Thumbs up or thumbs down on Rome?

Reformation500 ^ | February 23, 2010 | John Bugay

[RnMomof7]

One commenter said:

The way you write, I guess, seems to me to reveal a near certainty concerning the falsity of Catholic Doctrine. It seems as though you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Catholicism simply couldn’t be true. And you’re willing to hang everything on that confidence.

Too often, an argument is put forth in this form: “Protestantism has lots of problems. Therefore, Catholicism.”

I once looked at it this way myself. I was hanging around some close friends who were starting a fellowship for “completed Jews,” — that is, these were all Jewish people who had become believers, and they first started an informal fellowship, and then a church. But by this second phase, they were getting hung up on issues of leadership, church structure, etc. There were a lot of different ways they could have done this, but their disagreements over such issues led me to say, “the Catholic church has already been through these kinds of issues; they have decided upon a resolution to them, so I’m going home to Rome.” And that’s just what I did.

Francis Turretin, at the beginning of Volume 3 of his three volume “Institutes” states, in summary form, he says that Protestants (rightly) look to Scripture, and they determine what “the true faith” is by studying and understanding what the Scriptures say on a doctrine-by-doctrine, or point-by-point basis. And this needs to be done.

But Catholics, Turretin says, simply sweep all of this aside with one motion. They say, “We are The Church, and we decide what ‘the true faith’ is.”

And I think that the imbalance in this form of argumentation accounts for many of the misunderstandings that continue to occur in these types of discussions in our day.

In Turretin’s time, Roman polemicists attempted to prove their position. They argued, for instance, that the Roman church had never changed, that it was the Protestants who introduced novelty into the ongoing sweep of church history.

But by Newman’s time, Newman was realizing that Rome, too, had (“seemingly”) introduced “difficulties” — that neither Rome nor the Protestant churches adhered to the 5th century Vincentian rule: “what was believed always, everywhere, by all.” In fact, he summarily dismissed this as unworkable for both parties.

However, the position that Turretin noticed Roman polemicists were arguing for, “We are The Church, and we decide what ‘the true faith’ is,” was in Newman’s formulation, merely an assumption. That is, Newman assumed (and taught Roman polemicists to assume) that the authority structure that was present in his day, was “in some way” the same authority structure that was in place in the 2nd, 7th, and subsequent centuries.

My thought is that this assumption must not be allowed to stand unchallenged. And especially in the face of such historical evidence as I’ve presented — the historians I’ve cited DO present an alternative church structure that is far more viable, because it is based on real-life evidence that has been discovered.

So what I want to do is to really change the terms of the argument. To bring it out of Newman’s world of fuzzy assumptions, and to force Rome to argue that its conception of itself is right. If its conception of its own history and authority are right, then the evidences that it brings forth to support such contentions will be more than adequate to convince an unbelieving world.

My contention is that it cannot do so. My contention is that the work that I am presenting is also known to “the Magisterium” at Rome. The mere fact that “the Magisterium,” even the CDF, is conceding that “we are conscious of development in the primacy” is a huge historical concession. If Luther and Calvin had had a concession like that, the course of the Reformation could have been different.

We have that kind of concession today. It was forced by historical evidence.

People now need to ask the one question: “Did the Roman church come by its authority in a legitimate way?” Was its authority “divinely instituted,” as  it never tires of reminding us that it is? Or was this authority accumulated through less-than-honest means?

Looking at the early history of the papacy, and the evidence we have of how it came about, I don’t see that the answer to this question is in doubt.

Share this:

[CatherineofAragon]

"Maybe your ‘catholic’ friends are some of the folks mentioned in this article who oppress the Catholic Church and her faithful bishop."

Yeah, they do a lot of oppressing. It's a hobby with them. In fact, one of them recently decided not to go on vacation; she said to me, "Why go to the beach when I can stay home and oppress me some bishops?"

Tell me, do people run when they see you coming?

[LurkingSince'98]

You said it can’t possibly happens because you know some Catholics who...

You canno’t possibly, not even remotely know what it is to be Catholic ... because you aren’t Catholic.

Thinking you are ‘in the know’ doesn’t make it so.

It still cracks me up that little old Protestant you, knows more about Catholicism and what a Catholic experiences, than a lifelong faithful Catholic.

Protestants are funny - you think you’re Catholic.

For the Greater a Glory of God

[Religion Moderator]

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

Mindreading is a form of making it personal.

[editor-surveyor]

.
Catholics have been trashing and killing the true followers of Yeshua since catholics first showed up in the 4th century.

The “theology” of my “church” is nothing but the pure word of God.

There is zero authority given to any ‘church’ by the word.

Yeshua has only his ancient assembly that dates back to Abraham; he has no church.
.

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “ We show with Biblical citations that there is evidence of this authority being given Her by Christ Himself.” <<

.
Abominable falsehood!

Yeshua has no church! He has only the assembly that his Father gave him, which dates back to Abraham.

Matthew 16:18 speaks not of a ‘church’ but of that assembly that he would expand on the professed faith of his apostles.

Catholicism is built upon the Nicolaitanism for which Yeshua declared his hatred.
.

[editor-surveyor]

Posting links to threads based on pure falsehood is no argument at all.
.

[LurkingSince'98]

Listen your Protestantt right?

When was the last time you presumed to know whether a Catholic was or was not oppressed?

If you did presume to know whether a Catholic was not oppressed, not being Catholic - wouldn’t you be guilty of mind reading?

That is exactly was the poster is saying but it must be ok for her to do because she’s Protestant!

TYPICAL RM DOUBLE STANDARD!

If a Protestant says it - it must be ok.

If a Catholic says it - it must be Mind reading.

You obviously did not read any of the posts leading up to this.

AMDG

[LurkingSince'98]

That’s nice.

AMDG

[LurkingSince'98]

Every single time some Protestant tells me what I believe when then do not know what I believe - I am going to tell them that ‘they think they’re Catholic’ by presuming to tell me what I believe.

I am going to say that EVERY SINGLE TIME.

You can call it mind-reading.

I call it a Catholic calling a spade a spade.

So ban me.

AMDG

[editor-surveyor]

I call it a catholic without a leg to stand on.

YMMV.

[editor-surveyor]

.
The magisterium lives absolutely rent-free in the condemnation of the lake of fire.

[LurkingSince'98]

Oppression of Catholics is nothing new - this from the 1500s in England.

The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England by Eamon Duffy is an excellent study of the Protestant reformation in England by a top-notch historian. Mr. Duffy has delved deeply into the period’s primary sources including hundreds of church logs, primers, manuals, wills, and diaries. An intellectual tour de force, it is accessible to the average reader.
“The Stripping off the Altars by Eamon Duffy

The Stripping of the Altars is the story of traditional Catholics desperately trying to preserve their faith against tyrannical rulers who tear down their altars, change the language of their Mass, mock their devotions, destroy their statues, and decimate their liturgical year. It is a tale of courage amid great tragedy and it proves that the Faith in England was stolen, not lost. Most of all it presents the beauty and power of traditional Roman Catholicism.
The Stripping of the Altars is a wonderful examination of the faith of medieval Englishmen and it is an excellent complement to Cranmer’s Godly Order by Michael Davies.
The main thesis of Duffy’s book is that the Roman Catholic faith was in rude and lively health prior to the English Reformation. Duffy’s argument was written as a counterpoint to the prevailing historical belief that the Roman Catholic faith in England was a decaying force, theologically spent and unable to provide sufficient spiritual sustenance for the population at large.

Taking a broad range of evidence (accounts, wills, primers, memoirs, rood screens, stained glass, joke-books, graffiti, etc.), Duffy argues that every aspect of religious life prior to the Reformation was undertaken with well-meaning piety. Feast days were celebrated, fasts solemnly observed, churches decorated, images venerated, candles lit and prayers for the dead recited with regularity. Pre-Reformation Catholicism was, he argues, a deeply popular religion, practised by all sections of society, whether noble or peasant. Earlier historians’ claims that English religious practice was becoming more individualised (with different strata of society having radically different religious lives) is contested by Duffy insisting on the continuing ‘corporate’ nature of the late medieval Catholic Church, i.e. where all members were consciously and willingly part of a single institution.

AMDG

[LurkingSince'98]

It is funny that you care what I think.

[ebb tide]

If you did presume to know whether a Catholic was not oppressed, not being Catholic - wouldn’t you be guilty of mind reading?

Pope Pius XII wasn't Jewish, but he sure did know the Jews in Europe were being "oppressed" by the Nazis. Was Pope Pius XII mind reading?

[editor-surveyor]

.
What’s funny is that you seem to think that anyone cares what you think.
.