Pope Eugene IV, (1388-1447) - Papal bull, 1441, Cantate Domino. "It [the Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart 'into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels' [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."[emphasis mine] Another papal bull that has been explained away despite its plain meaning. Casting our minds back to my entry "On Debating Catholics" this calls for one of those "how about something from after light bulbs were invented!" defenses. More clever apologists will invoke the, "well, of course this is true, but you have to understand the subtle nuance; all people who are saved are saved by the Catholic Church even if they don't know it." You know the drill. So much for "firmly believing" anything. |
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Pope Eugene IV, (1388-1447) - Papal bull, 1441, Cantate Domino
Monday, February 7, 2011
Egypt, Luther, Europe, Garibaldi and the Popes
Islam doesn't need to be reformed (back to what?), it needs to be defeated.
Garibaldi and Victor Emmanuel II led an army to defeat the forces of the Pope (Pius IX) and liberate the last of the Papal States in Italy. To accomplish this, the French military had to leave and the Pope had to surrender (which he did while railing against Garibaldi and the forces of liberation). Rome and the Vatican came under united Italian control and remained as such until the Church signed an accord in 1929 with Mussolini giving Vatican City back to the Pope and making Catholicism the official religion of Italy.
Garibaldi and Victor Emmanuel II led an army to defeat the forces of the Pope (Pius IX) and liberate the last of the Papal States in Italy. To accomplish this, the French military had to leave and the Pope had to surrender (which he did while railing against Garibaldi and the forces of liberation). Rome and the Vatican came under united Italian control and remained as such until the Church signed an accord in 1929 with Mussolini giving Vatican City back to the Pope and making Catholicism the official religion of Italy.
Europe was once dominated by a religious belief that secular governments should be subject to religious authorities (The Catholic Church). This held true for centuries (and there are still a few nations around the globe with "official religions" of the state).
Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: 'Put up thy sword into thy scabbard' [Mt 26:52]. Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered for the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest. - Unam Sanctam - Bull of Pope Boniface VI
It is Error (sin) to believe
- Kings and princes are not only exempt from the jurisdiction of the Church, but are superior to the Church in deciding questions of jurisdiction.
- The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.
- In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship - Syllabus of Errors (1864) - Pope Pius IX
"We hear that you forbid torture as contrary to the laws of your land. But no state law can override canon law, our law. Therefore I command you at once to submit those men to torture.
- Pope Clement V's rebuke of King Edward II
The examples are many.
Islam does not have a significant element which recognizes a separation of the civil from the secular. There is no significant movement from within to challenge that. Certainly there are no Islamic armies prepared to fight against the idea of Sharia Law.
When just about everybody in a faith system agrees that Islam cannot be separated from the civil authority, you will have a government hostile to liberty… just as you had in Europe for centuries.
The idea that Islamists want “freedom” in the same way we do is based on little to no evidence. Let me illustrate using an innocuous “Christian” example in America…
Let’s say the governor of Pennsylvania started taxing the Amish in an extreme way. Let’s say he sent in secret police to spy on them. Eventually it gets too much and the Amish declare independence from PA and the governor backs off… will the results be that the Amish change their belief system? Will they liberalize their theology merely because the PA government is now gone? Nope. They’ll just go back to being Amish.
Just because Egyptians don’t want to be controlled by a dictator does not mean that they suddenly are a “democratic” people. A large faction just wants to trade a tyrannical secular dictator for a theocratic dictator.
Rising up against one man doesn’t mean a people won’t readily be ruled by another. In Europe’s history, a revolt against one king (or Pope) just led to the crowning of another. What Egypt needs is a Garibaldi, one who will unite a people and raise an army to defeat a religious doctrine that subjected citizens to religious dictates. But one would have to rise out of a competing theological system (such as the theologies that prevailed in America at the time of writing of our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution) which does not exist in any significant way in Islam.
The best hope for Egypt is that the influence of England has taken root somwhere deep in her heart. For all the bad that colonization has been charged with (and surely some of the criticisms are valid), many of the advancements in medicine, sanitary conditions, living conditions and personal liberty in former British colonies can be traced to the influence of England.
Egypt does not need a Luther, they need a Garibaldi. The Catholic Church's doctrines have never been "reformed", she had to be defeated.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
On Debating Catholics
Twenty Years in Christ Alone
2011 marks my 20th year of being a Bible-believing Christian. I stayed in the Catholic Church for a short period trying to juggle the two systems to make them work before leaving in 1992. I just knew too much! My journey to the truth (written elsewhere) involved me, starting from the Catholic side, investigating the issues and scriptures which confronted those in the Catholic-Evangelical debate. In that process I came under the conviction of God for my sin and acknowledged the perfect work of Christ on Calvary. I moved from one side of the aisle to the other.
Having been on the Catholic side for years, I wasn't able to kid myself for long. I knew that never the twain shall meet. Having taken on evangelicals, I knew all the standard defenses/attacks... and was not surprised that when I entered the fray from the other side, I ran into the same tactics I had employed many times myself.
My conundrum had come down to me "studying to show myself approved unto God" or bowing my intellect and reason to men who claimed to be the only ones capable of understanding matters of faith or capable of understanding scripture. I chose the former.
Recognize the Pattern?
As a former Catholic Religious Education Teacher and apologist (with a small "a"), I am quite familiar with how many Roman Catholics debate certain issues. I've come to expect certain things and since I fell victim yet again today to one of these rabbit trails, I've decided to help others who might venture into the land of debate with a list of things to expect.
This is certainly not an exhaustive piece designed as an apologetic, rather it is written for my fellow ex-Catholics (or anyone who has ventured into the fray) who have had to suffer the logical acrobatics of our Catholic family and friends when trying to discuss theological matters. Since I have encountered the following arguments/tactics in almost every setting over the last 20 years, I am certain that my experience is not unique (especially since I employed the same tactics when I was a Catholic).
Often you're lucky if you actually get to the debate stage... just quoting Popes and Councils (quoting!) got me banned from ChristianForums.com and very often quoting directly from Popes and Councils (with source) will buy you the unbelievable charge of "Catholic-basher" and "bigot." And there is no defense to such attacks as it is impossible to prove a negative. I find it interesting that EWTN references the First Vatican Council... when I try that I get savagely attacked or dismissed?
So here we go...
1. You're Not Catholic or You're Just an Angry Ex-Catholic
Just today, after referencing a couple of Popes and Councils, I was dismissed as someone who really can't say anything since I'm not Catholic. Upon noting that I have 12 years of Catholic religious training and that I taught Religious Education classes in two churches... I am then dismissed because I'm just a "disgruntled ex-Catholic with a vendetta" (and similar).
2. 2000 Years of Wisdom or How About Quoting Something From THIS Century!
I usually run into this one when debating multiple Catholics. One Catholic will be dismissing me because I'm from a johnny-come-lately "church" that was created less than 500 years ago while the RCC is the "true" church with an "unchanging" faith... "Protestants" change their doctrines all the time; only Catholics can rely on the "one, true faith" that dates back to Christ himself (etc.). Then, after quoting verbatim some of that great "wisdom" from Popes or Councils that isn't convenient to either the modern Catholic or his attempts at presenting a benign church, another Catholic will jump in and argue "Why don't you quote something from since light bulbs were invented" (I quote from one online debate).
The idea of an evolving church is soundly damned by Leo X in his condemnation of Luther. In Exsurge Domine he argues that if the church was ever in error, it has always, therefore, been in in error (it could not be trusted). Leo XIII (building on Pius IX at Vatican I) argued that no clearly taught Catholic doctrine could ever be said to change by use of the argument that we now have "greater understanding." When something is clearly stated by a Pope it remains clear forever.
Leo X damned Luther for asking for a Council to be convened as he argued that no future Council could ever declare that a previous Council was in error. It is a house of cards and any attack on the absolute and clear teachings of Pope or Council of the past knocks down the house... that is why they hate when you quote the Popes and Councils.
The current catechism quotes Trent, but if I do it, I'm a "bigot."
I find it interesting that the new ad campaign for "Catholics Come Home" stresses the supposed "2000 years" of the church," but when I try to quote from some of that 2000 years of Catholic doctrine, I get banned for being "anti-Catholic".
Leo XIII argued the opposite of ever-greater understanding:
This leads to the very next popular forked tongue tactic.
3. Vatican II Brought the Church into the Present / Vatican II is only a Pastoral Council
Even Catholics are battling over this one, but it's convenient when debating outsiders. The first problem is that most Catholics have never read the documents of Vatican II (let alone the post-conciliar documents). Vatican II carries its own anathema for anyone denying the RCC's right and ability to grant indulgences and it starts off by fully affirming The Council of Trent (among other councils). This is important because Trent (with all its anathemas) is often dismissed in light of Vatican II by some Catholics. (For the record, Trent was convened before light bulbs were invented. Perhaps Pope John XXIII and Paul VI didn't realize that.)
Vatican II is a tricky bugger because it used in so many ways. Primarily it is used as a remedy for quotes from past Popes and Councils ("Vatican II changed all that!" etc.) despite the facts noted above. But when you get into the specifics in regard to the absolute condemnation of those who willingly leave the RCC ("hence there is no salvation"), or the document's argument that Islam is a legitimate path to God (if followed in ignorance of course) because Muslims "adore the same god" that the RCC adores, etc... in this case we are told that Vatican II is only a "Pastoral Council" and somehow not binding.
Even faux-evangelicals like Chuck Colson have fallen for the Vatican II assumption of "change." In his ecumenical book "The Body" Colson claims that the question of indulgences was settled by a new, Vatican II-based Church despite the fact that Vatican II affirms Trent and adds it's own anathema in regard to denying indulgences (and a 5-section teaching on indulgences).
4. There are 200 million billion Protestant denominations!
First let's deal with the problem the argument should present to the logical Catholic. By that reckoning, a Muslim could argue that all of Christianity is not true since, to him, Catholicism is just another denomination (200 million billion plus 1, so to speak). I realize the Catholic Church doesn't see itself as a "denomination" but rather than as the "one, true Church" but that argument is self-serving and can be applied by anyone.
Of course, the claim of being the "only ark of safety, outside of which there is no salvation" is often combined with the "2000 years of wisdom" tack and carries its own little logical gymnastics.
The greater problem is not dissent outside the RCC, but rather the dissent within. Israel was plagued with false teachers and often the law was lost. The problem is not in adherents disagreeing, it is supposed infallible sources disagreeing. The Bible is true and inerrant no matter who believes it. However, when Popes and Councils collide, what becomes of the infallible source? Well, they explain it away if they're clever enough, but most just use some of the excuses found in this blog entry (Vatican II changed; better understanding; ex cathedra, etc.).
The answer for evangelicals is simple: if we disagree on a secondary matter, we can still agree that at the end of the day the Bible is inerrant and the problem is with us. Catholics who disagree can only agree at the end of the day that the Pope is inerrant... they're just not allowed to separate lest they lose their salvation. So if you want to meet in a building for people who hold to all the gifts, you can do that and still be my brother. But if a Catholic wants to separate, he can't go anywhere, lest he be anathema.
Our salvation is not in a church, so how many denominations we create is meaningless.
5. The Catholic Church is the only vehicle of salvation on earth BUT...
This one is frustrating because it usually starts with some or all the Catholics denying that anyone actually teaches this anymore. Of course, that tack causes problems for the "unchanging faith" and "2000 years of wisdom" hammer. So then the tack changes to a very narrow stream, "Sure the RCC is the only ark of safety and the only vehicle of salvation. Muslims and Jews and Hindus and even well-meaning atheists are saved by the RCC they just don't realize it."
So who are all the dire warnings for (and what was the Inquisition about)? Well, for that absolutely tiny group of people who, without doubt, know for a certainty that the Catholic Church is the only way of salvation and either refuse to enter in or choose to leave it. This gets the Catholic off the hook because how can he know what someone truly "knows for certain"?
It is essentially an argument for no one (how many people would willingly choose fiery torment?), but it is convenient to scare Catholics into staying and a few confused and scared "Protestants" into entering the RCC.
6. You Must Go to Mass... Unless You're Ignorant; You Must Be Baptized... Unless
The Catholic Church has a number of sins which will condemn the soul to fiery, eternal torment (grave sins) among which are masturbation and the sin of willfully missing mass on a Sunday or Holy Day of Obligation. The RCC also teaches that other things are "necessary" for salvation. Among these are baptism and the Eucharist (and, you guessed it, they've redefined what "necessary" means in our day, but that's part of the game).
Well, how does one square those doctrines (and scores like them) with teaching that Muslims or even atheists can "achieve salvation"? Muslims are not baptized. Hindus don't go to mass. The answer is simple, they're off the hook because they don't "know" they have to do those things.
My question for Catholics is this, why send out missionaries? If a Muslim can safely get to God (via Purgatory), then why risk telling him about the Catholic Church? I know the "trained" answer is that he would have a better chance of getting to heaven by a more perfect way (and probably less time in Purgatory), but why mess with success? Let's say a Muslim is converted by a Baptist missionary to faith in the true God and in his son Jesus Christ; he presumably is no better off as he still has no access to direct grace which, the RCC teaches, flows directly from God through Christ through Mary through the RCC through the sacraments. There is only a generic grace available to those outside "the only ark of safety, outside of which there is no salvation." Baptist, Muslim, atheist... no difference. And all these outsiders don't ever have to attend mass or be baptized.
Well, that's an argument against Baptist missionaries, isn't it? Actually it should be of concern for the Catholic. Because if a Muslim converts to a non-sacramental ("separated Brethren") non-real-church, he is now presumably more responsible for rejecting Catholicism as "true Christianity." It's one thing to reject Christ, but you must not reject the RCC!
Reject the deity and crucifixion and resurrection of Christ (Islam)? No problem. Use a condom? Eternal fiery torment!
These threats of damnation (you are under the eternal condemnation of God if you vote for a pro-choice candidate if a pro-Life candidate is an option, for example), are used to control those within with fear while hidden (or explained away) to those without. It's a sickening practice and one for which I was quite guilty.
7. Oh yeah? Well Luther Said... and That King Said... Protestants Killed Catholics too!!!
Since Evangelicals don't believe that anyone or any church organization is either infallible or necessary, RCs can quote Luther until they're blue in the face. I don't have to answer for anyone but me. I can say "those who approved of murder were wrong" whereas the Popes made it a matter of faith to either kill or support the killing of "heretics."
One of charges against Martin Luther is that he taught, "That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit." (Exsurge Domine). Yes, I know, this and thousands of other clearly stated and enacted practices of the RCC are today explained away ("he meant in the afterlife, 'cause they're facing fiery torment," etc.), but the Popes wouldn't have approved. In their own circles, some Catholics wish they could burn them still. And the ecumenical Council of Constance seem to think it appropriate in this world when they condemned Jon Hus to be burned at the stake.
The Catholic is told that he can't understand the Bible or any article of Faith by reason; he must trust the Magisterium ALONE. Ironically, the quote above which lays this out clearly references the First Vatican Council which was convened under the auspices of Pius IX. Guess what happens when I try to quote Pius IX on other issues? See points 1, 2 & 3 above.
8. Ex-Communication is only a Warning of possible condemnation.
When Luther was excommunicated (as noted, in part for not agreeing that the Spirit approves of burning heretics, whomever they are, right?), I don't think it was just a friendly tap on the shoulder. A death sentence was placed on his head (as it was on countless thousands before him and after him). And the condemnation of Luther was also for those who helped him in any way.
Since the Popes no longer control governments or armies, it's kinda hard to hand over all the non-existent heretics for the state to burn ("at the behest of the priest") as the Church commanded the "inferior" civil authority to do (cf. Unam Sanctam).
Only a baptized Catholic can truly be excommunicated. The current explanation is that he is still a "Christian" by baptism, but in grave relationship to the Church (the "only vehicle of salvation" remember?). It supposedly just denies the "Christian" access to the "blessings of ecclesiastical society". So such a person can't take communion (Eucharist) which is required over certain time frames or one has committed a grave (mortal) sin. So how can it not be a damnation?
Let's look at just one plank of Luther's excommunication:
We're back to the house of cards that the Popes understood. If a Pope could be wrong on a matter or faith, ever, then any Pope can be wrong on any matter and the whole thing crumbles. that is why Leo placed this at the end of the excommunication:
Luther died without ever recanting or seeking absolution. End of story.
The ironic thing is that I'm on the side of the Popes! Catholics like to dismiss Popes and Councils, call them ignorant, declare them unenlightened, etc. I'm the one arguing that either the Popes are right on matters of sin and salvation or the Papacy and the RCC are meaningless. Sure, they can change teachings in regard to what language can be used at mass or even if priests can marry... but declaring something to be an absolute truth of salvation ("necessary for salvation" etc.) or a damnable sin (grave sin) one day and then deny it the next? The house of cards comes tumbling down.
On this, scores of Popes agree with me.
Here is what Pius VI had to say in his list of errors:
9. It's the Office Not the Man!
Try listing just some of the centuries-wroth of debauchery and treachery of the Popes and you will get this one. They apply this to nobody else, but what else can they do? Many of the Popes were lascivious, greedy men, they have to come up with something.
In 1899 Leo XIII wrote on "Americanism" and bemoaned the lack of religious because liberty had led to license. I won't quote it all here (it is readily available online) , but I find his calls for sanctity to be quite humorous in light of the rapists and adulterers and murderers who have sat in the papal seat.
Many Catholics do not even know that their church cannot say that all past popes are in heaven. because of the "antipopes" the line of succession is unclear. In the Annuario Pontificio, Pope Leo VII is listed as both pope and antipope (by year) with this note:
When raising this verse with Catholics, I have actually had some argue that it doesn't say they still can't be infallible on matters of faith! "Don't eat with them, but remember God has chosen them to be infallible in matters of faith an morals"?
At the end of the day, submission to the Pope is another thing "necessary for salvation."
10. The Ex-cathedra Two-Way Street
Whenever you want to quote from the centuries of Popes and councils, you will invariably get this defense in regard to overtly oppressive or antisemitic or similar papal; decrees, "the Popes are only infallible when the speak excathedra!" So I guess councils are worthless? Hardly, but when it comes to quoting Councils, see the "before the light bulb was invented" tack.
As for the argument that the Popes are only to be relied upon when speaking excathedra, I guess they're fairly useless if you define that narrowly. But it gives the Catholic the right to quote Popes when convenient and dismiss popes when their statements are not convenient.
I've asked, if the popes have no idea what is really sin or not, why do they open their mouths on the subject... ever? If you can dismiss papal warnings of sin on the premise that they are not technically speaking "excathedra" then what are they giving you? Their best guess? A guess that millions of Catholic laymen will dismiss at stupid just a few decades later? And again the house of cards falls, for if they don't have to follow or care what scores of prior popes have taught, why should they follow or care what the current Pope teaches if not stated "excathedra."
What does the Catholic Encyclopedia teach about what is "ex cathedra"?
How this works... when you quote Pius IX stating that Catholicism should be the religion of the state "to the exclusion of all other forms of worship" or if you quote Paul IV teaching that Jews can't fraternize with Chrsitians or that Jewish doctors are forbidden to touch a Christian (or any one of hundreds of vile or inconvenient papal decrees), you just claim that the Popes are only infallible when they speak "ex cathedra" (narrowly defined). That way, you don't have to acknowledge what you don't like, but you can grasp onto what you do like.
On the next day, you teach that God has given his repository of truth ONLY to the Catholic Church as his bride. In it are contained all the truths of salvation, etc. This goes hand-in-glove with the "2000 Years of Wisdom / Only True Church Dating Back to Christ" versus the "The Church Has Grown, Haven't You Read Vatican II?" Which then leads to the Vatican II double-faced shtick and so forth and so on.
Here is just one "error" as listed in Pius IX's "Syllabus of Errors:
Pius IX reminding Catholics that the Church teaches that popes and ecumenical (whole) councils cannot err in defining faith and morals. Catholics deny this "truth" all the time... and often they do it by denying Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors! The House of Cards thus tumbles.
What doctrines must a Catholic believe? Only formally-declared ex cathedra doctrines?
11. Of Course You Have to Be Cleansed of Little Sins, Except When You Don't!
This is the Purgatory discussion. It usually starts with a mockery of the doctrine of the completed work of Christ in the form of laughing at the notion that, at death, we aren't left with some cleansing needed. It sounds reasonable to believe that we need some post-death cleansing, right?
The next day, however, you can break out how you don't really have to pay for your "venial" sins. Perhaps Padre Pio or your parish can pay for your cleansing with a mass (see: Treasury of Merit). In the case of the Brown Scapular of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, if worn "piously" and at the moment of death, Mary promises to come into Purgatory the Sabbath after you die and pay for your sins (the Sabbatine Privilege). Countless years turn into a few days. This "privilege" has been denied by the modern church, but for three centuries faithful Catholics wore them (and some still do). Carmelite nuns still have the scapular as part of their clothing.
So about the only thing that can't cleanse you from sin is the shed blood of Christ at Calvary (unless your parish arranges to have mass said for your soul, which will cost you). But if salvation is free and Christ did it all, how's a poor church gonna make a buck?
I simplify these matters for sake of space and this entry, but the complication itself is reason enough to cast shame on the argument that we must still pay for sins beyond death. I also write for fellow ex-Catholics who understand the particulars. As for the doctrine itself, it goes much deeper and strikes at the heart of resurrection, the Lord's and ours.
12. Nobody Teaches That Anymore!
This last point has been covered one way or anther in the previous concerns, but I wanted to use a specific example. I once got into a discussion with some young adults at a Catholic Church about the Treasury of Merit (they were trying to defend Purgatory). They thought I was making up the Treasury of Merit and the Brown Scapular of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel because the ideas "sounded" like anti-Catholic mythology. So when I gave them the references (in the case of the ToM in the current catechism), they just said, "Our priest doesn't teach that. We asked him and he said nobody really teaches that anymore."
How do you argue with that? I guess they're better off. can't deny and risk damnation for a doctrine you don't believe is Catholic!
13. The "Roman" Catholic Church
This is really a footnote. One particularly stuffy Catholic apologist dismissed me because I called the CC the RCC. He scoffed and said that if I knew anything, I'd know not to call it the "Roman" Catholic Church... so I went to two sources.
First, I contacted the offices of the Archbishop of Philadelphia (Rigali) and they assured me that "Roman" was appropriate. Secondly, I went to the Popes who stated that the Church is "rightly called Roman."
That's the sort of rabbit trails that keep us busy. They can't be ignored otherwise, if the charge of ignorance goes unchallenged, everything else we argue will be dismissed.
Where Does It All Lead?
For those of us who deal with Catholics, it leads to tremendous amounts of frustration. Having to argue both sides of the same issues repeatedly is mind-boggling.
Now, I know a Catholic reading this will have his answers for all these concerns which usually involves blaming the ignorance of his fellow Catholics, but whose fault is that? And I say to him, "Shhh, better not tell 'em. If they're ignorant of Catholic doctrine, they're off the hook!"
2011 marks my 20th year of being a Bible-believing Christian. I stayed in the Catholic Church for a short period trying to juggle the two systems to make them work before leaving in 1992. I just knew too much! My journey to the truth (written elsewhere) involved me, starting from the Catholic side, investigating the issues and scriptures which confronted those in the Catholic-Evangelical debate. In that process I came under the conviction of God for my sin and acknowledged the perfect work of Christ on Calvary. I moved from one side of the aisle to the other.
Having been on the Catholic side for years, I wasn't able to kid myself for long. I knew that never the twain shall meet. Having taken on evangelicals, I knew all the standard defenses/attacks... and was not surprised that when I entered the fray from the other side, I ran into the same tactics I had employed many times myself.
My conundrum had come down to me "studying to show myself approved unto God" or bowing my intellect and reason to men who claimed to be the only ones capable of understanding matters of faith or capable of understanding scripture. I chose the former.
Come, let us reason together says the Lord... He who hears and understands... I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you... these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name... these were more noble (...) for they searched the scriptures daily whether these things were so... study to show yourself approved unto God. (Scripture)
versus
Faith does not depend upon our ability to reason to the truth but on our humility before the Truth presented to us by those to whom Christ entrusted that task. This is why the First Vatican Council taught that it is the task of the Magisterium ALONE to determine and expound the meaning of the Tradition. (EWTN Expert Answers - All caps in original)
"...no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, -- wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold," (Trent, Session 4, "Decree Concerning the Edition, and the Use, of the Sacred Books")
Recognize the Pattern?
As a former Catholic Religious Education Teacher and apologist (with a small "a"), I am quite familiar with how many Roman Catholics debate certain issues. I've come to expect certain things and since I fell victim yet again today to one of these rabbit trails, I've decided to help others who might venture into the land of debate with a list of things to expect.
This is certainly not an exhaustive piece designed as an apologetic, rather it is written for my fellow ex-Catholics (or anyone who has ventured into the fray) who have had to suffer the logical acrobatics of our Catholic family and friends when trying to discuss theological matters. Since I have encountered the following arguments/tactics in almost every setting over the last 20 years, I am certain that my experience is not unique (especially since I employed the same tactics when I was a Catholic).
Often you're lucky if you actually get to the debate stage... just quoting Popes and Councils (quoting!) got me banned from ChristianForums.com and very often quoting directly from Popes and Councils (with source) will buy you the unbelievable charge of "Catholic-basher" and "bigot." And there is no defense to such attacks as it is impossible to prove a negative. I find it interesting that EWTN references the First Vatican Council... when I try that I get savagely attacked or dismissed?
So here we go...
1. You're Not Catholic or You're Just an Angry Ex-Catholic
Just today, after referencing a couple of Popes and Councils, I was dismissed as someone who really can't say anything since I'm not Catholic. Upon noting that I have 12 years of Catholic religious training and that I taught Religious Education classes in two churches... I am then dismissed because I'm just a "disgruntled ex-Catholic with a vendetta" (and similar).
2. 2000 Years of Wisdom or How About Quoting Something From THIS Century!
I usually run into this one when debating multiple Catholics. One Catholic will be dismissing me because I'm from a johnny-come-lately "church" that was created less than 500 years ago while the RCC is the "true" church with an "unchanging" faith... "Protestants" change their doctrines all the time; only Catholics can rely on the "one, true faith" that dates back to Christ himself (etc.). Then, after quoting verbatim some of that great "wisdom" from Popes or Councils that isn't convenient to either the modern Catholic or his attempts at presenting a benign church, another Catholic will jump in and argue "Why don't you quote something from since light bulbs were invented" (I quote from one online debate).
The idea of an evolving church is soundly damned by Leo X in his condemnation of Luther. In Exsurge Domine he argues that if the church was ever in error, it has always, therefore, been in in error (it could not be trusted). Leo XIII (building on Pius IX at Vatican I) argued that no clearly taught Catholic doctrine could ever be said to change by use of the argument that we now have "greater understanding." When something is clearly stated by a Pope it remains clear forever.
Leo X damned Luther for asking for a Council to be convened as he argued that no future Council could ever declare that a previous Council was in error. It is a house of cards and any attack on the absolute and clear teachings of Pope or Council of the past knocks down the house... that is why they hate when you quote the Popes and Councils.
The current catechism quotes Trent, but if I do it, I'm a "bigot."
I find it interesting that the new ad campaign for "Catholics Come Home" stresses the supposed "2000 years" of the church," but when I try to quote from some of that 2000 years of Catholic doctrine, I get banned for being "anti-Catholic".
Leo XIII argued the opposite of ever-greater understanding:
And shall any one who recalls the history of the apostles, the faith of the nascent church, the trials and deaths of the martyrs—and, above all, those olden times, so fruitful in saints—dare to measure our age with these, or affirm that they received less of the divine outpouring from the Spirit of Holiness?
A number if sub-arguments fall under this one:
- Those Popes didn't have the understanding we have
- You're not really reading those abundantly clear things clearly
- Those decrees only applied to the Papal States (or Catholic countries)
- "Heretic" is a very specific thing for which nobody really qualifies, they just liked to say it
- "Heretic" only refers to a minuscule number of very specific people
This leads to the very next popular forked tongue tactic.
3. Vatican II Brought the Church into the Present / Vatican II is only a Pastoral Council
Even Catholics are battling over this one, but it's convenient when debating outsiders. The first problem is that most Catholics have never read the documents of Vatican II (let alone the post-conciliar documents). Vatican II carries its own anathema for anyone denying the RCC's right and ability to grant indulgences and it starts off by fully affirming The Council of Trent (among other councils). This is important because Trent (with all its anathemas) is often dismissed in light of Vatican II by some Catholics. (For the record, Trent was convened before light bulbs were invented. Perhaps Pope John XXIII and Paul VI didn't realize that.)
Vatican II is a tricky bugger because it used in so many ways. Primarily it is used as a remedy for quotes from past Popes and Councils ("Vatican II changed all that!" etc.) despite the facts noted above. But when you get into the specifics in regard to the absolute condemnation of those who willingly leave the RCC ("hence there is no salvation"), or the document's argument that Islam is a legitimate path to God (if followed in ignorance of course) because Muslims "adore the same god" that the RCC adores, etc... in this case we are told that Vatican II is only a "Pastoral Council" and somehow not binding.
Even faux-evangelicals like Chuck Colson have fallen for the Vatican II assumption of "change." In his ecumenical book "The Body" Colson claims that the question of indulgences was settled by a new, Vatican II-based Church despite the fact that Vatican II affirms Trent and adds it's own anathema in regard to denying indulgences (and a 5-section teaching on indulgences).
"The Reformers, for example, assailed the corrupt practice of indulgences; today they are gone" (Chuck Colson, The Body p. 271).
Indulgentiarum Doctrina
4. There are 200 million billion Protestant denominations!
First let's deal with the problem the argument should present to the logical Catholic. By that reckoning, a Muslim could argue that all of Christianity is not true since, to him, Catholicism is just another denomination (200 million billion plus 1, so to speak). I realize the Catholic Church doesn't see itself as a "denomination" but rather than as the "one, true Church" but that argument is self-serving and can be applied by anyone.
Of course, the claim of being the "only ark of safety, outside of which there is no salvation" is often combined with the "2000 years of wisdom" tack and carries its own little logical gymnastics.
The greater problem is not dissent outside the RCC, but rather the dissent within. Israel was plagued with false teachers and often the law was lost. The problem is not in adherents disagreeing, it is supposed infallible sources disagreeing. The Bible is true and inerrant no matter who believes it. However, when Popes and Councils collide, what becomes of the infallible source? Well, they explain it away if they're clever enough, but most just use some of the excuses found in this blog entry (Vatican II changed; better understanding; ex cathedra, etc.).
The answer for evangelicals is simple: if we disagree on a secondary matter, we can still agree that at the end of the day the Bible is inerrant and the problem is with us. Catholics who disagree can only agree at the end of the day that the Pope is inerrant... they're just not allowed to separate lest they lose their salvation. So if you want to meet in a building for people who hold to all the gifts, you can do that and still be my brother. But if a Catholic wants to separate, he can't go anywhere, lest he be anathema.
Our salvation is not in a church, so how many denominations we create is meaningless.
5. The Catholic Church is the only vehicle of salvation on earth BUT...
This one is frustrating because it usually starts with some or all the Catholics denying that anyone actually teaches this anymore. Of course, that tack causes problems for the "unchanging faith" and "2000 years of wisdom" hammer. So then the tack changes to a very narrow stream, "Sure the RCC is the only ark of safety and the only vehicle of salvation. Muslims and Jews and Hindus and even well-meaning atheists are saved by the RCC they just don't realize it."
So who are all the dire warnings for (and what was the Inquisition about)? Well, for that absolutely tiny group of people who, without doubt, know for a certainty that the Catholic Church is the only way of salvation and either refuse to enter in or choose to leave it. This gets the Catholic off the hook because how can he know what someone truly "knows for certain"?
It is essentially an argument for no one (how many people would willingly choose fiery torment?), but it is convenient to scare Catholics into staying and a few confused and scared "Protestants" into entering the RCC.
"Now, therefore, we declare, say, determine and pronounce that for every human creature it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff."(Unam Sanctam - Boniface VIII)More on this later... "necessary" doesn't really mean "necessary" any more... well, not to outsiders anyway.
6. You Must Go to Mass... Unless You're Ignorant; You Must Be Baptized... Unless
The Catholic Church has a number of sins which will condemn the soul to fiery, eternal torment (grave sins) among which are masturbation and the sin of willfully missing mass on a Sunday or Holy Day of Obligation. The RCC also teaches that other things are "necessary" for salvation. Among these are baptism and the Eucharist (and, you guessed it, they've redefined what "necessary" means in our day, but that's part of the game).
Well, how does one square those doctrines (and scores like them) with teaching that Muslims or even atheists can "achieve salvation"? Muslims are not baptized. Hindus don't go to mass. The answer is simple, they're off the hook because they don't "know" they have to do those things.
Muslim - never baptized, never goes to mass, denies the deity of Christ, denies Christ's crucifixion and resurrection, denies the Catholic Church and the authority of the Pope.The Popes damned "heretics" all over the place for centuries. Luther and his followers were declared "heretics" when excommunicated. But try getting a solid definition of "heretic" today.
Ex-Catholic Evangelical - raised in the Catholic Church, believes in the deity of Christ, believes Christ died for our sins on the cross and rose from the dead, but doesn't believe going to mass is a "means of salvation" or necessary in any way.
Catholic - baptized, believes everything the RCC teaches and is faithful... one Sunday decides to go into work knowing he is missing mass hoping to get to confession before next Sunday.
Guess which one of these three is not under the curse of God? The Muslim (see also: atheists)!
My question for Catholics is this, why send out missionaries? If a Muslim can safely get to God (via Purgatory), then why risk telling him about the Catholic Church? I know the "trained" answer is that he would have a better chance of getting to heaven by a more perfect way (and probably less time in Purgatory), but why mess with success? Let's say a Muslim is converted by a Baptist missionary to faith in the true God and in his son Jesus Christ; he presumably is no better off as he still has no access to direct grace which, the RCC teaches, flows directly from God through Christ through Mary through the RCC through the sacraments. There is only a generic grace available to those outside "the only ark of safety, outside of which there is no salvation." Baptist, Muslim, atheist... no difference. And all these outsiders don't ever have to attend mass or be baptized.
Well, that's an argument against Baptist missionaries, isn't it? Actually it should be of concern for the Catholic. Because if a Muslim converts to a non-sacramental ("separated Brethren") non-real-church, he is now presumably more responsible for rejecting Catholicism as "true Christianity." It's one thing to reject Christ, but you must not reject the RCC!
Reject the deity and crucifixion and resurrection of Christ (Islam)? No problem. Use a condom? Eternal fiery torment!
These threats of damnation (you are under the eternal condemnation of God if you vote for a pro-choice candidate if a pro-Life candidate is an option, for example), are used to control those within with fear while hidden (or explained away) to those without. It's a sickening practice and one for which I was quite guilty.
7. Oh yeah? Well Luther Said... and That King Said... Protestants Killed Catholics too!!!
Since Evangelicals don't believe that anyone or any church organization is either infallible or necessary, RCs can quote Luther until they're blue in the face. I don't have to answer for anyone but me. I can say "those who approved of murder were wrong" whereas the Popes made it a matter of faith to either kill or support the killing of "heretics."
One of charges against Martin Luther is that he taught, "That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit." (Exsurge Domine). Yes, I know, this and thousands of other clearly stated and enacted practices of the RCC are today explained away ("he meant in the afterlife, 'cause they're facing fiery torment," etc.), but the Popes wouldn't have approved. In their own circles, some Catholics wish they could burn them still. And the ecumenical Council of Constance seem to think it appropriate in this world when they condemned Jon Hus to be burned at the stake.
The Catholic is told that he can't understand the Bible or any article of Faith by reason; he must trust the Magisterium ALONE. Ironically, the quote above which lays this out clearly references the First Vatican Council which was convened under the auspices of Pius IX. Guess what happens when I try to quote Pius IX on other issues? See points 1, 2 & 3 above.
8. Ex-Communication is only a Warning of possible condemnation.
When Luther was excommunicated (as noted, in part for not agreeing that the Spirit approves of burning heretics, whomever they are, right?), I don't think it was just a friendly tap on the shoulder. A death sentence was placed on his head (as it was on countless thousands before him and after him). And the condemnation of Luther was also for those who helped him in any way.
Since the Popes no longer control governments or armies, it's kinda hard to hand over all the non-existent heretics for the state to burn ("at the behest of the priest") as the Church commanded the "inferior" civil authority to do (cf. Unam Sanctam).
Only a baptized Catholic can truly be excommunicated. The current explanation is that he is still a "Christian" by baptism, but in grave relationship to the Church (the "only vehicle of salvation" remember?). It supposedly just denies the "Christian" access to the "blessings of ecclesiastical society". So such a person can't take communion (Eucharist) which is required over certain time frames or one has committed a grave (mortal) sin. So how can it not be a damnation?
Let's look at just one plank of Luther's excommunication:
On all these we decree the sentences of excommunication, of anathema, of our perpetual condemnation and interdict; of privation of dignities, honours and property on them and their descendants, and of declared unfitness for such possessions; of the confiscation of their goods and of the crime of treason; and these and the other sentences, censures and punishments which are inflicted by canon law on heretics and are set out in our aforesaid missive, we decree to have fallen on all these men to their damnation.I'll skip the explaining away that these and all the other countless damnations that have risen out the papal chair and concentrate on this idea that some Catholics have of reinstating Luther for the sake of ecumenical unity.
We're back to the house of cards that the Popes understood. If a Pope could be wrong on a matter or faith, ever, then any Pope can be wrong on any matter and the whole thing crumbles. that is why Leo placed this at the end of the excommunication:
No one whatsoever may infringe this our written decision, declaration, precept, injunction, assignation, will, decree; or rashly contravene it. Should anyone dare to attempt such a thing, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul. (Decet Romanum)
Luther died without ever recanting or seeking absolution. End of story.
The ironic thing is that I'm on the side of the Popes! Catholics like to dismiss Popes and Councils, call them ignorant, declare them unenlightened, etc. I'm the one arguing that either the Popes are right on matters of sin and salvation or the Papacy and the RCC are meaningless. Sure, they can change teachings in regard to what language can be used at mass or even if priests can marry... but declaring something to be an absolute truth of salvation ("necessary for salvation" etc.) or a damnable sin (grave sin) one day and then deny it the next? The house of cards comes tumbling down.
On this, scores of Popes agree with me.
Here is what Pius VI had to say in his list of errors:
The proposition asserting that "the effect of excommunication is merely exterior, because by its nature it merely excludes from exterior communion with the Church"; as if excommunication were not a spiritual punishment, binding in heaven, obligating souls,—false, dangerous, condemned in art. 23 of Luther [see n. 763], at least erroneous.
9. It's the Office Not the Man!
Try listing just some of the centuries-wroth of debauchery and treachery of the Popes and you will get this one. They apply this to nobody else, but what else can they do? Many of the Popes were lascivious, greedy men, they have to come up with something.
In 1899 Leo XIII wrote on "Americanism" and bemoaned the lack of religious because liberty had led to license. I won't quote it all here (it is readily available online) , but I find his calls for sanctity to be quite humorous in light of the rapists and adulterers and murderers who have sat in the papal seat.
Many Catholics do not even know that their church cannot say that all past popes are in heaven. because of the "antipopes" the line of succession is unclear. In the Annuario Pontificio, Pope Leo VII is listed as both pope and antipope (by year) with this note:
At this point, as again in the mid-eleventh century, we come across elections in which problems of harmonizing historical criteria and those of theology and canon law make it impossible to decide clearly which side possessed the legitimacy whose factual existence guarantees the unbroken lawful succession of the Successors of Saint Peter. The uncertainty that in some cases results has made it advisable to abandon the assignation of successive numbers in the list of the Popes."Clear as mud. Then we have the Avignon Popes, seven of whom are considered legitimate popes, but none of whom sat in Rome (they sat in the court at Avignon). Although referred to as the "Babylonian captivity" of the papacy, they are still in the line of succession. The list of popes was often murky, until the "continuity of faith" and "successors of the apostles" argument became a problem as men were freed from the civil rule of popes and Catholic kings.
The line of Roman popes is now recognized as the legitimate line, but this was not true before the 19th century. Efforts to tidy up Church history led to the claim that Gregory XII had legitimized the Council of Constance. Consistent with this outcome, Pope Pius II decreed that no appeal could be made from pope to council; this left no way to undo a papal election by anyone but the elected pope.But when the problems of Medici popes or the number of papal mistresses or the list of illegitimate papal children name cardinals or the vicious decrees of murderous popes or the papal approval of mass slaughter or the papal decrees concerning papal supremacy over civil authority or papal antisemitism or papal decrees of what is and is not sin which is no longer convenient arise... plan on hearing "it's the office, not the man!"
But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.- 1 CorinthiansBut what does Paul know? He was never a Pope!
When raising this verse with Catholics, I have actually had some argue that it doesn't say they still can't be infallible on matters of faith! "Don't eat with them, but remember God has chosen them to be infallible in matters of faith an morals"?
At the end of the day, submission to the Pope is another thing "necessary for salvation."
"Now, therefore, we declare, say, determine and pronounce that for every human creature it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff."(Unam Sanctam - Boniface VIII)As noted, despite Boniface's very clear words in that Bull, apparently "necessary" doesn't mean "necessary" anymore... no matter how many popes "declare, say, determine [or] pronounce" it... unless Benedict does...and so on and so forth.
10. The Ex-cathedra Two-Way Street
Whenever you want to quote from the centuries of Popes and councils, you will invariably get this defense in regard to overtly oppressive or antisemitic or similar papal; decrees, "the Popes are only infallible when the speak excathedra!" So I guess councils are worthless? Hardly, but when it comes to quoting Councils, see the "before the light bulb was invented" tack.
As for the argument that the Popes are only to be relied upon when speaking excathedra, I guess they're fairly useless if you define that narrowly. But it gives the Catholic the right to quote Popes when convenient and dismiss popes when their statements are not convenient.
I've asked, if the popes have no idea what is really sin or not, why do they open their mouths on the subject... ever? If you can dismiss papal warnings of sin on the premise that they are not technically speaking "excathedra" then what are they giving you? Their best guess? A guess that millions of Catholic laymen will dismiss at stupid just a few decades later? And again the house of cards falls, for if they don't have to follow or care what scores of prior popes have taught, why should they follow or care what the current Pope teaches if not stated "excathedra."
What does the Catholic Encyclopedia teach about what is "ex cathedra"?
Literally "from the chair", a theological term which signifies authoritative teaching and is more particularly applied to the definitions given by the Roman pontiff. Originally the name of the seat occupied by a professor or a bishop, cathedra was used later on to denote the magisterium, or teaching authority. The phrase ex cathedra occurs in the writings of the medieval theologians, and more frequently in the discussions which arose after the Reformation in regard to the papal prerogatives. But its present meaning was formally determined by the Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, c. iv: "We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable."
How this works... when you quote Pius IX stating that Catholicism should be the religion of the state "to the exclusion of all other forms of worship" or if you quote Paul IV teaching that Jews can't fraternize with Chrsitians or that Jewish doctors are forbidden to touch a Christian (or any one of hundreds of vile or inconvenient papal decrees), you just claim that the Popes are only infallible when they speak "ex cathedra" (narrowly defined). That way, you don't have to acknowledge what you don't like, but you can grasp onto what you do like.
On the next day, you teach that God has given his repository of truth ONLY to the Catholic Church as his bride. In it are contained all the truths of salvation, etc. This goes hand-in-glove with the "2000 Years of Wisdom / Only True Church Dating Back to Christ" versus the "The Church Has Grown, Haven't You Read Vatican II?" Which then leads to the Vatican II double-faced shtick and so forth and so on.
Here is just one "error" as listed in Pius IX's "Syllabus of Errors:
Roman pontiffs and ecumenical councils have wandered outside the limits of their powers, have usurped the rights of princes, and have even erred in defining matters of faith and morals. -- Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.
Pius IX reminding Catholics that the Church teaches that popes and ecumenical (whole) councils cannot err in defining faith and morals. Catholics deny this "truth" all the time... and often they do it by denying Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors! The House of Cards thus tumbles.
What doctrines must a Catholic believe? Only formally-declared ex cathedra doctrines?
"By the divine and Catholic Faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written Word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal magisterium, to be believed as divinely revealed." (Vatican Council I, Denzinger 1792)I think this makes every Catholic I know a heretic. Ask your catholic friends if they deny or doubt ANY belief of the RCC.
"Heresy consists in a stubborn denial of truths which have been defined an proposed by the Church as divinely revealed doctrines." (Canon 1324-1325 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law).
"Any baptized person who … obstinately denies or doubts any of the truths proposed for belief by divine and Catholic faith, is a heretic." (C. 1325)
"If anyone holds to one single one of these (heresies) he is not a Catholic."- Pope Leo XIII (from Encyclical Satis Cognitum:28)
11. Of Course You Have to Be Cleansed of Little Sins, Except When You Don't!
This is the Purgatory discussion. It usually starts with a mockery of the doctrine of the completed work of Christ in the form of laughing at the notion that, at death, we aren't left with some cleansing needed. It sounds reasonable to believe that we need some post-death cleansing, right?
The next day, however, you can break out how you don't really have to pay for your "venial" sins. Perhaps Padre Pio or your parish can pay for your cleansing with a mass (see: Treasury of Merit). In the case of the Brown Scapular of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, if worn "piously" and at the moment of death, Mary promises to come into Purgatory the Sabbath after you die and pay for your sins (the Sabbatine Privilege). Countless years turn into a few days. This "privilege" has been denied by the modern church, but for three centuries faithful Catholics wore them (and some still do). Carmelite nuns still have the scapular as part of their clothing.
So about the only thing that can't cleanse you from sin is the shed blood of Christ at Calvary (unless your parish arranges to have mass said for your soul, which will cost you). But if salvation is free and Christ did it all, how's a poor church gonna make a buck?
I simplify these matters for sake of space and this entry, but the complication itself is reason enough to cast shame on the argument that we must still pay for sins beyond death. I also write for fellow ex-Catholics who understand the particulars. As for the doctrine itself, it goes much deeper and strikes at the heart of resurrection, the Lord's and ours.
And ye, in putting them [the departed souls] in heaven, hell, and purgatory, destroy the arguments wherewith Christ and Paul prove the resurrection.... And again, if the souls be in heaven, tell me why they be not in as good case as the angels be? And then what cause is there of the resurrection?—William Tyndale (An Answer to Thomas More's Dialogue)
12. Nobody Teaches That Anymore!
This last point has been covered one way or anther in the previous concerns, but I wanted to use a specific example. I once got into a discussion with some young adults at a Catholic Church about the Treasury of Merit (they were trying to defend Purgatory). They thought I was making up the Treasury of Merit and the Brown Scapular of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel because the ideas "sounded" like anti-Catholic mythology. So when I gave them the references (in the case of the ToM in the current catechism), they just said, "Our priest doesn't teach that. We asked him and he said nobody really teaches that anymore."
How do you argue with that? I guess they're better off. can't deny and risk damnation for a doctrine you don't believe is Catholic!
13. The "Roman" Catholic Church
This is really a footnote. One particularly stuffy Catholic apologist dismissed me because I called the CC the RCC. He scoffed and said that if I knew anything, I'd know not to call it the "Roman" Catholic Church... so I went to two sources.
First, I contacted the offices of the Archbishop of Philadelphia (Rigali) and they assured me that "Roman" was appropriate. Secondly, I went to the Popes who stated that the Church is "rightly called Roman."
Since God has placed the center and foundation of unity in the chair of Blessed Peter, she is rightly called the Roman Church, for "where Peter is, there is the church." -Leo XIII on Americanism
That's the sort of rabbit trails that keep us busy. They can't be ignored otherwise, if the charge of ignorance goes unchallenged, everything else we argue will be dismissed.
Where Does It All Lead?
For those of us who deal with Catholics, it leads to tremendous amounts of frustration. Having to argue both sides of the same issues repeatedly is mind-boggling.
Now, I know a Catholic reading this will have his answers for all these concerns which usually involves blaming the ignorance of his fellow Catholics, but whose fault is that? And I say to him, "Shhh, better not tell 'em. If they're ignorant of Catholic doctrine, they're off the hook!"
- You MUST be baptized... except when you don't have to be.
- You MUST go to mass... except when you don't.
- You MUST pay for venial sins... except when you don't.
- The Church IS the only vehicle of salvation... except that it doesn't always know what sin is.
- The Church IS the place to find truth God has given us... except when it changes.
- The Pope IS God's conduit for truth.. but he can wrong on just about anything.
Etc. ad nauseam.
So. Michael, Why Do They Do All This?
The only thing I can figure is that it is a combination of fear and a desire just "to be Catholic." That is, some people just like "being Catholic" whether they agree with their church or not. I can't count how many times some Catholic tells me he doesn't care about the church's teaching in regard to eternal, fiery torment connected to masturbation or birth control or attendance at mass or on how to vote (etc.). Well, if you don't believe their threats of damnation, why believe their promises of salvation? If you belong to a church that tells you can't understand truth unless they tell you, they can massage centuries of contradictory doctrines and you have no other choice but believe them... or risk being an ill-defined "heretic" (which is either horrible or not so bad depending on the day of the week or the trail being followed).
The next time some Catholic ask you to pray with or for him... remind him of this teaching...
I often ask Catholics why I should waste my time discussing scripture or matters of faith with them anyway, since their own church tells them they are incapable of interpreting the scripture or understanding matters of faith unless the Magisterium of the church explains it to them. They should be doing what I do... quote the Popes and Councils.
The "Catholics Come Home" campaign currently underway (TV ads, web site) doesn't tell lapsed or ex-Catholics that they are facing fiery, eternal torment for leaving the Church. No, like a foxes and snakes, they hide most of their history and use images of hospitals and soup kitchens to try and lure the unsuspecting back to that "beautiful" church. Dangerous!
To paraphrase John Foxe, the Catholics church is like lamb when in the minority (think India), like a fox when in equality (think of the US0 and like a ravenous wolf when in the majority (think of the Papal State or even parts of Latin America today). The Pope speaks very differently in different parts of the world.
At the end of the day, the RCC has 1500 years of debauchery, violence and ever-changing doctrines that are no longer convenient and she seeks to explain them away (while personally attacking those who raise these issues). She must deny her own Popes and Councils (while secretly holding on to all) in order to keep the faithful ignorant (as has always been her practice).
WISE WORDS
My brother once told me not to worry about the person I'm debating (if in a public debate), think about those looking or listening in. Keep teaching the truth. Your opponent will probably never admit failure or error, but sometimes those listening in will have their hearts and minds pricked by the truth.
For a more in-depth study on these topics try:
The Berean Beacon
The Berean Call
Good News for Catholics
So. Michael, Why Do They Do All This?
The only thing I can figure is that it is a combination of fear and a desire just "to be Catholic." That is, some people just like "being Catholic" whether they agree with their church or not. I can't count how many times some Catholic tells me he doesn't care about the church's teaching in regard to eternal, fiery torment connected to masturbation or birth control or attendance at mass or on how to vote (etc.). Well, if you don't believe their threats of damnation, why believe their promises of salvation? If you belong to a church that tells you can't understand truth unless they tell you, they can massage centuries of contradictory doctrines and you have no other choice but believe them... or risk being an ill-defined "heretic" (which is either horrible or not so bad depending on the day of the week or the trail being followed).
The next time some Catholic ask you to pray with or for him... remind him of this teaching...
If anyone prays with heretics, he is a heretic.
(Pope) St. Agatho I
I often ask Catholics why I should waste my time discussing scripture or matters of faith with them anyway, since their own church tells them they are incapable of interpreting the scripture or understanding matters of faith unless the Magisterium of the church explains it to them. They should be doing what I do... quote the Popes and Councils.
The "Catholics Come Home" campaign currently underway (TV ads, web site) doesn't tell lapsed or ex-Catholics that they are facing fiery, eternal torment for leaving the Church. No, like a foxes and snakes, they hide most of their history and use images of hospitals and soup kitchens to try and lure the unsuspecting back to that "beautiful" church. Dangerous!
To paraphrase John Foxe, the Catholics church is like lamb when in the minority (think India), like a fox when in equality (think of the US0 and like a ravenous wolf when in the majority (think of the Papal State or even parts of Latin America today). The Pope speaks very differently in different parts of the world.
At the end of the day, the RCC has 1500 years of debauchery, violence and ever-changing doctrines that are no longer convenient and she seeks to explain them away (while personally attacking those who raise these issues). She must deny her own Popes and Councils (while secretly holding on to all) in order to keep the faithful ignorant (as has always been her practice).
All these opinions they [the Popes] were enabled to spread and rivet among the people by reducing their minds to a state of sordid ignorance and staring timidity, and by infusing into them a religious horror of letters and knowledge. Thus was human nature chained fast for ages in a cruel, shameful, and deplorable servitude to him, and his subordinate tyrants, who, it was foretold, would exalt himself above all that was called God, and that was worshipped. - John Adams (Dissertation on Canon and Feudal law)
WISE WORDS
My brother once told me not to worry about the person I'm debating (if in a public debate), think about those looking or listening in. Keep teaching the truth. Your opponent will probably never admit failure or error, but sometimes those listening in will have their hearts and minds pricked by the truth.
For a more in-depth study on these topics try:
The Berean Beacon
The Berean Call
Good News for Catholics
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Friday, February 19, 2010
Mary Is Co-Redeemer (Shhh.. Don't Tell Anyone)
Using Pope Leo XIII's 1891 "Octobri Menseo" as a starting point and concluding with JPII's 1987 "Redemptoris Mater," best-selling Catholic author and educator Cheryl Dickow delves into Church documents to uncover Mary's true role in salvation and examines why now is a pivotal time in human history to recognize Mary as Mediatrix and as the perfect way to Christ.
http://christiannewswire.com/news/1280812830.html
I point this out for two reasons...
1. Obviously the Catholic Church, in its attempts to portray itself to Evangelicals and acceptable, usually downplays the doctrine of Mary as Mediatrix and Co-Redemptress.
2. Whenever I quote someone like Leo XIII, I am mocked by Catholics who ask me to quote someone from "after they invented light bulbs" etc. This is par for the course as Catholics tend to argue the authority of the Church based on its antiquity... while disowning their Popes and Councils when their actions and words are inconvenient to the current debate.
http://christiannewswire.com/news/1280812830.html
I point this out for two reasons...
1. Obviously the Catholic Church, in its attempts to portray itself to Evangelicals and acceptable, usually downplays the doctrine of Mary as Mediatrix and Co-Redemptress.
2. Whenever I quote someone like Leo XIII, I am mocked by Catholics who ask me to quote someone from "after they invented light bulbs" etc. This is par for the course as Catholics tend to argue the authority of the Church based on its antiquity... while disowning their Popes and Councils when their actions and words are inconvenient to the current debate.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
The Vatican and Healthcare
I have often argued that the Vatican for centuries to the present has made it clear that it is superior to civil governments (e.g. Unam Sanctam: "Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered for the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest." ).
In the last election, a bishop even threatened Catholics with the loss of eternal salvation for voting pro-Choice. One site claimed that by voting that way, an adehrent may have already made himself unworthy of taking communion (of course, they don't go after the actual candidates that way!). Now, I am Pro-Life, but threatening adherents with their eternal destinies if they don't vote as instructed is a danger to the Republic.
This past week, Accuracy in Media has exposed the Vatican's meddling in the US health care debate:
In the last election, a bishop even threatened Catholics with the loss of eternal salvation for voting pro-Choice. One site claimed that by voting that way, an adehrent may have already made himself unworthy of taking communion (of course, they don't go after the actual candidates that way!). Now, I am Pro-Life, but threatening adherents with their eternal destinies if they don't vote as instructed is a danger to the Republic.
This past week, Accuracy in Media has exposed the Vatican's meddling in the US health care debate:
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/vatican-engineered-victory-for-pelosicare/
n a story about why the U.S. Catholic Bishops have embraced Democratic-style universal health care, the Los Angeles Times noted that the Roman Catholic Church considers healthcare a basic human right, “a position the church has articulated since 1963, when it was included in a papal encyclical by Pope John XXIII.” Indeed, healthcare is declared a right in the “Peace on Earth” encyclical. That is also the basis of Obamacare.
The group Catholic Democrats has hailed passage of H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act of 2009, and notes that the only House Republican voting for it, Representative Joseph Cao of Louisiana, is a Catholic and former Jesuit seminarian. “The Catholic Church has been at the forefront of advocating for health care as a right for decades, including pastoral letters issued by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in 1981 and 1993,” the group notes.
The evidence indicates that the Bishops-and the Vatican itself-are calling the shots behind the scene. In fact, as many media organizations are now reporting, they engineered the “compromise” that deleted abortion funding so the bill could pass the House. The Los Angeles Times reported that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Catholic, not only “conferred with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to be sure the new restrictions were acceptable” but “consulted by telephone with a cardinal in Rome.”
CNN reported that, as a deal was being made between Pelosi and Catholic lobbyists, “Several Democrats, including Rep. Jason Altmire, D-Pennsylvania, said they are in touch with their Catholic Bishops back home. Altmire said he must have the approval of his bishop in Pittsburgh before he can vote yes.”
Friday, July 13, 2007
Benedict and Barna
Nothing New Here... Catholic Church is the Only "Real Church"
"[O]n Tuesday, [the Vatican] released a document saying that only Catholicism 'has the fullness of the means of salvation'." - Washington Times
Pope Benedict released another statement reiterating what the Catholic Church has always taught: she is the only true church, only she has the "means of salvation." Ho hum, nothing new here. This is Catholicism 101. They didn't say anything new "Tuesday" than they haven't said for 1500 years. However, we all know two things:
Well, dear Evangelical friends, the CC not only teaches that it is "the only ark of safety" it also teaches that "outside the Apostolic Church there is no salvation." That doctrine is stated, restated and reiterated multiple times multiple ways and with great clarity throughout Catholic history.
Why won't anyone take Rome at its word? Why are those of us who merely quote the Popes and Councils vilified for pointing out what these Popes and Councils clearly wanted us to recognize?
Benedict also stated that Vatican II has been misinterpreted. Again, he agrees with me! I know that Rome changed no core doctrine at the Council (it can't and still claim to be infallible). Leo XIII made it clear that Catholic doctrine can never be "reinterpreted" because of some "better understanding."
The Popes and Councils have been glaringly clear on their doctrines. The difference today is that the Popes no longer control an army as the Popes had during most of the history of the CC. They also do not control monarchies. Their long hatred of the United States and the ideals of "liberty of conscience" (deemed "insanity" by Pope Gregory) and the wall of separation (deemed a sin by Pope Pius IX) have been laid out for all to see. But most (Catholics and Evangelicals) refuse to take the Popes at their infallible word.
Here's some news: I believe the Popes! I believe they clearly meant what they clearly stated.
Gallup's and Barna's Polls
I don't care much for polling, but since certain statistics are kept over years their validity can be accepted to some degree. One such poll is "mass attendance" by Catholics. In the 50s and 60s mass attendance by Catholics was around 75%. Today that figure sits at 28% (Gallup's numbers). I wonder if the 72% non-attenders realize that missing mass on any Sunday or Holy Day of Obligation without a narrowly defined exception means they have committed a "grave sin" (see also "mortal sin"... eternal torment awaits you if you do not receive absolution).
Barna also notes that Catholics read the Bible far less than their counterparts in the general adult population. Mind you, that includes everybody else, not just Evangelicals. The answer given by a Catholic apologist for this is that Catholics get their Bible fix every Sunday at mass. That's nice, but only 28% go to mass and having it read to you is hardly "study[ing] to show yourself approved unto God."
I attended Catholic school and was a regular mass attender (as an altar boy I sometimes attended seven times a week). I used to take my lunch hour at work and slip on over for daily noon masses at St. Benedict's. I attended CCD classes and was a Religious Education teacher. But I never "studied" my Bible, nor was I ever encouraged to study it.
I took the Popes at their word. The current catechism states that the Pope and his Bishops are the "sole interpreters of scripture." Without explanation from the Pope or from his bishops, Catholic Bible studies are exercises in futility (and deemed dangerous by scores of Popes).
Keep on Talking, Benedict
Since nobody wants to believe me when I quote the Popes and Councils, I am hopeful that Pope Benedict keeps on talking! I am sure as I write, however, that ecumenical Evangelicals are scrambling to nuance the Pope's latest codification of millennial-old codified Catholic doctrines.
Oh, and you might want to note that when Rome uses the term "ecumenical" it means something entirely different than the naive, uneducated and willfully ignorant Evangelicals who use the same word. "Ecumenical" to the Pope means, you recognize his supremacy. Period.
How many times and in how many ways can the Popes say "no unity without submission to the Holy See" before somebody believes him?
"[O]n Tuesday, [the Vatican] released a document saying that only Catholicism 'has the fullness of the means of salvation'." - Washington Times
Pope Benedict released another statement reiterating what the Catholic Church has always taught: she is the only true church, only she has the "means of salvation." Ho hum, nothing new here. This is Catholicism 101. They didn't say anything new "Tuesday" than they haven't said for 1500 years. However, we all know two things:
- Had I tried to say that the CC teaches exactly what it has always taught, I'd be attacked as a "bigot" by Catholics and Evangelicals alike.
- Had I or any other Evangelical claimed that our church was the "only true church" or that only we had "the means of salvation," we'd be vilified from coast to coast by Catholics and Evangelicals alike.
Well, dear Evangelical friends, the CC not only teaches that it is "the only ark of safety" it also teaches that "outside the Apostolic Church there is no salvation." That doctrine is stated, restated and reiterated multiple times multiple ways and with great clarity throughout Catholic history.
Why won't anyone take Rome at its word? Why are those of us who merely quote the Popes and Councils vilified for pointing out what these Popes and Councils clearly wanted us to recognize?
Benedict also stated that Vatican II has been misinterpreted. Again, he agrees with me! I know that Rome changed no core doctrine at the Council (it can't and still claim to be infallible). Leo XIII made it clear that Catholic doctrine can never be "reinterpreted" because of some "better understanding."
The Popes and Councils have been glaringly clear on their doctrines. The difference today is that the Popes no longer control an army as the Popes had during most of the history of the CC. They also do not control monarchies. Their long hatred of the United States and the ideals of "liberty of conscience" (deemed "insanity" by Pope Gregory) and the wall of separation (deemed a sin by Pope Pius IX) have been laid out for all to see. But most (Catholics and Evangelicals) refuse to take the Popes at their infallible word.
Here's some news: I believe the Popes! I believe they clearly meant what they clearly stated.
Gallup's and Barna's Polls
I don't care much for polling, but since certain statistics are kept over years their validity can be accepted to some degree. One such poll is "mass attendance" by Catholics. In the 50s and 60s mass attendance by Catholics was around 75%. Today that figure sits at 28% (Gallup's numbers). I wonder if the 72% non-attenders realize that missing mass on any Sunday or Holy Day of Obligation without a narrowly defined exception means they have committed a "grave sin" (see also "mortal sin"... eternal torment awaits you if you do not receive absolution).
Barna also notes that Catholics read the Bible far less than their counterparts in the general adult population. Mind you, that includes everybody else, not just Evangelicals. The answer given by a Catholic apologist for this is that Catholics get their Bible fix every Sunday at mass. That's nice, but only 28% go to mass and having it read to you is hardly "study[ing] to show yourself approved unto God."
I attended Catholic school and was a regular mass attender (as an altar boy I sometimes attended seven times a week). I used to take my lunch hour at work and slip on over for daily noon masses at St. Benedict's. I attended CCD classes and was a Religious Education teacher. But I never "studied" my Bible, nor was I ever encouraged to study it.
I took the Popes at their word. The current catechism states that the Pope and his Bishops are the "sole interpreters of scripture." Without explanation from the Pope or from his bishops, Catholic Bible studies are exercises in futility (and deemed dangerous by scores of Popes).
Keep on Talking, Benedict
Since nobody wants to believe me when I quote the Popes and Councils, I am hopeful that Pope Benedict keeps on talking! I am sure as I write, however, that ecumenical Evangelicals are scrambling to nuance the Pope's latest codification of millennial-old codified Catholic doctrines.
Oh, and you might want to note that when Rome uses the term "ecumenical" it means something entirely different than the naive, uneducated and willfully ignorant Evangelicals who use the same word. "Ecumenical" to the Pope means, you recognize his supremacy. Period.
How many times and in how many ways can the Popes say "no unity without submission to the Holy See" before somebody believes him?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)