I have a protestant “friend” (some of you may recall him from my other posts); he was busy attacking Catholics, and when I asked him a question, he quoted the Nicene Creed. I thought that him quoting a Catholic creed was total BS, because he is completely anti-catholic.
Protestants frequently agree that the Catholic Church is and has been right about a variety of things. Without exception, though, we also believe that when John wrote Revelation, that was the last time the Holy Spirit ever inspired anyone in a way that constituted divine revelation that was subsequently written down and preserved.
(hes one of the people who think we “corrupted” the faith in less than a century).
Which century? And does “we” refer to Rome? If so, that would have to be the fourth century or later.
I asked him how he could think the Nicaea Council was creditable, when he denies how the council recognized the supremacy of the pope.
He treats the council like you would treat any regular person. Take your friend, for example. If he tells you the Earth is a sphere (but not a perfect sphere), gives you an accurate depiction of the hypostatic union, and tells you Barack Obama was actually born in Nairobi, Kenya, you will agree with the first two items and disagree with the last one. If he starts jumping up and down saying, “How can you agree with me some of the time and not all the time; it just doesn’t make SENSE!!!”, you would conclude that there is something wrong with him.
Likewise, I conclude that there is something very similar wrong with your way of thinking about this.
You see, people are right about some things and wrong about others. Councils are the same way. If they get something right, you say “That’s right.” If they get something wrong, you say “That’s wrong.” It doesn’t matter who’s saying it. It has nothing to do with “the man,” aka an ad hominem argument where the validity of the premise is linked to a characteristic or belief of the person holding the premise.
Didn’t you think your friend was doing something wrong when he previously seemed to make ad hominem attacks on the CC and disagreed with all things Catholic simply because they were Catholic? Let’s review: That’s wrong, correct? It’s something that he shouldn’t be doing, right? Well, why do you continue to complain when he stops doing that? Is it because you’re upset with him for failing to draw inverse ad hominem conclusions as you do?
His response was that it was “inspired for that one [decision], and then it wasn’t anymore.”
I think your friend’s wrong. Or maybe he’s just doing a poor job of expressing himself. I’m not sure which. I’m leaning toward “wrong.”
