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:

[caww]

....”They obviously worship a different Jesus Christ. They certainly teach a different gospel than the apostles taught. Is it any wonder they fear Sola Scriptura?”....

The Institution of Roman Catholicism is designed as just that now, it could go no other way but separate from the centrality of Jesus Christ to ‘something else’...just as the leadership did centuries ago, and continues today, as they departed from the truths of what is written in order to retain their political power and wealth....not to mention using their membership to maintain ‘the illusion’ that it is a Christian entity.

Nothings really changed from the leadership....except perhaps to become more and more secular. The hierarchy remains as is and those beneath it to carry the message of that authority to it's willing listeners.

Most all references to the order of the Catholic Church rarely show Jesus Christ as their head....it's always the Pope and or their Peter over him...and as often Mary sharing equal power with Jesus.....which itself reveals they are not under the Christ of the Bible.<

[joe fonebone]

i did not even have to read the article to know what this was about....

here it is in no uncertain terms...

if you want to incorporate your individual religious beliefs into the U.S. federal government..

you are at best a socialist, at worst a communist..

to clarify this further, if you believe a law should be passed so that i am forced to give up my personal freedom, then you are one of the worst communists ever to breathe upon this earth...

social(ist) conservatives are worse than communists, because communists beleive what they believe, social(ist)communists believe they are doing gods will...

show me where god tells his people to succcum to totaltarinism..

YOU people are totaltaianists...

flame me if you will

[jobim]

ONE NOTE SAMBA

This is just a little samba
Built upon a single note
Other notes are bound to follow
But the root is still that note

Now this new note is the consequence
Of the one we've just been through
As I'm bound to be
The unavoidable consequence of you

There's so many people
Who can talk and talk, and talk
And just say nothing
Or nearly nothing

I have used up all the scale
I know and at the end
I've come to nothing
I mean nothing

So I come back to my first note
As I come back to you
I will pour into that one note
All the love I feel for you

Any one who wants the whole show
Re mi fa so la ci do
He will find himself with no show
Better play the note you know

So I come back to my first note
I must come back to you
I will pour into that one note
All the love I feel for you

Any one who wants the whole show
Re mi fa so la ci do
He will find himself with no show
Better play the note you know

[LurkingSince'98]

Well at least we have never cursed you to Hell

If the shoe fits, wear it.

I think that by now you would have won the protestant ‘anathema merit badge’ with all your posts.

Ad Majoram Dei Gloriam

[LurkingSince'98]

it’s way more fun to watch you cut and paste for your faith.

AMDG

[af_vet_1981]

I need but change a few words to demonstrate John Bugay's erroneous assumption.

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 Jesus to argue that his conception of himself is right. If his conception of his own history and authority are right, then the evidences that he brings forth to support such contentions will be more than adequate to convince an unbelieving world.

[daniel1212]

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.”

The man is correct, and perceives the real issue, which is what the basis is for the veracity of Truth claims, that of the weight of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, or the premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.

The NT began under the former, while for Rome and RCs it is the latter, Thus notice a typical premise and trajectory in RC apologetics. In which if the RC does not simply engage in mere argument by question-begging assertion - that of claiming the Catholic church is the one true church and thus we cannot be right - then the RC attempts to support this assertion and or her traditions by Scripture.

Though the latter tactic may seem to infer that Scripture is the supreme determinative source for the RC, it is not, for church law is, meaning the church via its magisterium. But in condescension to "Bible Christians" he seeks to persuade us towards Rome by reliance upon Scripture, to the end that we may cease to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching by examination of evidences, which a faithful RC is not to do. For to do so would be to doubt the claims of Rome to be the assuredly infallible magisterium by which a RC obtains assurance of Truth.

But when the RC appeal to Scripture fails to be convincing, as in fact Scripture shows the critical contrast btwn the NT church and Rome, then the RC usually resorts to stating what others often begin with, that of the assertion that Rome is right and thus we cannot be. And that we are engaging in "private interpretation," which they (wrongly ) interpret 2Pt. 1:20 as disallowing.

For the fact is that RCs teach that one cannot even be sure what Scripture consists of, as well as what it means, apart from reliance upon Rome as the historical magisterium. Yet the church began because common souls rightly discerned both men and writings as being of God, even when the historical magisterium did not.

Some RCs also argue assert Rome gave us the Scriptures, and reason that if we believe in Scripture then we must believe the church of Rome in all other things it teaches. But which logic which would actually invalidate the NT church.

Other RCs recognize that to attempt to prove the validity of the Scriptures by the church and also the validity of the church and by the Scriptures would be circular. Thus more learned RCs must appeal to Scripture as merely historically accurate documents which shows Rome to be one true church.

However, if RCs allow that souls can discern that Rome is the one true church by by historically accurate documents then they must also allow that souls can discern that these historically accurate documents are inspired of God, as well thereby to discern that Rome is not what she claims.

And indeed

what the Scriptures reveals is that the NT church manifestly did not teach perpetual ensured magisterial infallibility, which is unseen and unnecessary in the life of the church, as is her separate class of believers distinctively titled "priests ," offering up "real" human flesh and blood as a sacrifice for sin, and literally consuming this to obtain spiritual life, around which act all else revolves, and looking to Peter as the first of a line of exalted infallible popes reigning over the church from Rome (which even Catholic scholarship provides testimony against), and a separate class of believers distinctively titled "saints," and praying to created beings in Heaven, and being formally justified by ones own sanctification/holiness, and thus enduring postmortem purifying torments in order to become good enough to enter Heaven, and saying rote prayers to obtain early release from it, and requiring clerical celibacy as the norm, among other things.

[daniel1212]

divinely instituted, of course. Thank you.

I think the first question I would ask you is, what is the basis for your assurance of truth?

For it seems that the RC argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16)

And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God. Does this fairly represent what you hold to or in what way does it differ?

[pgyanke]

The current thread and my experience with you clearly shows you have no interest in honest discussions. You and your cohorts pester Catholics to show where the Church gets Her authority. We show with Biblical citations that there is evidence of this authority being given Her by Christ Himself. Open to interpretation? Fine. Answered? Yes.

After we show you where the Church gets Her authority you then come back to note that the titles given to the referenced discussions don't mention Christ, just His Church. If you had actually read the links, you would see that Christ is mentioned as the source of the Church's authority throughout the arguments.

There is nothing to be gained in engaging you in conversation. You simply want to snipe and trap.

[Elsie]

YOU people are totaltaianists...

Wow!

This must be bad if Google® won't show it to you!

[Elsie]

if you want to incorporate your individual religious beliefs into the U.S. federal government..

Here in Indiana, our Muslim representative (Andre Carson) wants to make sexual perverts a protected class.

[Elsie]

Glad to help.

(It keeps you from challenging MY words though...)

[Elsie]

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

Only one small problem:

There was no HER to give authority to.

You guys sound like the Russians of old who claimed, retroactively, that all good inventions were made by Russians.

The only problem was...

History books.

[LurkingSince'98]

To what end would it be to challenge the words of a poor lost soul?

AMDG

[daniel1212]

Seriously... hardly a day or even a thread can go by without this very same challenge. It gets answered. You don't listen. It's your choice not to listen... but "crickets"?!

Actually in my vast collection of my saved replies as a regular in the RF (by God's grace), I only find one thread you ever responded to me in, and after refuting your attempt to support praying to created beings in Heaven, which is utterly absent in Scripture, you resorted to the extrapolative premise that Matt 16:18 and John 16:13 means Rome is the one true church, but you never responded to my simple question that challenges it. As we are not to carry debate from thread to thread, you can just answer the longer version regarding your premise and its presuppositions in post 48 on this thread .

All i see you doing is usually expressing the same old assertions or type of argumentation that have been often challenged and refuted here. We are not to continue past debates with a poster interactively from threads to threads, but i think if you care to affirm here the argumentation which you referred to here, most of which i usually see other RCs making, then i think we could deal with them again as a group. These include,

That Aramaic is determinative what Mt. 16:18 means and which is that Peter is the Rock, t despite what other researchers and the rest of Scripture says

That the fallible interpretation of Is. 22:15-23 speaks of Peter, not Christ if anyone in the secondary sense.

And the strawman that Protestant faith means that have have no appeal to ecclesiastical magisterium, despite what Westminster says, and that the invisible (in Scripture) RC magisterium is essential (even that the imprimatur means matters of faith and morals are in accordance with Catholic teaching),

That Peter was The spokesman for the apostles in Acts 15, but had no Scripture for him to cite (yet James did), and which somehow refutes SS, as if Scriptural substantiation was not the basis for this judgment, as if an explicit text is needed. And Peters counsel (proposal) is extrapolated into claiming Rome is filling in the "gaps" whenever teaching what is not taught in Scripture, even making the Assumption as binding doctrine when this fable is lacking even early historical testimony.

That the sole replacement of an apostle, Judas, translates into continued apostolic succession, and which translates into Catholic apostolic succession, versus leadership being thru presbuteros which were charged with being overseers. And that NT pastors are RC "priests," though nonexistent in Scripture, based upon the premise that there primary distinctive function was that of offering up the Eucharist a sacrifice for sin, though they are never even shown to do so in the life of the church, and preaching the word is said to be their primary distinctive function, by which souls are "nourished," nor is the Cath literalistic interpretation of the Lord's supper supported by the rest of Scripture, including in the life of the church, while only the metaphorical position easily conflates with it.

That Rome did not stifle the translation of the Bible into the languages of the people but was just keeping it safe, with the laity relying upon what was read and explained in Mass so as to preserve (cultic) unity.

That Rome has actual unity of faith, while "Protestant" is broadly defined, yet relegating liberal RCs as being excoms, based upon the interpretation of RC teaching by conservative RCs, despite how Rome shows what it believes by treating them as members in life and in death.

That the fallible RC interpretation of 1 Tim 3:15 means Rome is the church which is the one to settle discipline on church members (though it rarely does on her own).

That "he who receives anyone I send, receives Me" (John 13:20) uniquely means whom the Cath. church sends, and she uniquely has Binding and Loosing power, though this also was given to righteous believers besides presbuteros (not NT priests).

That Paul being consecrated for his mission by Ananias (Acts 9:17) supports the above, though Ananias was not conspicuously not even said to be an apostle or even a pastor, but simply as "a certain disciple" "a devout man."

That texts such as Matt 28:19-20 and Eph. 4:11 and the valid episkopate office, and such as Paul calling himself a spiritual father supports requiring RC priests to formally be called "fathers," which presupposes there was a distinctive class of believers titled "priests", and who were spiritual fathers since baptism effects regeneration.

That the Sola Scriptura viewpoint means that the Holy Spirit has not taught all things (as if the Holy Spirit has taught all things thru Rome) but has only been saying "read the Book," while SS does not hold that all that can be revealed from God is in Scripture. And that doctrines such as the "Rapture" contradict SS, as if eschatological interpretations are excluded under SS (this one misplacing the resurrection as a rapture), while other RCs say the "Rapture" is a product of SS, as if Rome herself is settled or necessarily correct in denying the literal 1,000 reign of Christ.

That the fact that a certain basis for determining the veracity of Truth claims results in disunity means it cannot produce unity, and is not Scriptural, and imagining that the RC alternative, that of sola ecclesia, based upon the premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, has produced unity, as per John 17:21, though that is what is basically truly seen among mature evangelicals, not RCs overall, while in fact it Roman unity is quite limited in scope and largely on paper, and is not the basis upon which the NT church began.

That 2 Peter 1:20 refers to interpreting Scripture, disallowing private revelation, but which itself is an invalid interpretation, as it refers to how Scripture was written, that being under Divine inspiration, and would require is interpretation to be under Divine inspiration if that is what it applies to, which cannot be said of Rome's teaching.

That 2 Thess 2:15 supports the basically bottomless pit of Cath amorphous oral tradition, as if Rome could prove on thing that Paul was referring to was taught in Cath tradition, and was not subsequently written down, as was the norm for anything called the word of God/the Lord. And that SS pastors cannot require obedience to their oral preaching of Scripture Truths.

And that Paul did appealed to Scripture, despite Scripture saying that was his manner, and giving examples among the Jews, (Acts 13; 17:2; 20:23) in preaching "the gospel of God, Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures." (Romans 1:1-2)

That the private instruction Christ gave to the Apostles is the Cath Deposit of Faith, and that John 20:30 and John 21:25 indirectly supports this, yet cults use the same tactic, while the fact is that the word of God/the Lord was normally written, even if sometimes first being spoken, and that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. As is abundantly evidenced

And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.)

That since the Bible Itself tells us it is not all-inclusive then there is no such thing as Sola Scriptura, but which imagines the sufficient aspect must wholly refer to formal sufficiency, excluding material sufficiency, and that SS claims the Scriptures contain all that can be revealed (versus what is necessary), and that this must be the case if a source is to be the only supreme standard for faith. Which thus presumes Rome has supplied all that can be revealed.

[caww]

Ok...so where's your response that the links you gave show otherwise then what I stated? There was no mention of Jesus Christ....so prove me wrong.

Instead you ranted on and on....as is typical to avoid what your links have clearly revealed which I as clearly stated. .... Further you added in this post that it's about “ this authority given Her by Christ Himself”.....once again showing that it's not about the Centrality of Jesus Christ, as Head of the body of believers in the catholic church, but “Something Else” has the authority Only HE alone has...

Jesus does not share His headship ...it is His and His alone. ALL authority is given TO HIM above all others.

Matthew 28:18 “All AUTHORITY is given unto me in heaven and earth” Philippians 2:10 ....“that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,.. in *heaven and on earth and under the earth*... and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.”

[Elsie]

To what end would it be to challenge the words of a poor lost soul?

One might become unlost.

[CynicalBear]

They have replaced Christ on earth with the pope.

[steve8714]

Blah blah. I was given a choice and I took it. I could’ve chosen to worship Xemu or Allah, but didn’t. If you spend all your time worried about magisteria, you’re probably not going to be a Catholic. Worry about the Apostle’s Creed, live as well as you can, let the devil take the magisterium.