Catholic but not Roman Catholic

[JPrejean]

JasonTE:

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.

I’ll clarify this a bit. The rational process is proposing a theory and verifying the theory against the historical record. For example, if the issue is whether the doctrine can be traced back to the apostles, the historian would propose a historical criterion for traceability and then check to see whether that criterion is met.
So in this case, each side proposes a historical test for determining whether a doctrine is apostolic. My observation was that such a test does not need to posit that the doctrines are derivable a priori from the apostolic sources according to a rational means in order to be historical.

JasonTE:

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.

Since I don’t want to confuse the theories, I think it suffices to say that you believe that doctrine can be derived from Scripture without appeal to other sources, and that suffices to make your theory testable. IOW, there’s no reason in proposing your own theory for you to be amenable to Catholic concerns, although I appreciate your open-mindedness. I presume that “begin with apostolicity” means “begin with the apostolicity of the sources,” and since you see Scripture as the only definitely apostolic collection of documents, Scripture is the basis of your theory.

JasonTE:

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.

I agree with that. That’s why I’m trying to identify developed doctrines that we consider to have been correctly identified as apostolic. If your historical standard rejects those beliefs, then your historical theory is inconsistent with your theology, and your theology is unhistorical (until you can propose a new theory, of course). If you can’t identify a set of definite beliefs, then your theory is untestable, and hence, unhistorical.

JasonTE:

I don’t deny that you have a standard for determining apostolicity. And I don’t deny that it involves examining historical documents.

It sounds to this point like you are conceding that it is a historical theory.

Your last statement essentially summarizes your entire view, so I’m giving it a separate post.

 

[JPrejean]

JasonTE:

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.

There’s a lot packed in this statement, so I’ll try to unpack all of the issues.

First, you argue that the standard doesn’t “rationally take us back to the apostles,” but that isn’t a requirement for historical theories generally. Only your theory of apostolicity that requires such a thing. IOW, this isn’t a historical objection at all.

Second, whether it is objectively verifiable in a forum such as this one is essentially a matter of happenstance. This is why it is essentially impossible to have a historically-decisive discussion between, e.g., Catholics and Orthodox, although there are many meaningful discussions of the subject on discussion boards that help the members of each faith understand in detail where they agree and differ. There’s simply no way to cover all of that ground in a way that is historically fair, so it ends up simply being a battle of the experts in the fora (and so, essentially, an educational experience rather than a conclusive proof for either side).

But in this case, I think maybe we can cover the subject, because your historical theory makes such comprehensive claims for apostolicity that it can be proved false by contradiction if even one accepted doctrine can’t be confirmed by your criteria. For example, if you can’t prove the rational predictability of the Chalcedonian formula, you have to reject it as non-apostolic.

On the flip side, showing a contradiction between explicit dogmas in Catholicism would falsify the Catholic historical theory. Of course, we have the advantage of already having already responded to a massive number of purported contradictions, so it’s hard to find an area that hasn’t been covered better elsewhere. But in a way, that’s an advantage for the evangelical, since no evangelical has had the courage to enter the field and to advocate this theory of apostolicity in a historically rigorous way (hence, the famous quote from Newman about historical depth, before historians like Schaff, Kelly, and Pelikan appeared on the scene). You have the option of stealing the arguments of Schaff, Kelly, and Pelikan, who each have drastically different historical theories from your own, without having to defend your own historical claims, which are vastly more ambitious than theirs (or the Catholic claims, for that matter).

Third, I would note that there seems to be an implicit argument in your statement that you don’t find the Catholic (or the Orthodox) test for apostolicity convincing. It is important to understand that this criticism is theological, not historical. Your distaste for what we mean by apostolicity (i.e., succession, preservation of the apostolic deposit, and no conflict between explicit statements of dogma) says nothing about whether it is historical or not.

Your central difficulty seems to be that anyone could claim historical continuity simply be conveniently defining what apostolicity is. I’ve actually come up with a convenient test of historical skepticism to deal with that problem (inspired by the Crackpot Index: math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html). My test for unhistorical religious claims is this: if any part of your divine revelation was given to a historical predecessor, you must provide a historical reason for taking some part of their beliefs and rejecting others. This heuristic simply rejects numerous religions as unhistorical (Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc.), and it’s a convenient test noting when religions appear out of nowhere.

 

[Serafin]

Hi:

Wow, great thread and very interesting arguments. Here is my two cents:

I do not understand how it can be unequivocally sustained that the “Roman” Catholic Church of today is equivalent to the “Catholic Church” of the Church fathers and early centuries. For one thing that “Catholic Church” included the Eastern Patriarchates and and least for the first four centuries it also included the Oriental Churches. There can be no denying that the scisms which have plaged the “Catholic Church” and fragmented it have altered what was. The funny thing is how each fragment refuses to acknowledge what seems so logical… the “Catholic Church” has divided, is not whole, and is in need of repair! What we have today are separated communities of Christians, albeit some with impressive ancient lineages, spirituality, organization and yes… great apologists but nevertheless fragments of a whole! The largest piece of a broken mirror may still be useful but it is only part of what was a whole, and no more than the rest …crazy glue needed!

Blessings

Serafin +

 

[PaulDupre]

JasonTE:

If by “Jason” you’re referring to me, then may I ask where I’ve said that “all Catholic rites are only Roman”? I haven’t said it.

But I do refer to your denomination as the Roman Catholic Church. Many people do. Here are some examples of the Roman Catholic Church referring to itself as Roman, even using the term “Roman Catholic”. The first quote claims that every Christian church has the Roman church as its only foundation. If Rome is your only foundation, why would you object to being called “Roman”?

No Jason, when the authors say “The Roman Church” or “the Church at Rome”, they are referring to the Diocese of Rome (we still refer to a diocese as a Church - for instance I am part of the Church at Orange, CA - the Diocese of Orange). The Diocese of Rome is where the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) presides. He holds the keys to the office of Peter and is the Vicar of Christ on the earth. Because the Bishop of the Roman Church, or Diocese, is the Pope, the other Churches have always looked to the Church at Rome for a definitive answer on tough questions. This is very evident in the writings of the Church fathers. So the Roman Church as “the foundation” indicates the role of the successor of Peter as the guardian of the sacred deposit of faith passed down from the apostles.
It is the same in the New Testament. When the sacred author writes to “The Church at Ephasus”, he is writing to the Church (or Diocese) headed by the bishop of Ephasus.
There is no such thing as the Roman Catholic Church and you will never find that name in any authoritative publication. There is only one Catholic Church. There are however Roman Catholics, or more properly Latin Rite Catholics. We are Catholics who happen to be members of the Latin (or Roman) Rite within the Catholic Church.

 

[JasonTE]

JPrejean:

I think maybe we can cover the subject, because your historical theory makes such comprehensive claims for apostolicity that it can be proved false by contradiction if even one accepted doctrine can’t be confirmed by your criteria.

Again, proving that a person has applied an argument incorrectly doesn’t disprove the argument. If you were to convince an Evangelical that a Trinitarian doctrine isn’t Biblical, it wouldn’t logically follow that sola scriptura has been disproven. What would logically follow is that the Evangelical should either abandon sola scriptura or abandon the Trinitarian doctrine. If he would decide to abandon sola scriptura, it would be because he knows that the Trinitarian doctrine is true on some other ground. What I’m asking you to do is to prove that other ground. You can’t do it.

JPrejean:

On the flip side, showing a contradiction between explicit dogmas in Catholicism would falsify the Catholic historical theory.

As I said earlier, the Roman Catholic definition of “explicit dogmas” is arbitrary and highly malleable. Ecumenical councils can contradict each other, and you’ll claim that one council wasn’t speaking infallibly, whereas the other one was. A Pope can issue a decree that teaches things contradictory to what the RCC now teaches, and the Pope can use highly authoritative language in doing so, and you’ll dismiss what the Pope taught as fallible. An anti-Roman-Catholic belief can be widely held by the church fathers for hundreds of years, but you’ll claim that it doesn’t qualify as an “explicit dogma”. The standard by which you’ll make these distinctions will be one that none of the earliest Christians mentioned and that cannot rationally be traced back to the apostles.

There’s no need to get into a discussion of whether the RCC has contradicted itself in “explicit dogmas”, whatever that means. Even if there were no such contradictions, your argument would still fail because of its inability to give us reason to accept Roman Catholicism. By your own admission, the argument you’re using to distinguish between differing belief systems fails to single out the RCC. It fails to give us reason to accept any belief system. The fact that a doctrine is consistent with previous doctrines that have been accepted, and that it’s implicit in previous beliefs in some non-rational way, doesn’t prove that it’s correct. Interpreting James 5:16 as a reference to publicly confessing all sins to a deacon may be consistent with the “explicit dogmas” of a group. And the group may choose to derive the doctrine from James 5:16 in some non-rational way. But neither the doctrine’s consistency with previous beliefs nor its non-rational basis in James 5:16 gives us an objective, verifiable reason to accept the doctrine.

continued in next post

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

 

[JasonTE]

JPrejean:

But in a way, that’s an advantage for the evangelical, since no evangelical has had the courage to enter the field and to advocate this theory of apostolicity in a historically rigorous way (hence, the famous quote from Newman about historical depth, before historians like Schaff, Kelly, and Pelikan appeared on the scene). You have the option of stealing the arguments of Schaff, Kelly, and Pelikan, who each have drastically different historical theories from your own, without having to defend your own historical claims, which are vastly more ambitious than theirs (or the Catholic claims, for that matter).

I don’t know what your standard is for “a historically rigorous way”, but many Evangelicals have written at length about the historical evidence, including apostolicity, for a wide range of Evangelical doctrines. Regardless of whether they mention apostolicity as their reason for holding to sola scriptura, they do argue in depth for the historical validity of their Biblical interpretations. They’ve done so without resorting to the sort of absurdities your denomination utilizes in claiming to find a papacy or a bodily assumption of Mary, for example, in scripture.

As far as courage is concerned, I’m in agreement with George Salmon’s comments late in the nineteenth century regarding the battlefield of historical argumentation between Roman Catholics and Protestants. The Roman Catholic side is on the retreat, and we need look no further than the popularity of Cardinal Newman as proof. If your denomination was as deep in history as it claims to be, it wouldn’t need to appeal to a speculative and unverifiable process of doctrinal development to explain why its teachings are so widely absent and contradicted in early church history.

You tell me that my claims are “vastly more ambitious” than the RCC’s claims. I’d like to know how I’ve allegedly been more ambitious than a denomination that claims to be infallible and to have held all apostolic teachings in unbroken succession throughout church history. I would agree that your denomination isn’t as ambitious as it used to be. The RCC is on the retreat in terms of the historical claims that it makes. But it’s still accountable for the absurd historical claims it made in the past. And the more recent claims, though often less ambitious, are still inaccurate.

I would ask the readers, has JPrejean given us a convincing reason to believe that the Immaculate Conception is an apostolic doctrine? Or that Roman Catholicism in general is a doctrinal development approved by God? He’s spent multiple days posting multiple replies in this thread, and he still hasn’t shown the alleged historical depth of Roman Catholicism. Instead, he’s arguing that Roman Catholic doctrinal developments don’t contradict previous “explicit dogmas” and that they can be derived in a non-rational way from what previous generations believed. By his reasoning, an immaculate conception of Joseph and a bodily assumption of John could be considered just as apostolic as an immaculate conception and bodily assumption of Mary. We might as well believe in publicly confessing all of our sins to a deacon rather than privately confessing to a priest. Or number the sacraments at nine rather than seven. If doctrinal development can be as arbitrary and unbounded as JPrejean suggests, who can say just where this process is going to go next? What might be dogmatized fifty, a hundred, or three hundred years from now?

JPrejean:

My test for unhistorical religious claims is this: if any part of your divine revelation was given to a historical predecessor, you must provide a historical reason for taking some part of their beliefs and rejecting others. This heuristic simply rejects numerous religions as unhistorical (Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc.), and it’s a convenient test noting when religions appear out of nowhere.

All of those groups you named claim historical reasons for disagreeing with their predecessors. Their historical reasons are often wrong, but so are yours.

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

 

[JasonTE]

PaulDupre:

No Jason, when the authors say “The Roman Church” or “the Church at Rome”, they are referring to the Diocese of Rome (we still refer to a diocese as a Church - for instance I am part of the Church at Orange, CA - the Diocese of Orange). The Diocese of Rome is where the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) presides. He holds the keys to the office of Peter and is the Vicar of Christ on the earth. Because the Bishop of the Roman Church, or Diocese, is the Pope, the other Churches have always looked to the Church at Rome for a definitive answer on tough questions. This is very evident in the writings of the Church fathers. So the Roman Church as “the foundation” indicates the role of the successor of Peter as the guardian of the sacred deposit of faith passed down from the apostles.
It is the same in the New Testament. When the sacred author writes to “The Church at Ephasus”, he is writing to the Church (or Diocese) headed by the bishop of Ephasus.
There is no such thing as the Roman Catholic Church and you will never find that name in any authoritative publication. There is only one Catholic Church. There are however Roman Catholics, or more properly Latin Rite Catholics. We are Catholics who happen to be members of the Latin (or Roman) Rite within the Catholic Church.

Your claims about terminology and about a papacy in early church history have been refuted. See my earlier posts in this thread. I’ve cited your denomination’s hierarchy referring to the entire denomination with terms like “Roman” and “Roman Catholic”. I’ve also cited scholars such as Craig Keener and Klaus Schatz describing a scholarly consensus about the earliest Christians not viewing Peter as a Pope. And I’ve given historical reasons, from the original documents, to agree with that scholarly consensus.

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

 

[JPrejean]

Notice how Mr. Engwer has suddenly claimed victory by asserting that I have failed to carry burdens that I never assumed.

If he would decide to abandon sola scriptura, it would be because he knows that the Trinitarian doctrine is true on some other ground. What I’m asking you to do is to prove that other ground. You can’t do it.

I don’t have to show a counter-method in order to show that your method incorrectly rejects something. This is simply poor logic. Theologically, you admit the Trinity is certain. If your historical theory rejects it, then your historical theory doesn’t support your theology.

As I said earlier, the Roman Catholic definition of “explicit dogmas” is arbitrary and highly malleable.

That’s a spurious and unproven assertion. You haven’t even been willing to listen enough to even have a basis for that judgment.

The standard by which you’ll make these distinctions will be one that none of the earliest Christians mentioned and that cannot rationally be traced back to the apostles.

Both contentions are irrelevant to the historical correctness of the theory.

There’s no need to get into a discussion of whether the RCC has contradicted itself in “explicit dogmas”, whatever that means

Trans: “I’m not going to address the Catholic theory of history, but somehow, I’ll say it’s wrong anyway.”

Even if there were no such contradictions, your argument would still fail because of its inability to give us reason to accept Roman Catholicism.

Well, that’s odd, because I never once said that my argument gave one any reason to accept Catholicism. I only said that it is a valid historical theory. Plenty of religions (and evidently evangelicalism) can’t clear even that hurdle.

By your own admission, the argument you’re using to distinguish between differing belief systems fails to single out the RCC. It fails to give us reason to accept any belief system.

And? The goal of a historical theory is to show that something is historical, not that it’s correct.

But neither the doctrine’s consistency with previous beliefs nor its non-rational basis in James 5:16 gives us an objective, verifiable reason to accept the doctrine.

This is self-referential to your theory of history. No one else would expect or require such a thing.

I don’t know what your standard is for “a historically rigorous way”, but many Evangelicals have written at length about the historical evidence, including apostolicity, for a wide range of Evangelical doctrines. Regardless of whether they mention apostolicity as their reason for holding to sola scriptura, they do argue in depth for the historical validity of their Biblical interpretations.

I use the same definition of historical rigor as anyone else: prove your theory from the record. I have yet to see any evangelical scholar systematically explain the massive deviations of the Fathers from the allegedly obvious evangelical doctrines. That’s what I mean by failure of historical rigor.

As far as courage is concerned, I’m in agreement with George Salmon’s comments late in the nineteenth century regarding the battlefield of historical argumentation between Roman Catholics and Protestants.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with how badly he has been savaged by the historical community. I’m not surprised; you seem to be remarkably ignorant of history as a discipline.

continued…

 

[JPrejean]

continued…

If your denomination was as deep in history as it claims to be, it wouldn’t need to appeal to a speculative and unverifiable process of doctrinal development to explain why its teachings are so widely absent and contradicted in early church history.

At least we have a theory for explaining why doctrines are so widely absent and contradicted in early church history. Again, the evangelicals have never proposed one successfully.

You tell me that my claims are “vastly more ambitious” than the RCC’s claims. I’d like to know how I’ve allegedly been more ambitious than a denomination that claims to be infallible and to have held all apostolic teachings in unbroken succession throughout church history.

Your historical claims are more ambitious. Our theory only requires noncontradiction in very particular cases. You maintain that doctrines are clear and easily discernible by anyone with faith, which requires both an irrefutable linguistic demonstration and an extremely convincing explanation of why people who are conceded to be faithful students of Scripture missed the “obvious” conclusion. That’s a much more ambitious claim that requires much more evidence, and every student of Scripture that comes to a different conclusion is another anomaly that you have to explain. Basically, we are only claiming the Pope can’t be wrong, although on any subject. You are claiming that no faithful Christian can be wrong on essential dogma. There are a lot more faithful Christians than papal documents.

I would ask the readers, has JPrejean given us a convincing reason to believe that the Immaculate Conception is an apostolic doctrine? Or that Roman Catholicism in general is a doctrinal development approved by God?

And I would tell the readers: I never claimed to even be trying to do so. There is a world of difference between a historical argument for a doctrine and a consistent historical description of a doctrine. I claimed the latter, not the former.

If doctrinal development can be as arbitrary and unbounded as JPrejean suggests, who can say just where this process is going to go next? What might be dogmatized fifty, a hundred, or three hundred years from now?

What on earth does this have to do with its consistency with what has happened in the past? History, remember. Would it kill you to stay on a topic?

All of those groups you named claim historical reasons for disagreeing with their predecessors. Their historical reasons are often wrong, but so are yours.

My historical reasons for differing from Judaism are wrong? Boy, that doesn’t help your case much. My point is exactly that they DON’T base their separation in historical reasons. Mormons and Muslims, for example, claim that divine beings delivered new revelation out of the sky with no historical record of that event. What record evidence do they provide for that claim? Nothing. Compared to the record evidence for Christ’s resurrection (the separation point of Christianity from Judaism), there’s not even a contest.

I had my doubts about even trying to clear up Mr. Engwer’s numerous misunderstandings about the discipline of history, but I decided that it would be worth a shot. But since Mr. Engwer has elected to discuss every subject except the one we were discussing, and effectively challenged me to several debates that I wasn’t having, I can no longer see any point in continuing this discussion.

 

[hlgomez]

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.

I firmly believe this is your OWN opinion and you have certainly no valid arguments to support this. If you believe this to be true, then WHO ELSE can say which one is morally correct or not, since the Lord is now in heaven and the ones left are the succesors of the Apostles?

Let me cite you a parallel situtation. In matters like whether homosexual marriage is correct or not, certain judges interprets the law in contrasting ways. One says it’s constitutional while others say it’s not. Since all these judges certainly CANNOT ultimately interpret the law, the matter is left to the supreme court. This goes the same with the Church. There must be an ultimate interpreter of the Bible, or matters in faith and morals. Otherwise private interpretations or judgement especially in morality issues can lead to division and this certainly is NOT the work of the Holy Spirit. Divisions is not the work of the Spirit.

No, the Holy Spirit, being God, never contradicts Himself

That’s certainly correct. But why the divisions in the Protestant communities? All are saying they have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them? Why contradict in important issues like morality, and also in interpretations of the Bible? Knowing also that all sticks to Sola Sriptura but still argues with one another? Is this the work of the Spirit, then?

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.

Have you heard this from somebody or you are making research on your own? Can you quote the particular canon that was written in those particular Councils of the Church? Don’t just try to take a particular statement out of context but the entirety of it to serve its meaning.

Scripture repeatedly refers to the Holy Spirit being within each Christian. Do you conclude that every Christian is infallible?

Yes Scripture says that, BUT our own free will is not taken away from us. That’s why every Christian is not infallible since we are not perfect beings. When the Church proclaims matters of faith and morality, through the Pope speaking “ex cathedra”, we know for sure that it’s morally correct and the judgement is right. Why? Because Jesus promised that the gates of hell will Not prevail against the Church. However, the Pope is not infallible when just making statements not connected to the teachings of the Church or the deposit of faith. This is a common misunderstanding from protestants.

Protestant denominations claim to be part of the church, not the entirety of it.

What particular Church is it? Can you connect it historically to the Apostles?

my further question:

1. Why is it that in issues of morality, protestants differ in their judgements? In the early part of the 20th century, all protestants communities declare that contraception was morally wrong, and now all of it accepts it?

 

[SPH1]

JasonTE:

By his reasoning, an immaculate conception of Joseph and a bodily assumption of John could be considered just as apostolic as an immaculate conception and bodily assumption of Mary. We might as well believe in publicly confessing all of our sins to a deacon rather than privately confessing to a priest. Or number the sacraments at nine rather than seven. If doctrinal development can be as arbitrary and unbounded as JPrejean suggests, who can say just where this process is going to go next? What might be dogmatized fifty, a hundred, or three hundred years from now?

Jason, you have ably defended your views, and this has been a great debate between you and JPrejean. I’ve tried to avoid posting lately.

I don’t take the alleged contradictions between the Fathers, or between some Fathers and the Church today, the way you do. Some doctrines may need to percolate for some time before being recognized by the Church. There is room for theological speculation in the RCC that I see lacking in many Protestant groups. Some groups seem to use a “one verse; one view” approach and that’s it. I’ve often thought that Catholics have more freedom under the Pope than they would on many Protestant pews. (And that probably includes your pew.)

The immaculate conception or assumption of Joseph is unlikely. But more to the point, how should we determine the “truth” and apostolicity regarding things like contraception, abortion and stem cell research? Just as with the early Fathers, there may be various theological speculations and opinions. But eventually the Church will decide which is the correct view. I think that JPrejean has shown how this explicit discovery of an implicit doctrine might work for us.

How do you approach it?

 

[matthewa]

Quote:
[Originally posted by **JasonTE
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,
The Catholic Church is the ONE, TRUE, ENTIRE Church established by Christ and passed on from his Apostles. If you were to deny this you would have to deny all of the faithful Church Fathers, bishops, and clergy who some used the term ‘Catholic’ very openly in their defense of the church. (see my earlier threads on St. Augustine and Bishop Cyprian who openly defend the CATHOLIC CHURCH) Bishops or priests who taught doctrine that opposed Apostolic Tradition and Sacred Scripture were branded heretics with Cyprian stating they, “succeeded nobody and started with themselves”. This same argument can be used with ALL Protestants of today. They “succeed nobody and start with themselves.”

Putting all of those theological debates aside, I pray that you will turn to the Early Fathers of the Church like so many other protestant bible scholars have and discover the fullness of the Christian religion that the early Fathers called ‘Catholic’.

 

[JPrejean]

hlgomez:

Have you heard this from somebody or you are making research on your own? Can you quote the particular canon that was written in those particular Councils of the Church? Don’t just try to take a particular statement out of context but the entirety of it to serve its meaning.

The decree is called Haec sancta. This is yet another example of Mr. Engwer stealing from his historical betters (in this case, Brian Tierney and Francis Oakley) without having to demonstrate the same accountability to (or even awareness of) the counter-position. If you want a sound explanation of this controversy from the Protestant side, check out Tim Enloe at www.societaschristiana.com. But in essence, Catholics dispute the validity of that decree and a related one (Frequens) because of the method of passage and the lack of papal approval. At any rate, the issue is extraordinarily complicated because of the historical circumstances. The Council of Constance was resolving the Great Western Schism, in which three people were simultaneously claiming to be Pope. No one had any idea which of them was the genuine article. Mr. Engwer, of course, mentions none of this, acting as if this is simply a matter of historical certainty. If that doesn’t demonstrate the historical naivete I was discussing above, I don’t know what will.

BTW, Mr. Engwer’s coterie loves to display this sort of unhistorical “Gotcha!” mentality over council decrees. For example, they make much rhetorical hay over Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon, which gave status to the Patriarch of Constantinople equal to that of Rome, on account of Constantinople being the new Imperial City. Of course, they neglect to mention that this canon was considered valid in neither East nor West without papal approval. They also neglect the fact that if we applied their standard (which we obviously don’t), the Robber Council of Ephesus would have been valid, and Mr. Engwer would presumably today be arguing that Scripture clearly proved Monophysitism. Another favorite is the declaration of Pope Honorius as a heretic, which has been sufficient covered on the Web to the point that I don’t feel the need to rehash it.

Another nice example of poor scholarship among the NTRMin crowd was David T. King’s misuse of Jaroslav Pelikan, for which he was publicly excoriated (note that Tim Enloe has since rightly repudiated this brand of “history”). This one’s always good for a laugh: bringyou.to/apologetics/a112.htm

This argument strikes me as yet another example of Mr. Engwer’s “scholarly” historical methodology, which strikes me as “But I have quotes! You are refusing to address the plain meaning of their actual words!” All the while, he is completely oblivious to the amount of interpretation that has gone into identifying the “plain meaning” and the amount of historical context that he has ignored in coming to his hasty conclusions.

Nor has Mr. Engwer even defended his methodology in the least from a historical standpoint; he’s simply raised random theological issues that have nothing to do with his unscholarly techniques for interpreting historical documents. Of course, this also makes him completely unbelievable to anyone who actually spends any time reading books by actual historians, which is why I have come to the conclusion (echoed by many on GregK’s board) that this type of “history” is not even at the level where it merits a response. But I thought I would attempt to be kind enough to point out to Mr. Engwer why no one takes his “historical” rants seriously. If he doesn’t want my help, I’m perfectly content to let him wallow in his errors. After all, he basically makes it obvious that no one who takes history seriously should consider membership in his ecclesial body.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I did not really read the whole thread so this may have been said somewhere already…

I am a Catholic but not a Roman Catholic… To tell the truth there really is not Roman Catholic Church either, I believe it is offically knows as the Latin Catholic Church, as it follows the Latin Rite.

I am a Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic…

The Latin (or Roman) Catholic Church is just one of the 22 separate Churches that are in communion with each other that make up the Universal Catholic Church.

To say that the Church is the Roman Catholic Church is to marginalize those of us who are part of the 21 other Churches.

 

[SPH1]

ByzCath:

To say that the Church is the Roman Catholic Church is to marginalize those of us who are part of the 21 other Churches.

Excellent point.

I’d also add that when Protestants, such as JasonTE, use the term RCC, it seems like they are trying to make it look like all Catholic Doctrine comes from a dictator in Rome.

But this completely eliminates (not just marginalizes) the entirety of the Catholic Church in diverse places and in diverse times in contributing to the realization of the faith. Take the Immaculate Conception and Assumption, which we’ve been using for illustrative purposes here. “Rome” didn’t “invent” these all by itself. In fact, with the exception of Peter, I’ve often wondered if any Catholic Doctrine can be first traced back to a pope?

 

[johnMark]

JPrejean:

Your historical claims are more ambitious. Our theory only requires noncontradiction in very particular cases.

What theory are you refering to, historical theory? In which “particular cases” does this theory require noncontradictions to be valid (if this is what you mean)? Do you also hold that your whole historical understanding and proof of hisoricity rests on these “particular cases”?

Thanks,
Mark

 

[JPrejean]

johnMark:

What theory are you refering to, historical theory? In which “particular cases” does this theory require noncontradictions to be valid (if this is what you mean)? Do you also hold that your whole historical understanding and proof of hisoricity rests on these “particular cases”?

In order: the Catholic theory of doctrinal development (from Pius IX and Newman); in matters of explicitly defined dogma; and yes, in the sense that such contradictions would falsify the theory, but no, in the sense that the theory has explanatory value far beyond those cases (in other words, it is persuasive for far more reasons than describing those cases accurately).

 

[JasonTE]

JPrejean:

Theologically, you admit the Trinity is certain. If your historical theory rejects it, then your historical theory doesn’t support your theology.

I affirm Trinitarianism because I believe it to be the conclusion to my historical theory. If I’m incorrect about Trinitarianism following from my theory, that incorrect application of the theory wouldn’t disprove the theory.

We agree that historical apostles gave us a historical revelation that we’re not to add to or subtract from. I’ve argued that we perceive that historical revelation from the historical apostles in the same manner in which we perceive other historical data. If somebody wants to follow the teachings of Irenaeus, for example, he would do so by applying a rational process to his writings or any other material we have from him. I don’t know of any historian who claims to have a body of oral traditions from Irenaeus. What they do is apply a rational process to the relevant written documents to determine what Irenaeus believed. They don’t take the approach you’ve suggested. They don’t look for some group to pass on Irenaeus’ teachings, ask what that group’s “explicit dogmas” are, then conclude whatever they want to conclude about Irenaeus’ teachings as long as it doesn’t contradict the “explicit dogmas” and as long as they’re willing to see their conclusions as “implicit” in that group’s beliefs in some non-rational way. Using your approach, it would be acceptable to conclude that Irenaeus believed that there are little green men living on Neptune. Since the belief in little green men on Neptune doesn’t contradict the “explicit dogmas” of the groups claiming to pass on Irenaeus’ teachings, and we today choose to use a non-rational process to see the doctrine of little green men as implicit in Irenaeus’ teachings, then the doctrine is a historically credible development by your standards.

JPrejean:

The goal of a historical theory is to show that something is historical, not that it’s correct.

The type of historicity that we’ve been discussing is apostolicity. If the apostles taught it, then it’s correct. As I’ve demonstrated with a number of examples (publicly confessing to a deacon, prayers to Mary being mediated through Joseph, etc.), your historical theory does not show that something is historical.

JPrejean:

At least we have a theory for explaining why doctrines are so widely absent and contradicted in early church history. Again, the evangelicals have never proposed one successfully.

That’s another assertion you’ve made without evidence. We know that human beings are fallible and sinful. Moses wasn’t even off Mount Sinai before the Israelites began worshiping the golden calf. We know that Israel often disobeyed what God had revealed to them (2 Kings 22:8-13, Nehemiah 8:13-17). The church fathers, like all humans, were subject to sin, fallible reasoning, societal influences, etc. Your suggestion that Evangelicals need “a theory for explaining why doctrines are so widely absent and contradicted” ignores the theories already given, which are consistent with what we know about human history, and it ignores the fact that not every error of post-apostolic history has to be explained. If Irenaeus refers to The Shepherd of Hermas as scripture, or Ambrose thinks that foot washing remits sin, why do I have to be able to explain how he erred in order to know that he erred? Sometimes we can give credible explanations for how the error has occurred, and Evangelicals have done that, but there’s no need to have one theory that explains all errors by itself. The errors of the church fathers are plausible within my view of church history. I don’t claim that the fathers were members of an infallible church that was passing on all apostolic teaching in unbroken succession throughout church history. I don’t claim that doctrines such as the papacy and the Immaculate Conception were always held and taught by the church.

JPrejean:

You maintain that doctrines are clear and easily discernible by anyone with faith

No, that’s not what I believe. I do deny that the RCC is a Divinely appointed infallible interpreter of scripture. And I think that scripture is often more clear on a subject than Roman Catholics suggest. But neither of those assertions is equivalent to a claim that “doctrines are clear and easily discernible by anyone with faith”. People who have faith in Christ can sin. They can be led astray by the society around them, they can forget things, misunderstand things, etc.

continued in next post

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

 

[JasonTE]

JPrejean:

Basically, we are only claiming the Pope can’t be wrong, although on any subject. You are claiming that no faithful Christian can be wrong on essential dogma.

Roman Catholicism claims more than that “the Pope can’t be wrong”. It also claims that all apostolic teachings have been passed down in unbroken succession throughout church history. It makes claims about doctrines like the papacy and the Immaculate Conception always being understood and taught by the church. Your response to such claims by your denomination has been to argue that the hierarchy would be too intelligent to say such erroneous things, so they must have meant something other than what they seem to have said. I’ve already addressed the fallaciousness of that argument.

As far as faithful Christians are concerned, are you saying that you don’t think somebody needs to hold to some essential beliefs in order to be considered a faithful Christian? Is it your position that a first century polytheist who never heard of Jesus, for example, could be considered a faithful Christian?

Also, would you explain what you mean when you say that I supposedly believe that “no faithful Christian can be wrong on essential dogma”? I’ve never argued that a Christian can’t ever err on essential dogma. John the Baptist, for example, doubted Jesus’ Messiahship (Matthew 11:2-3), which is an essential. But if a person had never at any point believed in the Messiahship of Jesus, why would we consider him a faithful Christian?

JPrejean:

There is a world of difference between a historical argument for a doctrine and a consistent historical description of a doctrine. I claimed the latter, not the former.

I repeatedly explained to you that I was addressing the method by which we decide what doctrines are apostolic. You described my method as “rational predictability”, and you offered your own method as an alternative to mine. Since my method was intended to determine what beliefs are apostolic, it logically follows that the method you would offer as an alternative would be meant to accomplish the same end. Thus, if your method tells us what doctrines are apostolic, then your method is “a historical argument for a doctrine”. You agreed with me that Christians have received a deposit of faith from the apostles and are to follow that deposit. Why would you offer a method for determining apostolicity, then claim that your method isn’t meant to be an argument for the doctrines that meet the standard of your method? Are you saying that a doctrine can be apostolic, yet we can reject it? Or are you saying that your method only shows that a doctrine could be apostolic? If so, then what’s the relevance? All sorts of concepts could be apostolic (an immaculate conception of Joseph, a bodily assumption of John, etc.). The method that I proposed is for determining that doctrines are apostolic, not for determining that they possibly are apostolic. If your method isn’t for determining apostolicity, then it’s your fault for bringing up an irrelevant method as an alternative to mine.

continued in next post

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

 

[JasonTE]

JPrejean:

My historical reasons for differing from Judaism are wrong? Boy, that doesn’t help your case much.

I didn’t say or suggest that your rejection of Judaism is wrong.

JPrejean:

My point is exactly that they DON’T base their separation in historical reasons. Mormons and Muslims, for example, claim that divine beings delivered new revelation out of the sky with no historical record of that event. What record evidence do they provide for that claim? Nothing.

They argue for the Divine inspiration of books and people who mention such events. Even if you don’t consider their historical claims convincing, they do claim to be rooted in history. I don’t consider your historical claims convincing, even though you claim to be rooted in history.

You still haven’t given us a reason for believing that Roman Catholicism in general or the Immaculate Conception in particular is apostolic. You claim that I’m too ignorant to warrant further discussion, but I would suggest that any honest and thinking reader ask himself how your posts have made a convincing case for the apostolicity of Roman Catholicism. The fact is, you haven’t made a convincing case, and you can’t make one. You claim that you were trying to show that your denomination’s beliefs are “historical”, not that they’re “correct”. But, as I explained to you earlier, the historicity I was addressing was apostolicity. If a doctrine is apostolic, then it’s correct. You can’t prove that a doctrine is historical in the sense of being apostolic without proving that it’s correct. But if you want to continue with this false distinction you’ve made, then why don’t you now give us the alleged evidence that Roman Catholicism is correct? We have to wonder why you didn’t present such an argument earlier. But if you have an argument for the correctness of Roman Catholicism, why don’t you present it now? We’ll see whether it’s an argument deep in history or an argument of a more speculative and philosophical nature.

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