This is the traditional “you’re going to hell if you don’t kiss the Pope’s ring” argument. I don’t think that will be very effective with non-Catholics. It’s the usual circular argument.Sure—note Randy’s response in this thread. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=302675
I don’t think you’re giving the Akin article he referenced quite enough credit.This is the traditional “you’re going to hell if you don’t kiss the Pope’s ring” argument. I don’t think that will be very effective with non-Catholics. It’s the usual circular argument.
(It is, though, a very good article for other reasons.)
Well, of course the attacks will be heretical but my point here is that all of this must be sound, persuasive argument, not declarations of faith. (Note that obeying the Pope is not essential, if you merely establish the authority of the Magesteriam, i.e. Catholic tradition, then you’re already there.)Any Protestant refutation must attack one of the first three propositions. They typically do this not by addressing proposition 3 at all but rather by attacking 2.) in all manner of heretical fashion.
While you’re at it, kick the tires on my barebones version of the argument. I think the faultline for Protestantism is necessarily the rejection of the Church Christ founded, which either makes them disobedient or Christ a liar (the Gates of Hell having obviously prevailed against the Church Christ founded).Well, of course the attacks will be heretical but my point here is that all of this must be sound, persuasive argument, not declarations of faith. (Note that obeying the Pope is not essential, if you merely establish the authority of the Magesteriam, i.e. Catholic tradition, then you’re already there.)
I’ll reread the article with your outline in mind and see if it satisfies what I’m looking for or, if not, where it is weak.
You might be thinking about Arthur C Clarke’s third “law”:I forget who it was that said that all technology appears as magic to the ignorant. If person A knows more math than person B then it should be trivial to find examples on the margin that demonstrate to B that A knows more math and thus to lead.
I am no expert on Protestantism but since I know many I would argue that this is not the way that Protestants see it. Protestants look at the NT and don’t see the Catholic Church. They believe that Jesus founded Christianity and that this evolved into what we know today as the Catholic Church. Protestants want to go back to the Chrisitanity that Jesus founded.While you’re at it, kick the tires on my barebones version of the argument. I think the faultline for Protestantism is necessarily the rejection of the Church Christ founded, which either makes them disobedient or Christ a liar (the Gates of Hell having obviously prevailed against the Church Christ founded). All of the “invisible Church” stuff is just window-dressing, in my opinion.
I’d say the best biblical basis for the magisterium is the fact that Jesus gave His authority to His Apostles/Church in several places. First is that He gave the “Bind and Loose” authority to Peter and later gave this same instruction/authority to Apostles as a group. Secondly He gave Peter and the Church the Keys to the Kingdom. This is a very authoritative gesture in those kingly times.In fact, there are more than a few who take this view. (I am not one of them.)
See forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=300911
One of the questions I posed in another thread was this: what is the Catholic argument for Magisterial Authority? Nobody could offer any. And if it is merely a matter of faith then how do you argue for it with people who don’t share the faith? (Evangilism problem again.)
True and all too often we have to just place the information out there and let the Holy Spirit work. We cannot force the change.Misinformation can be corrected, although it can take time. But when its faith vs. faith, there is not much room for argument and persuasion.
Check out Alex Jones’ excellent book and you’ll see why Protestants are quite mistaken in the presumption that the ECFs will take them anywhere but Romeward.I am no expert on Protestantism but since I know many I would argue that this is not the way that Protestants see it. Protestants look at the NT and don’t see the Catholic Church. They believe that Jesus founded Christianity and that this evolved into what we know today as the Catholic Church. Protestants want to go back to the Chrisitanity that Jesus founded.
One of the points in history that Protestants like to point to is Constantine. Another is Origen.
Indeed, there have been MANY recent threads making this point.Finally there is the very fact that the Bible most Protestants hold in their hands is there only BECAUSE of the Magisterial authority of the Church which canonized the books.
True and all too often we have to just place the information out there and let the Holy Spirit work. We cannot force the change.
The fatal presumption is that our interlocutors are open to reason. Many simply are not, which is why the best apologetic remains living one’s faith and letting others see you do so.Peace
James
Evangelization linked to a theology moved away from faith is an absurdity, and faith, facts, and reason are not contraries that must be discussed one apart from the other two.For a number of reasons, not least of which is evangilization, theology must move away from faith and toward facts and reason.