huffingtonpost.com/ben-stevens/converting-to-catholicism_b_1202857.html
I thought a few of the better apologists here might be willing to go destroy this guys arguements. He has 3 major and 6 secondary defeaters he says disproves what we believe about Peter and his successors. I do not have the knowledge yet to mount a proper defense so i figured some of you may like to.
Well, first issue when I got to paragraph 3 is:
He doesn’t understand the difference between ‘doctrine’ and ‘practice’ - as is often the case.
Initially, his entire argument seems to be centered around this: “that to accept your Church means not to accept a given body of doctrine but to accept in advance any doctrine that your Church hereafter produces.” "
WRONG! - Doctrines by their nature, at least in the Catholic church, CAN NOT change.
So, if he, as he claims, accepts ALL the doctrines that the church teaches NOW, then he has no solid reason NOT to come home to the Catholic church… for he can not find ALL of the same doctrines in other churches. Each denomination, church community, etc. posseses many or some of these doctrines but not ALL. IF he accepts all of them… then he should be Catholic. Plain and simple.
Doctrines don’t change, therefore he does not have to fear future doctrines that will suddenly put him in opposition with the faith.
In fact… IF doctrines did actually change… then he would not be alone in leaving the faith, we’d have every reason to believe that the Holy Spirit is no longer leading the church.
If he truly believes that minus the Papacy…he agrees with Catholicism, then why is he NOT Orthodox?
But as we see… the person’s issues with the Pope go beyond mere what the Pope may Hypothetically come up with.
I’m no Apologist, but here are my laymen rebuttals.
- The KEY here is that there was ‘union’ and a process by which to keep the faith on the same track. Every committee, organization, needs a leader. A means to call everyone together and the final person to put the stamp on things and make it official.
He seems to view the Papacy as a dictatorship. It is not. There are councils and the power still resides with the Bishops.
The Pope is simply the Bishop of Rome. The FIRST amongst equals. He does not make decisions in a vaccuum or without calling together a council of the Bishops.
I don’t know who these “papal historians” he refers to several times or what “history” he is arguing against… but every discussion I’ve heard on the topic, by Catholics, acknowledges that there are other Bishops.
The very FACT that the Catholic church is the only Christian faith to call together Councils to build concensus actually errodes his argument.
The Eastern Orthodox church has apostolic succession, but views Peter as the first amongst EQUALS - emphasis on equals. Yet we see that they lack the cohesion to call together a council and to actually reach a concensus.
The Episcopalian and Anglican faiths ALSO show this deficiency from a lack of a leader and only fellow Bishops.
So Orthodoxy actually shows WHY there is a need for a FIRST amongst equals. A ‘tie breaker’ if you will, and someone who is protected by the Holy Spirit from changing doctrine.
Even the worst Popes never changed doctrine. They had mistresses, waged wars, had their rivals murdered, but never ONCE did they change a doctrine. The Catholic faith is unique in this aspect.
- The absence of evidence doesn’t prove anything. This line of reasoning is as tired as it is old. Why didn’t the bible say “this” or why didn’t the bible mention “that” if it were so important.
This comes from ignoring the thrust of history and using a “sola scriptura” viewpoint. That it HAS TO BE in the bible, for it to be important or true.
He’s trying to say that because it is not in the bible, that it isn’t true. - That just isn’t the case. Often times things AREN’T mentioned, if there appears to be no need for them.
So I COULD project my own Catholic-centric view and say that the role of Peter and the Bishop of Rome was NOT mentioned because it was so universally accepted. - THERE!
The bible DOES make it clear that the “church” is in authority, not the bible. And which Church is this, exactly, that was around back then… and where did it go and where is it now?
That’s the real question.
- I’m not familiar with the details of this period of time… but no one claims that the council of Bishops don’t elect the next Pope. Since the council elects a Bishop… the apostolic succession still remains. And YES, when the Papal enclave appoints a new Pope, or in this case, resolves an issue of there being multiple Popes - their decision is binding over all of Catholicism, including the Popes which were disposed. DUH!
That doesn’t break anything. And it doesn’t make the Bishops have more authority then the Pope. He is there to guide and direct the faithful and teach… in union with the other Bishops… not in opposition.
Just like the people elect the President, but that doesn’t make us have higher authority then the President to set law and do what we please. The President still guides the country, sets priorities, builds concensus and signs bills into law.
Even WITH the Senate, we still need a leader.
Christianity, in that regard is no different. – In fact in Catholicism, it is one better…because we have a promise from God that the gates of hell will not prevail against it and that the Pope won’t lead us astray in doctrinal matters.
