Catholic but not Roman Catholic

[agname]

OrthodoxBerean:

How would you all respond to this common claim that the early Church was Catholic but not Roman Catholic?

Tell them the entire early Church was Catholic…and that the Bishop of Rome held the primacy.

Irenaeus

“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus” (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).

Optatus

“You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas ‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

Ignatius of Antioch

“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

“You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force” (ibid., 3:1).

 

[JasonTE]

Tom of Assisi,

I’m part of the Evangelical Free Church.

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org

 

[JPrejean]

Well, the relative entertainment value of this exchange has suddenly taken a sharp downward turn now that my beloved Aggies have knocked out the defending national champions in their own ballpark, but I’ll see if I can put together a coherent response in the midst of my euphoria.

First, allow me to distill your arguments:

1. I am relying on the Holy Spirit apart from historical evidence.
2. By my understanding of history, anyone could claim historical support.
3. Your position has historical support in addition to its claims of the Holy Spirit.
4. Pope Pius’s words contradict my account of his understanding; he says the doctrine was held throughout time.
5. The mystery novel analogy is inappropriate, because if my theory were correct, no one would ever arrive at any conclusion but would simply rely on the Holy Spirit (essentially 1-3 reprised).
6. The distinction from Israel doesn’t save infallibility.
7. Contrary to my allegedly “low view” of Scripture, the Trinity can be found in Scripture, and in particular, enough to rebut Modalism.

My responses (lettered for convenience):
(A) (1), (2), (3), (5), and (7) are all essentially the same argument: your view has the support of both history AND the Holy Spirit; therefore, it must be correct. With respect to my view, you are saying that I have removed the historical requirement entirely, which basically opens the door to all manner of claims.

In fact, we both have history on our sides, because we are both offering a theory to explain an underlying set of facts (in this case, the writings of the ancients). The difference between us is on the theological question: “How do we discern the action of the Holy Spirit in history?” You are arguing that we don’t even need such a test, because we can simply apply rational predictability from Scripture to identify all essential doctrines (which incidentally is the definition of modernist or Enlightenment theology). I am arguing that rational predictability as a model is insufficient and even irreconcilable with certain Christian truth. In other words, your model doesn’t explain the historical record. I am arguing for a pure hindsight evaluation: simply determine whether a religious entity inconsistently accepts and rejects dogma considered certain by its predecessor. That alone suffices to reject the vast majority of spinoff denominations.

Essentially, my entire point is that rational predictability fails as a reasonable model. Your response on modalism is a great example. First, it doesn’t even reject modalism on its face (which was my point). Second, we have no evidence that Augustine is applying the historical-grammatical method or that by “clear,” he means clear by the historical-grammatical method (and in light of that, I seriously think you ought to dial back your insulting rhetoric about my “low view” of Scripture as compared to Augustine). This is exactly the kind of inconsistent appropriation that I mean: taking someone’s views without demonstrating that they work into your paradigm in the first place. If you really hold that rational predictability is the test, Augustine is irrelevant, because he is only as reliable as his consistency with rational predictability. In other words, you have just glaringly demonstrated that you don’t even believe in your own historical theory.

My own historical test is simply the modest suggestion that a Church guided by the Holy Spirit will not inconsistently appropriate dogma from one’s predecessors. It doesn’t rule out all candidates (the Orthodox and the Copts are examples), but it does remove a large amount of dross (Muslims, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, Unitarians, etc.). By your inconsistent methodology for appropriating doctrine, it appears that your denomination is in that group as well.

Re: (4) on Pope Pius IX, I’ve already said what he meant by “doctrine,” and I’m not going over it again. I think you’re completely misinterpreting him based on what I said before, I think your charge that I am not interacting with his words is obviously false, and I don’t think your rebuttal is sufficiently convincing to merit a response.

Re: (6), I’m not even arguing formal infallibility for the Church. I’m simply discussing what is necessary for us to adopt any theological formulation as certain, and in particular, to hold what we all consider to be certain (like various Trinitarian dogmas) as certain. Your test for rational predictability doesn’t make those doctrines certain, yet you accept them as certain anyway. Because your acceptance is inconsistent, I assume that you are relying on the Holy Spirit or some form of increased piety or submissiveness to Scripture to tell you which arguments to accept and not to accept, and my counter-point is that you would have to present some definition of apostasy that would affirm the one doctrine and explain how we fell away in the other.

 

[matthewa]

With all due respect to those of other faiths, Catholics MUST be obedient to the teachings and dogmas of the Church. If this is shown as arrogance, I’m sorry. The Early Fathers and Saints of the Church understood this very well. If a ruling on faith and morals comes from the Pope, yes, you must follow it, end of story. If the Church declares the Immaculate Conception Dogma, there is NO debate about it.

On Unity of Church:

Cyprian, Martyr, Bishop (3rd Century)
“The spouse of Christ (Church) cannot be an adultresses; she is incorrupt and chaste…She preserves us for God; she assigns the children she begets the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; he who leaves the Church of Christ does not come to the promises of Christ. He cannot have God for a father who has not the Church for a mother” (On Unity of Church, 6)

St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (396AD-410AD)
“I would not believe the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholic Church would move me to do so” (Against the Basic Letter)

“It happens that in the human body some member-hand, finger, foot-is cut off from the body. Does the soul follow the severed member? While is was in the body it lived; cut off, it loses life. So the Christian man is a Catholic while he lives in the Body; cut off, he becomes a heretic; the Holy Spirit does not follow the amputated member” (Sermon 267)

 

[hlgomez]

Let’s stick to the original question on this thread. So many of us here, catholics and non-catholics misunderstood the true identity of the Catholic Church.

The “Roman” Catholic Church is simply the Western Church where the Bishop of Rome is. The term “Roman” was coined by Protestants during the early years of “Reformation” who undoubtedly hated the Catholic Church. One of the reasons is that they want the Catholics to be identified with the term “Roman” meaning to belong to the “Papists.”

This term however was “adopted” by many Catholics until now, but simply to mean the Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church is simply the Catholic Church. However, in the Catholic Church there are also Eastern Churches who are in full communion with the Roman (or Western) Catholic Church like the Armenian, Coptic, Byzantine, Chaldean, etc. but we all have the same dogmas and doctrines BUT different traditions observed. These traditions are commonly referred to as the Western (Roman) and the Eastern (Byzantine) traditions. In short, the Catholic Church is not just simply “Roman” but also in it are the Eastern Catholic Churches in Communion with Rome, and comprises the whole Catholic Church. The Orthodox Churches (like Greek and Russian) are among the Eastern Orthodox Churches not yet in full commuion with the Catholic Church but were once members of the Catholic Church until the great Schism. However they still hold the valid sacraments, and observe the Catholic faith almost 99%, and we hope and pray that they too, very soon, be in full communion with the Bishop of Rome.

 

[SPH1]

4) Pope Pius’s words contradict my account of his understanding; he says the doctrine was held throughout time.

JPrejean, I think, succinctly sums up the main thrust of JasonTE’s line of attack. It is a direct attack on papal infallibility. JasonTE believes he has a clear-cut example of the pope being in error.

Of course, as JPrejean also shows, it also comes down to interpreting what the pope meant. For myself, I believe the pope explains in the bulk of his document.

But another thought hit me last night and I’ll toss it out. Is it the entire document Ineffabilis Deus which is considered infallible, or just the dogmatic pronouncement at the end?

There is an analogy in the law. When an appellate court, say the United States Supreme Court, issues a decision, it is only the holding which is binding on all other courts. The decision may have 20 or more pages explaining how the court reached its decision, but that is not necessarily binding. Only the holding.

Here’s the pope’s actual pronouncement:

We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.

I’m not convinced that infallibility necessarily attaches to the rest of the document. (And I don’t know that the pope even had to give any reasons: just proclaim the dogma.)

What the pope meant when he says the doctrine always existed can be an interesting academic debate, and is so between JasonTE and JPrejean. But I don’t know now that infallibility is at risk.

 

[Dolly]

JPrejean,

Thank you for your response to me and I will research the links you provided.

I hesitate to string this thread out too long or in needless directions, but I don’t believe I was clear in my post to you in one of the questions I was asking. (And because I can be so seemingly unclear frequently, my hesitancy is that I will muddy it even further)

When I spoke of salvation and the incarnation it was in relation to the development of doctrine as has been used in the church especially since Newman, and specifically in the areas that have been discussed between you and JasonTE, the dogma of the IC and the role of infallibility.

Let me restate some points that you just made in your last post to JasonTE: “I am arguing for a pure hindsight evaluation:simply determine whether a religious entity inconsistently accepts and rejects dogma considered certain by its predecessor.” “My own historical test is simply the modest suggestion that a Church guided by the Holy Spirit will not inconsistently appropriate dogma from one’s predecessors.” And, “I’m simply discussing what is necessary for us to adopt any theological formulation as certain, and in particular, to hold what we all consider to be certain (like various Trinitarian dogmas) as certain.”

Regarding the Incarnation, the Gospel and what has been taught as the meaning of both including what is necessary for salvation has been visible in the church in the written word and the orally preached word which I don’t believe are different in substance. But let’s take an early and short creed of the church, the Apostle’s Creed as an example. All the beliefs in that creed can be found in Scripture and vice versa. That is what I’ll call the core and necessary beliefs of Christianity. Not ignoring, but setting aside the facts of any later discussions/decrees of the whole church regarding going into details of each belief, the profession of that creed was sufficient to be able to understand and accept the Gospel, but not necessarily the discipline of living out the redeemed life in the flesh and in the church.
(to continue)

 

[Dolly]

JPrejean, (continued)

Now we jump definitively 1800 or so years in the future—this is where your statements come in. I hear repeatedly the mantra from Catholics sayig it makes no difference if any Catholic in any century believed something different as long as it wasn’t declared dogma—Their beliefs were inconsequential, but the minute it is defined, obedience sets in and submission of the will (and of course no further discussion regarding it). And of course, if they had only known the dogma, they would have believed it. But that is inconsistent with what had been taught as the Gospel and necessary for salvation for centuries. That mantra was never heard in the early church, in Patristic writings or in the middle ages I believe. All historical data is dismissed using that argument and it confirms C. S. Lewis’ comment on why he could not be Catholic—because of the ability of the church to declare anything it believes necessary as dogma in the future (I am paraphrasing him and please excuse me as I don’t have the exact quote at hand)

The meaning of salvation and of the gospel has changed since the mid-1800’s in the Roman Church and what was sufficient to know and accept from the apostles onward through the centuries and in which they were baptized is not now enough. Yes, I know that you will probably say that inherent in our baptism is our submission to the church. But the added Marian dogma’s (and I would include papal infallibility in there), the submission of the will regarding them, is now seen as necessary to be Catholic and in union with the church and this is necessary for our salvation, but which was not necessary for the previous 1800 years. There is now extra doctrine/dogma and there may even be more to come—why was it not necessary for all those earlier Christians to know these dogmas and submit to them, from the apostles onward? Why wait 1800 years+, if they had always been know and taught in the church? (Thus the dissonance and inconsistency between earlier theology and the theory of development of doctrine ala Newman) To my original questions, are the Marian doctrines and infallibility necessary to believe in order to know, understand and accept the Gospel–the Incarnation of Christ and God’s purpose in that? Without the Marian dogmas, especially the IC, is there a lack in the fullness of the Incarnation?

I cannot see where your requirements of hindsight and consistently accepting are true—what is true is the inconsistency, especially in the last two centuries, of applying the Gospel message as preached from the Apostles and beginning with the Apostles’ Creed as to what is necessary for believing for salvation. Maybe C. S. Lewis was right after all and we are just adding another sola but this time sola ecclesia and that even applied inconsistently. I do hope he was wrong, but I don’t see by your arguments, and those of the western tradition using Newman, at this point that he was.

Again, sorry for the length and detour and will cease at this point. Thanks again

 

[JPrejean]

I’d differ with your opinion a bit, SPH1. I think Mr. Engwer is out to counter Catholics claims of historicity and not infallibility per se. Rejecting infallibility would, however, be a likely result if someone believed Catholics to be unhistorical, since it would leave infallibility as a purely self-referential assertion, much like the Mormons’ “burning in the bosom.” As I perceive his argument, it goes something like this:

1. Catholics claim to be a historical religion.
2. The Immaculate Conception is an example of a dogma based on a substantive error about historical facts, which means the doctrine does not validly claim historical support.
3. Therefore, Catholicism’s claim to be a historical religion is false.

His proof of (2) argues essentially that:
i) For a doctrine to have “always been held” historically, it must be rationally predictable from earlier beliefs.
ii) Pope Pius IX said that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was always held historically.
iii) The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was objectively not rationally predictable from the earlier beliefs.
iv) Hence, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was not always held historically (from i and iii).
v) Hence, Pope Pius based a dogma on a historical error (from ii and iv).

Mr. Engwer’s argument fails to be compellingly persuasive for two reasons. First, it relies on premise (i), which is, as I’ve pointed out, a modernist view of theological history that effectively erodes the certainty of even the most basic Christian beliefs and which Pope Pius IX explicitly rejected. Second, there’s a subtle consequence involved in deriving the contradiction of (v) that Mr. Engwer refuses to confront. If we were to assume for the sake of argument that Pius IX really did mean that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was always taught either explicitly or in the sense of premise (i) (a notion that I consider patently absurd, BTW), then the absolutely necessary question that follows is why? As I can see it, Pius IX would have to be either dishonest or ignorant. As I mentioned above, dishonesty in this case would require no small share of ignorance, given how easy it would be in Mr. Engwer’s eyes to demonstrate the contrary. Therefore, if we were to accept Mr. Engwer’s characterization, we would have to conclude that Pope Pius IX, the longest serving Pope this side of Peter and a lifelong student of theology, managed to consult all of the world’s bishops and numerous Catholic theologians without becoming aware of the points Mr. Engwer raises, even though Mr. Engwer views the contradiction as patently obvious to anyone who studies the historical record.

There is actually one other case. Pope Pius IX and the other bishops could have been so convinced of their own power that they said to themselves: ha ha, we know this doctrine isn’t there, but what we say goes, and we will simply punish anyone who actually checks into the history. IOW, the Jack Chick theory: power-mad Rome is so arrogant that they think they can bind Christians to whatever they say and silence all dissent. This is the drumbeat playing in almost every anti-Catholic theme, and anybody who is playing that tune has dropped beneath the level of rational discussion. But I seriously doubt that Mr. Engwer is making such an implication.

Personally, I think that Mr. Engwer just doesn’t grasp quite how bad (i) is as a paradigm for studying the history of theology. There’s a reason Pope Pius called modernist theology the “synthesis of all heresies.”

 

[JPrejean]

Dolly:
The reason that anyone comes to the Catholic Church is that he believes in his heart that the Catholic Church is truly the instrument by which God shares His truth with us. From that perspective, it can never be the case that knowing more truth is a bad thing. Indeed, it is the great promise of the Catholic Church that our knowledge of God will grow and grow until we reach its culmination at the end of time. But with that increased knowledge comes more responsibility. We have been given to know more of God, and more is therefore expected of us. Your argument here reminds me a bit of the mentality about contraception that treates children like a burden instead of a blessing. Knowledge of God is a gift from God Himself, and to view it as anything other than a precious gift is to err.

I strongly disagree with your contention that the Apostles’s Creed was ever “all that was necessary to understand and accept the Gospel.” To the extent that a person has more knowledge of God, he must accept that in faith as well, and that was true long before the East-West Schism. As Catholics, we believe that the Catholic Church is revealing God’s truth through the proclamation of dogma. Lewis is not Catholic, so he thinks of dogma as “whatever they feel like” and not “whatever God says.” From the perspective of the Catholic Church, though, it is God and not men making these additions, and we dare not question His judgment in these matters.

 

[Richard_Froggat]

Hi Dolly,

I hope you don’t mind me jumping in here.

Dolly:

The meaning of salvation and of the gospel has changed since the mid-1800’s in the Roman Church and what was sufficient to know and accept from the apostles onward through the centuries and in which they were baptized is not now enough.

To the first part, no, the meaning has not changed. Let me first clarify that salvation has two senses. The one is most associated with final perseverance, the second is that which we must work out. This second sense is the one that here concerns us, for it is in this sense that the Church leads her children home.

To the second part, as far as sufficiency, let me use an analogy if I may. In the 1800’s, it was sufficient to lead your family cross country in a wagon train. Now however, though it is still a sufficient means, it is not the best way, as our mode of travel has developed considerably.

Which leads me to how I want to answer your question.

Dolly:

To my original questions, are the Marian doctrines and infallibility necessary to believe in order to know, understand and accept the Gospel–the Incarnation of Christ and God’s purpose in that? Without the Marian dogmas, especially the IC, is there a lack in the fullness of the Incarnation?

I believe that these doctrines enable me to know and understand in a better light than I would have without them. And there was a time that I was without them.

To the question I have bolded. I would then say yes. I do not believe that we can right now fully understand the incarnation, but these doctrines bring it into a better light. The more I contemplate them the more I contemplate Christ.

This is my understanding and if it lacks please let me know and I will do my best to clarify any point.

In JMJ, Richard

 

[Dolly]

JPrejean,

I did intend to not respond further, but since you have misquoted and misrepresented me and not even dealt at with the argument, I feel constrained to make a comment.

There was no where that I said that the Apostles’ Creed was “ever all that was necessary to understand and accept the Gospel”. I don’t believe you read my, admittedly long, post at all in depth, with the intent in which I wrote, but maybe just a quick cursory reading. Granted you are in conversation with others, my post was long, and I understand that. But please be honest enough to be truthful and not misrepresent. Your answer/argument is circular and you are willing to assume the meaning/intent of other’s words, but not hold yourself to that same standard. It seems to me that in your mind someone is either a rebellious against authority type—the ‘me and Jesus ya know’, or they are modernist/rationalist if the mood so fits. Your dig about the argument reminding you of the mentality about contraception that treats children like a burden and not a blessing is a smokescreen to divert attention from the question and therefore put a persons intent/motives to judgment first and foremost.

I have also read posts of yours in other fora for some time (this is the first forum I have attempted to express these thoughts) and find you usually gracious and willing to think through issues and give the person on the other side of the aisle the same courtesy. But what I have seen at times is at some point there is a double standard that comes into play to which the other side of the argument is held, but your side is not and then may go on to either misrepresent the other’s argument or questions intent. I’m sorry this is ending this way, and possibly if I had not jumped into the issue initiallly, I wouldn’t be at this point. But, all things said, I’m glad I did Thank you again for the time you took to answer.

 

[JPrejean]

Ouch, you’re right about the misquote. I actually intended to move those quotes to the right a few words, but I was typing too quickly. Mea culpa.

I certainly wasn’t misrepresenting you intentionally; I honestly believe that you are saying that the Church is “adding requirements to salvation.” My point is that I, as a Catholic, believe that the Church’s revealed dogma is a gift from God, and that all Catholics have a responsibility to affirm that gift to the best of their respective abilities. Even if one looks at the revealed dogma as making it “harder to be saved,” the Church didn’t add the requirement; God did. If you’re saying that such “additional requirements” somehow diminish the good news of the Gospel, then that’s where we’ve gotta part ways. I don’t mean to berate you for your opinion at all, but you asked for my opinion, and I have to be honest about not being open to yours in this case.

Now, you said a couple of things about my mindset that I can answer, so here goes:

It seems to me that in your mind someone is either a rebellious against authority type—the ‘me and Jesus ya know’, or they are modernist/rationalist if the mood so fits.

Being supremely qualified on one subject, i.e., what I’m thinking, I can definitely say that this isn’t right. I am extremely careful about labelling anyone as a “me and Jesus” type OR a modernist/rationalist, because very few people are, and almost nobody is one deliberately. What concerns me most are people who speak on behalf of Catholics wrongly. IOW, I have no problem with people having their own personal beliefs on Catholicism or with people having their own personal critiques of Catholicism. What gets me involved is when someone doesn’t get Catholic dogma right, because then they are either speaking on my behalf without my consent or trashing a straw man labeled “Catholic.” Unfortunately, very few critiques of Catholicism are based on truth, but I am not opposed to those that are (see, e.g., my dialogues with Tim Enloe).

Your dig about the argument reminding you of the mentality about contraception that treats children like a burden and not a blessing is a smokescreen to divert attention from the question and therefore put a persons intent/motives to judgment first and foremost.

The lesson is, I suppose, never draw analogies on short notice. There’s probably a better one, but that is honestly the one that occurred to me almost immediately. I didn’t mean to say anything about your motives, but only to express my gut reaction to your arguments. Sometimes guts aren’t all that smart.

I have also read posts of yours in other fora for some time (this is the first forum I have attempted to express these thoughts) and find you usually gracious and willing to think through issues and give the person on the other side of the aisle the same courtesy. But what I have seen at times is at some point there is a double standard that comes into play to which the other side of the argument is held, but your side is not and then may go on to either misrepresent the other’s argument or questions intent.

Since I’m the same person in both instances, perhaps there is something else at work. I think I know what you mean by the “double standard” though, because I have a habit of being solely a critic without presenting a counter-position. I pretty much blow by any “what about you?” argument, because my goal in a discussion is not to present my own opinion but to brutalize other people’s arguments based on false characterizations or inconsistencies. If I don’t present an argument, then it keeps the discussion focused where it should be: on the other guy’s errors. If they can present an argument against Catholicism that is not fallacious (see, e.g., Tim Enloe’s argument against the papacy, numerous Orthodox positions), then I’m perfectly willing to allow it to remain intact.

 

[JasonTE]

JPrejean:

In fact, we both have history on our sides, because we are both offering a theory to explain an underlying set of facts (in this case, the writings of the ancients).

No, claiming to give an explanation of historical data isn’t equivalent to having history on your side. Those who deny that the Holocaust occurred give an explanation of the data of history. But they don’t have history on their side. If you acknowledge that you can’t trace the Immaculate Conception back to the apostles by the normal standards of historical evidence, as you have admitted, then history is in that sense on my side and not on your side. If you want to claim that history is on your side in the sense that history is on the side of anybody who attempts any explanation of history, then you can do so, but that’s not the sense I was referring to.

JPrejean:

You are arguing that we don’t even need such a test, because we can simply apply rational predictability from Scripture to identify all essential doctrines (which incidentally is the definition of modernist or Enlightenment theology).

No, I haven’t argued that a doctrine must be in scripture. If you can prove apostolicity of a doctrine outside of scripture, I would accept the doctrine as apostolic.

You can keep calling me a “modernist” all you want, but repeating the label doesn’t make it accurate. You’ve repeatedly defined modernism in ways that make the label inapplicable to me, yet you keep applying it to me. If concluding that a doctrine should be traceable to the apostles by normal historical standards in order to be considered apostolic is equivalent to “modernism”, then there’s nothing wrong with modernism. But I think you’re aware that the phrase carries with it suggestions of other beliefs that I don’t hold.

JPrejean:

I am arguing that rational predictability as a model is insufficient and even irreconcilable with certain Christian truth.

Would you explain what Christian truths my view is inconsistent with? Remember, I don’t deny that the Holy Spirit can lead a person to a belief apart from historical evidence. But I don’t believe that the Holy Spirit is leading anybody to doctrines such as the papacy and the Immaculate Conception. Just as it’s theoretically possible for the Spirit to lead people to such doctrines, it’s also theoretically possible for the Spirit to lead people to other doctrines that are outside of the Roman Catholic rule of faith. The Holy Spirit could conceivably reveal to an individual in a dream that Joseph was immaculately conceived or that the apostle John was bodily assumed to Heaven. But you as a Roman Catholic wouldn’t reject the Roman Catholic rule of faith as insufficient just because such a leading of the Spirit is possible or is claimed by some individual.

If you think that the Spirit is leading your denomination to doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception, then say so and present whatever evidence you think you have to support that conclusion, if any. I, on the other hand, don’t believe in such a leading of your denomination by the Spirit, and I’ve argued that the Immaculate Conception can’t be traced back to the apostles by normal historical standards. The same is true of the papacy and other Roman Catholic doctrines. If the people reading this thread don’t accept your claim that the Holy Spirit led the RCC to the Immaculate Conception doctrine, and the doctrine can’t be traced back to the apostles by normal historical standards, then why would they believe in the doctrine? If you aren’t going to make a historical case for the RCC’s unique authority claims, and you aren’t going to make a historical case for the Immaculate Conception being apostolic, then all you’re doing is telling us to accept the Immaculate Conception because the Holy Spirit is leading us to accept it. For those who aren’t convinced that your claim about the Holy Spirit is true, you have nothing else to offer. You have no historical case. And I’m saying that you have no historical case because Roman Catholicism is not as deep in history as it claims to be.

We’ve already discussed the Immaculate Conception and the papacy. I could cite other examples of Roman Catholic doctrines that can’t be traced back to the apostles by normal historical standards. Why is it that a denomination that claims such deep historical roots would repeatedly be unable to defend its doctrines from the historical record, including the doctrine that is the foundation of its authority claims (the papacy)?

continued in next post

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org

 

[JasonTE]

JPrejean:

Mr. Engwer’s argument fails to be compellingly persuasive for two reasons. First, it relies on premise (i), which is, as I’ve pointed out, a modernist view of theological history that effectively erodes the certainty of even the most basic Christian beliefs

All of us are fallible. Your claim to have the guidance of the Spirit isn’t certain just because you think it’s true. Historical evidence doesn’t give us certainty, but it does give us confidence.

JPrejean:

I am arguing for a pure hindsight evaluation: simply determine whether a religious entity inconsistently accepts and rejects dogma considered certain by its predecessor.

How does the approach you’re describing address circumstances in which a doctrine is proposed that previous generations neither accepted nor rejected in a way that they considered certain? If the RCC was to teach 500 years from now that all prayers to Mary are mediated through Joseph, what significance would there be in the fact that previous Roman Catholics hadn’t considered themselves certain that the doctrine was false? You tell us that your approach “suffices to reject the vast majority of spinoff denominations”, but you haven’t justified your approach, and, by your own admission, it doesn’t single out Roman Catholicism. This discussion originated as an evaluation of the concept that Roman Catholicism is historically deep. If the argument you’re presenting doesn’t even single out the RCC, nor does it prove that any of the organizations meeting the standard are deep enough in history to be considered apostolic, then how are you proving that the RCC is apostolic? Apostolicity is, after all, what I was addressing when you entered this discussion.

JPrejean:

Your response on modalism is a great example. First, it doesn’t even reject modalism on its face (which was my point).

What do you mean by “it doesn’t even reject modalism on its face”? My approach does lead to the rejection of Modalism, since Modalism is contradicted by the apostles. If by “on its face” you mean that my approach doesn’t begin with the conclusion that Modalism is false, then I would ask why such a fact proves the falseness of my approach.

JPrejean:

we have no evidence that Augustine is applying the historical-grammatical method or that by “clear,” he means clear by the historical-grammatical method

He appeals to the objective meaning of the words in the passage, and he argues rationally from the words used.

JPrejean:

If you really hold that rational predictability is the test, Augustine is irrelevant, because he is only as reliable as his consistency with rational predictability. In other words, you have just glaringly demonstrated that you don’t even believe in your own historical theory.

You’re misrepresenting my citation of Augustine. I didn’t cite Augustine as if the issue in question is settled by his authority, apart from the validity of his argument. Rather, I cited Augustine to explain why I cited Matthew 3 and as an example of somebody who agreed with my interpretation of Matthew 3, even though you claim him as one of your predecessors.

JPrejean:

By your inconsistent methodology for appropriating doctrine, it appears that your denomination is in that group as well.

How have I been inconsistent?

continued in next post

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org

 

[JasonTE]

JPrejean:

Re: (4) on Pope Pius IX, I’ve already said what he meant by “doctrine,” and I’m not going over it again.

That’s the problem: you keep saying that the Pope allegedly meant what you believe, but you keep refusing to address the words of the Pope that I’ve cited. And even if we accepted your unproven assertion about the Pope meaning something other than the doctrine in question when he refers to “doctrine”, there are other phrases the Pope used. He doesn’t just use the word “doctrine”. If the Pope says that the fathers of the church used particular imagery in order to express their belief in Mary always being free from every stain of sin, how does arguing for an alternate meaning of the word “doctrine” explain what the Pope said? It doesn’t.

JPrejean:

Therefore, if we were to accept Mr. Engwer’s characterization, we would have to conclude that Pope Pius IX, the longest serving Pope this side of Peter and a lifelong student of theology, managed to consult all of the world’s bishops and numerous Catholic theologians without becoming aware of the points Mr. Engwer raises

I’ve already addressed that argument. Many highly educated and experienced clergymen over the centuries, including Popes, have done things that you think were incorrect (a council teaching about how to treat Jews, a papal decree about people having sex with demons, etc.).

I’ve already explained how Pope Pius IX could have been aware of many of the facts I’ve presented, yet still thought that the Immaculate Conception was an apostolic tradition always held by the church. Maybe he thought the opposition to the doctrine was insignificant. Maybe he erroneously thought that concepts such as the Eve/Mary parallel inevitably grow into the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, even though you and I agree that they don’t. Whatever the possible reasons for the Pope being mistaken, his words can’t reasonably be interpreted as historically accurate. That’s probably why you keep relying on the argument that the Pope surely wasn’t so ignorant, all the while refusing to address the relevant words of the Pope that I’ve cited. You’ve also ignored what I cited from the First Vatican Council regarding the papacy, which is arguably even more problematic for you than Ineffabilis Deus. You can’t rationally defend some of the claims made by your hierarchy, so you fall back on the assumption that the hierarchy was surely too honest and intelligent to have meant what it seems to have said. But we know that your denomination can make highly unintelligent claims, because it sometimes has done so, even by your standards.

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org

 

[hlgomez]

Jason,

I want to ask you the following questions:

1. Do you believe that the Church that Jesus established will never err until the end?
2. If the Holy Spirit is in the Protestant “Church,” do you think the same Holy Spirit will say something today and another thing tomorrow (e.g. abortion, contraception, gay marriage, cloning, etc.)?
3. There is only one truth, do you think that the Holy Spirit in the Protestant “Church” will have various interpretations for only one truth and often times contradict each other?
4. Since all Protestant denominations (30k plus and counting) claim to be the “Church” founded by Jesus, which one is true?

Lastly, I want to tell you something that the Catholic Church is NOT a denominational church. This one thing I observed and conclude that your perception of the Catholic Church is flawed.

God bless and enlighten you. Please reply.

Pio

 

[JPrejean]

OK, that last set of posts was non-responsive, but I think it’s my fault for not making my argument clear enough.

First, I have absolutely no idea what you mean by “normal historical methods.” The only “normal historical method” of which I am aware is to propose a theory that explains the existence of the historical record and to apply the theory the historical record in order to determine if it is supported. On extremely rare occasions, someone such as a Holocaust denier will refuse to acknowledge tangible evidence of a historical occurrence, even though they accept the same kind of tangible evidence as authentic in other areas. The reverse error is to accept a document that appears to be inauthentic according to the historical standards for validity. This is what is known as revisionist history: saying that something that we have a record of happening didn’t happen, or making claims based on a source that is likely false. But in many cases, the authenticity of the documents is pretty much unquestioned. Instead, the question is how to best explain it.

Before we even get back into the substance, let’s get the theories straight. It seems to me that we are each proposing a theory on how to identify doctrines that are not apostolic (contrary to your previous statement, I’m pretty sure that there is no “normal historical method” for telling whether something’s apostolic in origin; that’s what we’re trying to figure out). From your last set of posts, I infer that your historical test for apostolicity ought to be rational predictability from Scripture. My central historical objection is that it would reject too much (i.e., it would reject doctrines that we both consider apostolic in origin). My Catholic theory for apostolicity is development of implicit dogmas and noncontradiction of explicit dogmas. Your historical objection appears to be that it is does not provide any test for determining whether the doctrine is actually in the apostolic deposit or the patristic writings (basically, there is no way to apply it to the historical records to detemine whether it is true, so it’s not a real historical method).

Have I represented the theories and the objections fairly?

 

[JasonTE]

hlgomez:

Do you believe that the Church that Jesus established will never err until the end?

Since the church wouldn’t be the church unless it held particular beliefs, some beliefs would have to always be held, such as the Messiahship of Jesus. However, issues such as whether Mary was a perpetual virgin or whether 1 Maccabees is canonical wouldn’t have to always be understood correctly. Councils, including councils considered ecumenical by one standard or another, can err. Bishops can teach false doctrine, including Roman bishops who are speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals.

hlgomez:

If the Holy Spirit is in the Protestant “Church,” do you think the same Holy Spirit will say something today and another thing tomorrow (e.g. abortion, contraception, gay marriage, cloning, etc.)?

No, the Holy Spirit, being God, never contradicts Himself. Thus, the Holy Spirit who inspired the scriptures couldn’t have inspired the Roman Catholic doctrines that contradict scripture. And the Holy Spirit couldn’t have inspired the Council of Constance to say that councils have authority over Popes and the First Vatican Council to say that Popes have authority over councils. The Holy Spirit couldn’t have inspired the RCC to say that not eating meat on Fridays is necessary for salvation one year, but isn’t necessary another year. He couldn’t have inspired the soteriological contradictions between the Council of Florence and the Second Vatican Council. Etc.

If you think that a church must be infallible, as the RCC claims to be, if the Holy Spirit is in that church, then I would ask why you think so. Scripture repeatedly refers to the Holy Spirit being within each Christian. Do you conclude that every Christian is infallible?

hlgomez:

Since all Protestant denominations (30k plus and counting) claim to be the “Church” founded by Jesus, which one is true?

Protestant denominations claim to be part of the church, not the entirety of it. See my earlier comments, in previous posts, on the various ways in which the term “church” is defined.

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org

 

[JasonTE]

JPrejean:

First, I have absolutely no idea what you mean by “normal historical methods.”

Historians follow a rational process in examining an issue such as whether a doctrine can be traced back to the apostles. You’ve said that no rational process is needed.

JPrejean:

From your last set of posts, I infer that your historical test for apostolicity ought to be rational predictability from Scripture.

I do believe that scripture is the only material extant that we can trace back to the apostles. However, I don’t expect Roman Catholics to begin with the assumption that scripture is the only apostolic material we have. If a Roman Catholic wants to argue for apostolic teachings outside of scripture, I’m willing to listen. In other words, I begin with apostolicity, then arrive at sola scriptura. I don’t expect Roman Catholics to begin with sola scriptura.

JPrejean:

My central historical objection is that it would reject too much (i.e., it would reject doctrines that we both consider apostolic in origin).

Proving that some of my beliefs don’t meet my standard wouldn’t refute the standard. I would accept Trinitarian doctrines, for example, because I think they meet my standard. If I was convinced that they don’t meet the standard, I could reject them much as Roman Catholics reject some anti-papal canons and other teachings of some of the ecumenical councils.

JPrejean:

My Catholic theory for apostolicity is development of implicit dogmas and noncontradiction of explicit dogmas. Your historical objection appears to be that it is does not provide any test for determining whether the doctrine is actually in the apostolic deposit or the patristic writings (basically, there is no way to apply it to the historical records to detemine whether it is true, so it’s not a real historical method).

I don’t deny that you have a standard for determining apostolicity. And I don’t deny that it involves examining historical documents. What I deny is that your standard rationally takes us back to the apostles, in a way that would be objectively verifiable in a forum such as this one.

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org