality."
Not that any of this matters. Evangelicals don’t claim to be a monolith as Derksen claims Rome is (by the way, for anyone interested in a contrary view of monolithic Catholicism, the reader might refer to Mark Shea’s article, where Derksen's notion is contradicted by a fellow Roman Catholic). Yet Derksen is simply wrong. Liberal denominations do in fact treat sola scriptura as a mere formality, and they’ll be the first ones to admit it. Ask them if the Bible is a trustworthy source of truth, and the answer will reveal whether they hold to the Scriptures as the sole infallible rule of faith. That is what sola scriptura means; and despite Derksen’s careless statement to the contrary, there are not many definitions of sola scriptura. The examples that Derksen provides ("does it mean the Bible is the sole authority or merely the highest authority?") reveals that Derksen is wholly ignorant of what we mean by sola scriptura. It means neither of these; rather it means that the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith for the believer. Liberals ipso facto deny this because they deny infallibility. It has nothing to do with "highest authority" or "sole authority"—no informed Protestant would ever argue that. Let’s continue:
"By the way, Barrett offers the following distinctions among Evangelicals. There are "Conservative Evangelicals, Conciliar Evangelicals, and Fundamentalists," which he then goes on to define (Barrett, 71)."
So now we’ve pared down the number from 20,000 + denominations, to countless denominations, to three denominations within Evangelicalism—which, after all, is true Christianity. Now Derksen is finally beginning to work with real distinctions. He’s already conceded at least two divisions within Roman Catholicism, so he can hardly fault Evangelicalism for having three. Let’s continue:
"The fundamental problem of Protestantism (which Catholicism doesn't share) is, quite simply, the lack of an authority that can make binding pronouncements and decisions."
Is that a fact? We’ve already addressed what happens if and when Rome makes "binding pronouncements." All it results in are still more divisions. Mormon's have the "authority" to make binding pronouncements on their followers. So do Jehovah's Witnesses. And both of these groups do it with much more unifying success than Rome! Does that somehow prove that either of these has an authority model we should emulate? All Derksen has done here is to place Rome on par with cults. Let’s continue:
"It is especially those little "Bible churches" that you can find almost anywhere that are the practical result of Sola Scriptura. And that's what got the whole issue started, remember?"
What Derksen fails to mention is that among all "those little Bible churches" there is not a dime’s worth of difference in doctrine and practice. The so-called "divisions" have to do solely with a shared belief that the NT promotes the autonomy of local churches. All of them heartily embrace each other as brothers in Christ. This is much different from the deep rifts we find among Roman Catholics who, although they share the same denominational name, consign each other to the pit of hell (as we’ve already seen Derksen do with almost every group in Catholicism that is not a Traditionalist group). Let’s continue:
"The reason Catholic apologists have pointed to the countless Protestant denominations was to show how Sola Scriptura does not work and breeds anarchy. So it seems to me more than fair to include in a denominations count precisely those little denominations that have split from larger ones on alleged biblical grounds."
Fair enough. And now that we know the true denominational count of Roman Catholicism, it’s fair game to turn this same point back on our Roman Catholic friends. When we do that, however, they clearly don’t like it very much. Let’s continue:
"While these grounds may not be valid, that's not the point. The point is that using Sola Scriptura, such split-ups are justified and demonstrate the principle in action. And that is the sad reality the Protestant apologist needs to deal with!"
Yes, and as we have already shown, each time Rome has defined an issue the result has been just as many—if not more—"split-ups." Rome is divided when she doesn’t define dogma, and she’s even more divided when she does. That is the principle of sola Roma in action! And that is the sad reality the Roman Catholic apologist needs to deal with. Let’s continue:
"So whether it's 20,000 denominations or, say (to keep it really low), only 500, the Protestant still has the same dilemma. He either has to sacrifice Sola Scriptura (in which case he'd have to cease to be a Protestant) or acknowledge that Sola Scriptura does lead to disunity and that's just the way it is, and that's how God wanted it. Of course, this is a dilemma since neither option is a real option for the Protestant."
Derksen never seems to learn from his own points. If Protestants are in a dilemma, then Roman Catholics are in just as much of a dilemma. Let’s rephrase the same dilemma for the Roman Catholic by changing just a few words: "Whether it's 8,000 Roman denominations or, say (to keep it really low), only 223, the Roman Catholic still has the same dilemma. He either has to sacrifice sola Roma (in which case he'd have to cease to be a Roman Catholic) or acknowledge that sola Roma does lead to disunity and that's just the way it is, and that's how God wanted it. Of course, this is a dilemma since neither option is a real option for the Roman Catholic." There; that was easy enough. Let’s continue:
"Anybody can, for any reason he deems scriptural, split into a new camp and start a new denomination, all "Bible-based" of course. Protestantism breeds this kind of disunity."
Again, a simple rephrasing of the words and we can stick this one back in the face of the Roman Catholic apologist: "Anybody can, for any reason he deems to be the ‘official’ Roman teaching, split into a new camp and start a new Roman denomination, all ‘Roman Catholic-based,’ of course. Roman Catholicism breeds this kind of disunity." There again; easy enough. Let’s continue:
"An example: there are some Protestants who believe it is wrong to use musical instruments during their worship service ("Church of Christ" is an example, I believe). Presumably, they believe this based on what the Bible says. Thus, they severed from their previous denomination, which would not accept that. And on and on it goes."
This is beginning to become tiresome, but let’s rephrase it one more time: "An example: there are some Roman Catholics who believe it is wrong for the sacristy to be located any place but directly behind the altar. There are others who believe that using altar girls is wrong. Still others believe lay-ministers are not to administer the Eucharist. Still others believe that the mass should be sung, not spoken—and in some cases the singing should be in other languages than English (the Byzantine church comes to mind). Still others believe that the Eucharist should be placed on the tongue and not in the hand. Still others believe that it's wrong for the music during mass to be led by guitars and drums. We could go on and on and on with this. One need only peruse through Peter Stravinskas' Q&A section in the latest edition of Our Sunday Visitor's 'The Catholic Answer' to see the extent of the confusion that abounds in Roman Catholic belief about these things.
Presumably, all of these Roman Catholics believe what they believe based on the "true" teachings of Rome. Thus, they severed from their previous Roman denomination which would not accept their current beliefs. And on and on it goes." See how well two can play at this game? Let’s continue:
"There is no living authority in Protestantism that can say, ‘The buck stops here. This goes, and this doesn't.’ But THAT is the problem Svendsen must address. Instead, he's spent much time trying to argue Catholics have the same problem. Not only is that false, as pointed out, it is also not an answer to the question."
I do hope the reader can now see just how incongruent Derksen’s comments are in light of all we’ve covered. No "living authority"? Au contraire; the word of God is "living" and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword (Heb 4:12). The Holy Spirit illuminates and leads us into truth, and prevents us from falling prey to rank heresies (1 John 2:20-22, 26-27--I've already explained this phenomenon in the "Concluding Thoughts" of another article, and the reader is referred there). That is why neither Derksen nor any other Roman Catholic apologist can produce even one doctrinal difference among Evangelicals that we would consider an "essential" tenet of the faith. Instead, they must resort to differences in church practice (whether one church uses musical instruments and another does not is hardly something to anathematize anyone over), or infant baptism, or some detail of Christ's presence at the Lord's Supper--things which none of us views as essential teachings. With Roman Catholicism, however, it is a much different story. Roman Catholics are allowed to believe in macro evolution, that the Scriptures contain errors, that the gospel accounts are examples of theological redaction rather than historical accounts, etc.; things which we as Evangelicals can outright condemn based on our common belief in the Scriptures as our final infallible authority, but which Roman Catholics cannot condemn because, like it or not, those within the Roman church who embrace these things have themselves been embraced by Rome. And so, at the end of the day, the Roman Catholic can’t be certain about anything he believes as a Roman Catholic because each of those cherished beliefs have been challenged at one level or another by one group or another, each of whom claims to be in communion with Rome. How about that for a dilemma! Let’s continue:
"And until Mr. Svendsen will actually deal with the fact of doctrinal anarchy due to Sola Scriptura, the Catholic defense rests."
Let’s be very clear. The only thing that has "rested" is Derksen’s ability to grasp the glaring double standard that he poses to the Protestant. We can thank Derksen for his candid admission that the 20,000 + Protestant denominations argument has been nothing more than a disingenuous distortion of facts; but neither he nor we should stop there. As I mentioned earlier, honesty and integrity dictates that Derksen—as well as all other Roman Catholic apologists—do the right thing now that the cat is out of the bag, and own up to the real numbers—letting the chips fall where they may—without attempting to dismiss them, downplay them, or engage in yet more "creative" interpretations of those same figures. That will be the true test of the Roman Catholic apologetic mettle.
Eric Svendsen
HERE [Click on Catholic Corner]
and
Those who are interested in arming themselves with the facts will read it and keep it for future reference.
I can imagine how irritating it is for the intellectually dishonest not to be able to get away with peddling propaganda and disinformation. I feeeeeeel their pain. Hahahahaha
They will be redefined as being heretics or something akin to that.
I tend to think the Pope himself is just sadly mistaken for whatever reason. I don't think he is an evil man himself. Perhaps he has bad advisors... I don't know.
It is terribly frustrating though, considering how many many people lean on his every word.
Hmmm... let's see:
- Formerly in a position of power (for too long), and now just likes to mouth-off inappropriately.
- A champion of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policies for gay seminarians.
- Obstructionist to the core and an enemy of justice.
- The press hangs on his every word.
Dang... this guy reminds me of somebody...
I consider myself to be first and foremost a Catholic-"the Kings good servant but God's first" and I ultimately will answer to Jesus Christ, not President Bush or public opinion.
To me it boils down to a question of authority. Obviously this is a protestant nation (largely) which rejects the authority of the Pope. So to me, leaving the 'theology' out of it seems to be impossible.
The problem that I have is the slanderous things people who disagree with the Pope are saying. Disagreement I could care less about, the nasty filthy things that people say about the Holy Father I have issue with.
The fact that that was a commandment given to Israel does not negate the fact that there are times and circumstances when God not only condones a war, but commands that war be made on certain people and nations. The mantra of "would Jesus drop bombs" is phony and morally bankrupt and is spouted by people who do not know God or the Person He really is and who attempt to use Him to support a ideology that is in complete opposition to Him and everything He has said or done.
The Pope, who supposedly is the vicar of Christ on earth, needs to either be prepared to back up his statements on this war with Scripture or stay silent. He does a diservice to the God who he claims to represent to say that the war is "unjust and illegal" when that is not necessarily the position of Jesus Christ at all.
There is a difference between dealing with something ineffectively and allowing it. And there is an even bigger difference between dealing with a behaviour ineffectively and encouraging it. A simple example is our ineffective way of dealing with child abuse. No one encourages it, yet it continues. There are many other simple examples of this but anyone beyond elementary school education ought to already know it.
I trust you do know of this difference yet you ignore it due to your religious bigotry but maybe that assumption is incorrect. I would like to believe that.
My challenge to you remains, prove your allegation that the Catholic hierarchy "allows and encourages the rape of children" by the common meaning of those words or have the decency to retract it.
Your hubris is extreme.
The word I should have used is "enabled" in regards to the church hierarchy, and denial, in regards to your blind obedience and rather large ego.
Have a nice weekend.
Oh, i agree, if you want to be consistent with your beliefs. The trouble comes when people believe things that are not true.
I concur. However, there have been a few Popes in the past who have lived up to those slanderous things. I do not believe the present Pope rises to this level (or shall I say 'sinks to this level?' Neither phrase seems to work for me...) but then the mission becomes to educate people on the differences between those kinds of Church leaders in the past, and what the present Pope is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.