Mother Church Contradictions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Reformed_Rob
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Reformed_Rob

Guest
Allrightey,

A good friend from my Protestant Parish has wrote me a letter of about 10 pages. He wants to deter me from becoming a Roman Catholic. Kudos to him for that.
For the most part, I want to respond myself, but I would like help with a couple things he got from Lorraine Boettners’ “Roman Catholicism” book.

Here’s 2 that I request help with:

*Hadrian II (867-872) declared civil marriages to be valid; but Pius VII (1800-1823) condemned them as invalid.

*Sixtus V (1585-1590) recommended the reading of the Bible, but Pius VII (1800-1823) and various other popes condemned that practice.
  • Well, let me ask about the Joan of Arc deal. I quote, “How can one infallible pope, Eugene IV (1431-1447), condemn Joan of Arc (1412-1431) to be burned alive as a witch, while another pope, Benedict XV, in 1919, declares her to be a saint?”
Did Pope Eugene IV actually condem her, or did he actually have little or nothing to do with it?

I’m aware of certain “Bible reading” restrictions, but they were restrictions due to the overwhelming errors of unsanctioned, doctrinally, heresy motivated translations. Like, what good Protestant would buy and recommend reading the “New World Translation” the one that Jehovah’s Witnesses use? NO! I would prefer it be banned from being published.

Ok, thanks very much!
 
Karl Keatings “Catholicism and Fundamentalism”
covers alot of the tactics used by Boettner.

He would also have vast knowledge of those specific questions and where to find the answers. You should call him or email he or James Akin or one of the other apologists for the specifics.

You could also go and look up the footnotes for these supposed quotes from these popes and find out the Truth by reading these documents yourself. You can find most writings from the Church at newadvent.org or vatican.va

I am a convert from over 18 different denominations of protestantism
 
<*Hadrian II (867-872) declared civil marriages to be valid; but Pius VII (1800-1823) condemned them as invalid.

*Sixtus V (1585-1590) recommended the reading of the Bible, but Pius VII (1800-1823) and various other popes condemned that practice.
  • Well, let me ask about the Joan of Arc deal. I quote, “How can one infallible pope, Eugene IV (1431-1447), condemn Joan of Arc (1412-1431) to be burned alive as a witch, while another pope, Benedict XV, in 1919, declares her to be a saint?”
Did Pope Eugene IV actually condem her, or did he actually have little or nothing to do with it?>

Regarding Hadrian and Pius VII
Did he provide the exact statements made by each pope for comparison?
I find that often when you research these “facts” - they don’t wind up actually having occurred as portrayed.

Regarding the bible reading.
I sincerely doubt any pope would ever “condemn” the reading of scripture. Did your friend provide any proof of this?
I would, however, believe it possible that a pope may have become aware of various erroneous translations and discouraged the faithful from reading error riddled translations.

Regarding Joan - no - the pope did NOT sentence her to death.
Your friend needs to study history a little better.
 
Hi Rob,

I do think that you should privately email or PM Karl Keating to see if he can guide you with the answers.

I am not aware of some of these allegations and suspect that they are either:
  1. disciplines that can be changed;
  2. that the “condemnation” is taken out of context;
With regard to Joan of Arc, well I have not read her story lately but perhaps you could try the Catholic Encyclopedia online for information about her life and death. What I do know is that St. Joan’s condemnation did not come from a Pope but from a bishop who had his own personal agenda. It was the fact that she had visions and led the king to victory that got her condemned (or at least that is what I understand was behind it).

Patrick Madrid at Envoy magazine might also be a good source of information in how to respond to your letter.

God Bless
Maggie OHearn
 
Thanks all of you.

You know, I might just email or PM Karl Keating. I’ll try the Ask and Apologist first probably.

As to references, maybe Boettner has them in his book, but my friend did not include them.

I’m on it, and what I learn I’ll post here to share. But please, if you are reading this and know an answer, well, please contribute.
 
One statement made that is a fallacy, is :

Well, let me ask about the Joan of Arc deal. I quote, “How can one infallible pope, Eugene IV (1431-1447), condemn Joan of Arc (1412-1431) to be burned alive as a witch, while another pope, Benedict XV, in 1919, declares her to be a saint?”

No pope is infallible. There are infallible papal statements, but the pope is just like everyother man, a flawed creature. Just like Peter was. He does have the magisterium, as all the faithful have, to guide us and our intepretations of Scripture and extra-biblical sources.
 
40.png
Catholic2003:
The first question is dealt with in this thread.
Click to expand...
40.png
Catholic2003:
Jesus put the Church in charge of the sacraments. Since marriage between two Christians is a sacrament, that means the Church can make (and change) ecclesiastical law governing marriages involving Christians.

Just as the Church can make (and change) ecclesiastical law about priestly celibacy since Holy Orders are a sacrament.

Here is a link to Pope Paul VI’s Apostolic Letter Matrimonia Mixta, which changed the rules regarding mixed marriages. Hopefully it will explain to you the reasons for the changes. Near the end of the letter is an abrogration of canon 2319 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which contained some of the excommunications that I mentioned. (Other excommunications were U.S.-only from the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore in 1884.)
Click to expand...
 
Ok, thanks.

I’ve succesfully debunked the St. Joan of Arc one. Not too hard, I went to the library (something that anti-Catholics don’t seem to do very often) :mad:and got a couple books on St. Joan. Turns out she repeatedly appealed to the Pope, but her English captors wouldn’t let her go.

Anyways, long story shortened. Pope Eugene IV was not involved with the trial, much less was he in charge of “burning her as a witch.” It was a highly irregular trial, rigged by her political enemies, and the decision was reversed 25 years later, by a proper trial, and the Pope was not involved at all.

She was only 19 years old, by the way, when she was burned at the stake. :gopray:

May 30, 1431
 
Reformed Rob:
Ok, thanks.

I’ve succesfully debunked the St. Joan of Arc one. Not too hard, I went to the library (something that anti-Catholics don’t seem to do very often) :mad:and got a couple books on St. Joan. Turns out she repeatedly appealed to the Pope, but her English captors wouldn’t let her go.

Anyways, long story shortened. Pope Eugene IV was not involved with the trial, much less was he in charge of “burning her as a witch.” It was a highly irregular trial, rigged by her political enemies, and the decision was reversed 25 years later, by a proper trial, and the Pope was not involved at all.

She was only 19 years old, by the way, when she was burned at the stake. :gopray:

May 30, 1431
Click to expand...
See I told you, the Pope had nothing to do with her being burned at the stake. In fact in most cases of that kind of discipline the Pope had nothing to do with the punishment.

On the other hand, John Calvin had Michael Servetus burned at the stake for heresy.

MaggieOH
 
Keep in mind that it is a mistake to think that every word that comes from a Pope’s mouth is infalliable. To be infalliable, the Pope must:
  1. speak ex cathedra, as supreme shepard and teacher of all Christians, and as the successor of Peter.
  2. When he defines doctrine, i.e., when he makes it clear that the doctrine must be believed with a firm, interior assent of faith.
  3. When the doctrine defined concerns faith or morals, i.e., when it belongs to the doctrinal teaching or moral principles of the Catholic faith, as found in Scripture or Tradition,
  4. When he speaks thus to the whole Church, intending to bind all its members throughout the world.
All these conditions must be simultaneously met for something to be “infalliable”. Clealy, the objections your friend raised do not meet these criteria and are not infalliable. Hope this helps!
 
40.png
Athanasius18:
Keep in mind that it is a mistake to think that every word that comes from a Pope’s mouth is infalliable. To be infalliable, the Pope must:
Click to expand...
Gotcha, thanks Athanasius18!!

Rob
 
40.png
Athanasius18:
Keep in mind that it is a mistake to think that every word that comes from a Pope’s mouth is infalliable. To be infalliable, the Pope must:
Click to expand...
Gotcha, thanks Athanasius18!!

Rob
 
According to Rev. John Trigilio and Rev. Kenneth Brighenti’s book, Catholicism for Dummies , there have only been two papal ex cathedra statements. They are Pope Pius IX’s statement of the Immaculate Conception and Pope Pius XII’s statement of the Assumption of Mary.

Therefore, if there have been contradictions between Popes (outside of these two ex cathedra statements), it has no bearing on infallibility.

Maranatha,
Hans
 
Another thought, your friend’s book “Roman Catholicism” is, like said before, refuted in Karl Keating’s book “Catholicism and Fundamentalism”. I would def. read it. Also, if there are any other objections that he raises that you are having a hard time with, feel free to IM or send a message. I am a Protestant convert as well, so I know all the little tricks that people play to get you to doubt the Holy Church. Good luck.
 
Many anti-Catholics like to try to overwhelm you with a flurry of accusations at once.

Only go one at a time, and discuss them one at a time, with references, etc. Also, make that person use references from history. Specific documents, not just some book a yahoo wrote.

Refuse to accept a whole list. If you do and get discouraged trying to look for the answers, that person will take a stance of “winning”
 
Wow, thanks everyone!

Yeah, my friend didn’t even expect me to respond, especially not with a “defend the Church” response. Anyways, there’s still a few matters I’m dealing with, but it seems like they’ve just given up on me. Like, “Whoah, Robert is able to answer these accusations and challenge Protestantism!! Well, Rob’s a goner, what’s for dinner?”

So, hmmm, yeah, you have to be honest with history, and it’s intimidating to see all these charges, but like some of you said, just one at a time. I, too, have to be careful to not flood others with so many questions, like “What about these 30 texts of Scripture? What about all these Church Father quotes?” It can be overbearing.

And Catholicism /Fundamentalism. I haven’t got it yet. Not that I don’t want to, I probably will soon. It would be good to have that “under my belt.” Next major work for me to read, modern work, is Dave Armstrong’s “Biblical Evidence for Catholicism.” and “More Evidence” also.
 
Hans A.:
Therefore, if there have been contradictions between Popes (outside of these two ex cathedra statements), it has no bearing on infallibility.

Maranatha,
Hans
Click to expand...
Hey, Thanks for that. I’ve got that book and read it in there myself. I actually really loved that book, especially since a girl (oooh) got it for me. She never thought I would read it! Anyways, yeah, I would encourage you to read an encyclical entitled Quia Quorundam by Pope John XXII. It deals with a situation about 60 years and several other encyclicals in the making (such as Evive de Paradiso, Exiit Qui Seminat, and Ad Conditorem Canonum). Anyways, it is one used by more “well read” perhaps anti-Catholics to throw doubt on Papal Infallibility.

Well, if you actually read it, yeah, it may sound like there is some truth to that charge, but there’s lots of technical details, such as “ownership of use” (regarding the Franciscans and Christ and His Apostles), and in the midst of those technical details, John XXII actually refutes the claims of certain men (some Franciscans) and shows how the earlier Popes were not in disagreement, and that yes, Popes can change certain things that earlier Popes declared. But the charge that’s trumped up against papal infallibility based upon that encyclical is totally unfounded. If anything, he’s saying that simple priests don’t have the keys of power and knowledge, but that the line from Peter (Bishops of Rome) do. Christ gave the keys (plural) of the kingdom, not just the key. Not just power, but knowledge as well, to the Church. “Regular” priests have the key of power (bind and loose) but not the key of knowledge, per se. I could be wrong, it’s tricky to understand, but that’s how I’ve taken it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top