Help with Anti-Roman Catholic Debate

[dandingo]

So I started a thread asking about Eastern Orthodoxy and now this guy is moving on to the fact that the Roman Catholic Church was nowhere near the original church. Here is his most recent response. Mine is in italics, his in bold:

---

My entire point is that, since you state that the Catholic Church is a man-made organization, then everything that was believed and taught for 1500 years is completely and utterly false.

**And that is an illogical conclusion. First of all, the Roman Catholic church as an organization was not around the full 1500 years that you’re referring too. Second, just because it is an organization of men doesn’t negate all of the teachings. The argument here is that the Roman Catholic church is not the original church, and that point is historically accurate. **

The bible that you read is incorrect and should be scrapped. Why? Because the Catholic Church created the bible in which you read. Then, the Reformation comes along and Martin Luther changes the translation to fit into his doctrine.

**And that is also incorrect, Rome did not create the Bible. The scriptures predate the church; half of the Bible is the Old Testament, books that existed for thousands of years before the birth of Christ. The other half, the New Testament books also existed before the formation of the Roman Catholic church. I already posted a link for you with information about the formation of the canonical Bible, and in that link it shows that the organization of the books that are contained in the canon New Testament was first proposed by Athanasius of Alexandria in 367, about a thousand years before the Council of Florence. In case you didn’t know, Alexandria is not in Rome.

Martin Luther didn’t change the translation of the Bible, he translated it from Latin into German. He wasn’t the first to translate the Bible, the Septuagint was the first translation from the ancient languages into Greek. Most of our texts are derived from that, though we also have ancient Hebrew texts to refer back to. And, that Septuagint was written in, ALEXANDRIA!!! Doh! That’s funny, your claiming authority over texts written a thousand years earlier in a different country by a different church! LOL!

The earliest complete manuscript of the Bible in the Latin Vulgate was written in ENGLAND! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Amiatinus

John Wycliff translated the Bible from the Latin Vulgate into English in the 1380’s. **

My point about the real presence in the Eucharist was showing the same thing. For 1500 years, it was a given that the real presence was in the Eucharist, from the Early Church Fathers all the way to the 1500’s. Then comes the Reformation and all of a sudden it’s questioned and is now no longer believed by Protestants.

Well, Luther’s teachings included the real presence in the sacrament. And this really has nothing to do with whether the RCC was the original church or not. You want to broaden the argument out into other areas when you’ve not conceded yet that I was right to begin with. Let’s concentrate on that.

What I’m showing is that since you stated that the Catholic Church is man-made, then all who followed it and ran it for 1500 years are heretics and were Christians under false pretenses. According to you, it wasn’t until the Reformation that the true Church and true doctrine was erected.

Not at all, that is intellectually flawed and I never made that proposition at all or implied it. Besides, Rome didn’t run the church for 1500 years before the Reformation, I’ve already showed you that, stop claiming it.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I don’t think this person even has a passing acquaintance with history… sorry, I don’t have time to write up a response, but seriously… I really don’t think this person is interested in learning anything, he’s only interesting in trying to make you feel stupid.

Just reading this nonsense is making me angry… You’d have to actively avoid historical accounts to reach some of these conclusions… I’m going to leave before i succumb to wrath. Good luck.

Also, this might help a little:
Bible history

 

[capablanca911]

I would refer him to ancientfaith.com/specials/orientale_lumen_xvi_conference/metropolitan_kallistos_of_diokleia_orthodox

And the Ravenna Statement.

 

[capablanca911]

As a last resort, the Council of Sardica says that appeals can be made to Rome if you are deposed ie universla jurisdiction.

The 1st Epistle of Clement shows the Roman pontiff exercising authority outside of Italy before 100 AD.

Why does he think the Pope almost never attends a council? Only legates? And his explanation for Rome endorsing only certain Ecumenical council canons after the fact?

 

[steve_b]

[snip for space]

Not at all, that is intellectually flawed and I never made that proposition at all or implied it. Besides, Rome didn’t run the church for 1500 years before the Reformation, I’ve already showed you that, stop claiming it.

His statement is nonsense.

As early as 180 a.d., it was already understood that not only was the Church the Catholic Church, but all must agree with Rome because of it’s pre eminent authority.

Irenaeus, disciple of Bp Polycarp who was disciple of St John the apostle

Bk 3 ch 3, vs 2-4 “Against Heresies” http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that **every Church **should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, (pre-eminent authority where?) inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those faithful men who exist everywhere.

1. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes [snip for space]

• who is Irenaeus saying EVERY Church is to agree with? Smyrna? No. Antioch? No. Alexandria? No. Jerusalem? No. Who specifically is every Church EVERYWHERE to agree with? The bishop of Rome. And he even names names in line of succession, so no one misses his point, correct? He names Linus, Anacletus, Clement…
• Irenaeus makes another finer point. Those who keep to this understanding are those where the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those faithful men who exist **everywhere. **Ergo those who don’t, are unfaithful because they don’t preserve apostolic tradition,
• Is this a modern interpretation of the papacy? Irenaeus hardly qualifies as “modern”.
• Who taught Irenaeus what he taught here? He says it came directly from the apostles through faithful men who preserved the apostolic tradition FAITHFULLY

Since Irenaeus is writing against heresies, if Irenaeus is wrong, where are his critics?

Irenaeus

• refutes opponants who argue the papacy is a later invention.
• refutes the notion that every Church EVERYWHERE agreeing with the bishop of Rome is a novelty of later invention.

He lists all the popes of Rome down to his time, so there is no mistaking which Church is “this Church” he is speaking of, and that all Churches everywhere must agree with this Church on account of its pre-eminent authority. And he identifies where he received this teaching

• the apostles Peter and Paul
• apostolic tradition faithfully handed down to his time
• Is Irenaeus saying EVERY Church is to agree with? Smyrna? No. Antioch? No. Alexandria? No. Jerusalem? The bishop of Rome? Yes And he even names names in line of succession, so no one misses his point, correct? He names Linus, Anacletus, Clement…etc 12 bishops in succession down to his day.
• Is this a modern interpretation of the papacy? Irenaeus hardly qualifies as “modern”.
• Who taught Irenaeus what he taught here? He says it came directly from the apostles through faithful men who preserved the apostolic tradition FAITHFULLY

Since Irenaeus is writing against heresies, if Irenaeus is wrong, where are his critics? to see the full lineage he mentions go to the link provided

 

[fred_conty]

I believe St. Paul said that we should be ready to answer anyone who asks us about the faith. But this person isn’t asking … he is telling.

Just a thought.

 

[dandingo]

As a last resort, the Council of Sardica says that appeals can be made to Rome if you are deposed ie universla jurisdiction.

The 1st Epistle of Clement shows the Roman pontiff exercising authority outside of Italy before 100 AD.

Why does he think the Pope almost never attends a council? Only legates? And his explanation for Rome endorsing only certain Ecumenical council canons after the fact?

His statement is nonsense.

As early as 180 a.d., it was already understood that not only was the Church the Catholic Church, but all must agree with Rome because of it’s pre eminent authority.

Irenaeus, disciple of Bp Polycarp who was disciple of St John the apostle

1. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes [snip for space]

• who is Irenaeus saying EVERY Church is to agree with? Smyrna? No. Antioch? No. Alexandria? No. Jerusalem? No. Who specifically is every Church EVERYWHERE to agree with? The bishop of Rome. And he even names names in line of succession, so no one misses his point, correct? He names Linus, Anacletus, Clement…
• Irenaeus makes another finer point. Those who keep to this understanding are those where the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those faithful men who exist **everywhere. **Ergo those who don’t, are unfaithful because they don’t preserve apostolic tradition,
• Is this a modern interpretation of the papacy? Irenaeus hardly qualifies as “modern”.
• Who taught Irenaeus what he taught here? He says it came directly from the apostles through faithful men who preserved the apostolic tradition FAITHFULLY

Since Irenaeus is writing against heresies, if Irenaeus is wrong, where are his critics?

Irenaeus

• refutes opponants who argue the papacy is a later invention.
• refutes the notion that every Church EVERYWHERE agreeing with the bishop of Rome is a novelty of later invention.

He lists all the popes of Rome down to his time, so there is no mistaking which Church is “this Church” he is speaking of, and that all Churches everywhere must agree with this Church on account of its pre-eminent authority. And he identifies where he received this teaching

• the apostles Peter and Paul
• apostolic tradition faithfully handed down to his time
• Is Irenaeus saying EVERY Church is to agree with? Smyrna? No. Antioch? No. Alexandria? No. Jerusalem? The bishop of Rome? Yes And he even names names in line of succession, so no one misses his point, correct? He names Linus, Anacletus, Clement…etc 12 bishops in succession down to his day.
• Is this a modern interpretation of the papacy? Irenaeus hardly qualifies as “modern”.
• Who taught Irenaeus what he taught here? He says it came directly from the apostles through faithful men who preserved the apostolic tradition FAITHFULLY

Since Irenaeus is writing against heresies, if Irenaeus is wrong, where are his critics? to see the full lineage he mentions go to the link provided

Thank you very much for those responses. They’re both excellent responses, although I’ve decided to let it go at this point. From the other legitimate arguments I gave, I received no response, so I feel he’s going to pick and choose what to say. These kinds of debates seem to never end but I appreciate them because it forces me to educate myself on certain areas in which I’m not familiar.

I believe St. Paul said that we should be ready to answer anyone who asks us about the faith. But this person isn’t asking … he is telling.

Just a thought.

That’s exactly why I just purchased the book History of the Catholic Church: From the Apostolic Age to the Third Millennium by James Hitchcock. Time to learn!

 

[october_baby]

So I started a thread asking about Eastern Orthodoxy and now this guy is moving on to the fact that the Roman Catholic Church was nowhere near the original church. Here is his most recent response. Mine is in italics, his in bold:

---

My entire point is that, since you state that the Catholic Church is a man-made organization, then everything that was believed and taught for 1500 years is completely and utterly false.

**And that is an illogical conclusion. First of all, the Roman Catholic church as an organization was not around the full 1500 years that you’re referring too. Second, just because it is an organization of men doesn’t negate all of the teachings. The argument here is that the Roman Catholic church is not the original church, and that point is historically accurate. **

The bible that you read is incorrect and should be scrapped. Why? Because the Catholic Church created the bible in which you read. Then, the Reformation comes along and Martin Luther changes the translation to fit into his doctrine.

**And that is also incorrect, Rome did not create the Bible. The scriptures predate the church; half of the Bible is the Old Testament, books that existed for thousands of years before the birth of Christ. The other half, the New Testament books also existed before the formation of the Roman Catholic church. I already posted a link for you with information about the formation of the canonical Bible, and in that link it shows that the organization of the books that are contained in the canon New Testament was first proposed by Athanasius of Alexandria in 367, about a thousand years before the Council of Florence. In case you didn’t know, Alexandria is not in Rome.

Martin Luther didn’t change the translation of the Bible, he translated it from Latin into German. He wasn’t the first to translate the Bible, the Septuagint was the first translation from the ancient languages into Greek. Most of our texts are derived from that, though we also have ancient Hebrew texts to refer back to. And, that Septuagint was written in, ALEXANDRIA!!! Doh! That’s funny, your claiming authority over texts written a thousand years earlier in a different country by a different church! LOL!

The earliest complete manuscript of the Bible in the Latin Vulgate was written in ENGLAND! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Amiatinus**

John Wycliff translated the Bible from the Latin Vulgate into English in the 1380’s.

My point about the real presence in the Eucharist was showing the same thing. For 1500 years, it was a given that the real presence was in the Eucharist, from the Early Church Fathers all the way to the 1500’s. Then comes the Reformation and all of a sudden it’s questioned and is now no longer believed by Protestants.

Well, Luther’s teachings included the real presence in the sacrament. And this really has nothing to do with whether the RCC was the original church or not. You want to broaden the argument out into other areas when you’ve not conceded yet that I was right to begin with. Let’s concentrate on that.

What I’m showing is that since you stated that the Catholic Church is man-made, then all who followed it and ran it for 1500 years are heretics and were Christians under false pretenses. According to you, it wasn’t until the Reformation that the true Church and true doctrine was erected.

Not at all, that is intellectually flawed and I never made that proposition at all or implied it. Besides, Rome didn’t run the church for 1500 years before the Reformation, I’ve already showed you that, stop claiming it.

You did’t report this guy for being rude and for proselytising? I mean sure his arguments
were way off, but I’ve seen posters suspended or banned for less.

 

[steve_b]

Thank you very much for those responses. They’re both excellent responses, although I’ve decided to let it go at this point. From the other legitimate arguments I gave, I received no response, so I feel he’s going to pick and choose what to say. These kinds of debates seem to never end but I appreciate them because it forces me to educate myself on certain areas in which I’m not familiar.

As long as you have the answers, and can provide the primary resources as evidence for the answer, you’ll always be able to spot a phony baloney answer a mile away.

 

[paulrxp]

My point about the real presence in the Eucharist was showing the same thing. For 1500 years, it was a given that the real presence was in the Eucharist, from the Early Church Fathers all the way to the 1500’s. Then comes the Reformation and all of a sudden it’s questioned and is now no longer believed by Protestants.

Very twisted reasoning. He’s arguing the validity of the real precense as if it disappeared when the Reformation began. Even if it weren’t accepted by Protestants back then, at best it’s a questionable cause, almost remote since the real presence continued to be accepted by Catholics before and after the Reformation began, and to this very day. And if I’m not mistaken still accepted by some Protestants. Now if the real presence in the Eucharist were questioned and no longer accepted by Catholics at any time due to the Reformation, that would be a whole different can of worms. That would be a formidable argument(if it can be proven). Now he can argue that Protestants were once Catholics who no longer accept the real presence, but that falls short again for the same reasons. You would have to prove that you can be Catholic, and still reject one of the most important and sacred beliefs of the faith, mutually exclussive. Good luck. His argument(as expressed) is a dead end, without many avenues.

What I’m showing is that since you stated that the Catholic Church is man-made, then all who followed it and ran it for 1500 years are heretics and were Christians under false pretenses. According to you, it wasn’t until the Reformation that the true Church and true doctrine was erected.

Shaky again, similar pattern and begs the question. Heresies and arianism surfaced long before the Reformation. The teachings and the truths by men chosen by Jesus endured the centuries. It was the heretics that went against the true teachings of the Church who tried to mislead the faithful, the Reformation was just a larger movement but again did not change the foundational and core beliefs of our faith. Certainly not one as important as the Eucharist and the real presence. It’s as real to us every Sunday, as it was, before, during and after the Reformation.

You were very kind in the debate by the way. I had a few debates with some Seventh Day Adventist and Muslim folks on YouTube and I went for the jugular from the first post My Muslim brothers on YouTube called me a Crusader, I thought that was a little extreme. I told them yes I am a knight. A Knight of Columbus lol