Weak Arguments

[sennincatholic]

Friends,

Sometimes we use pretty lame points to defend the Faith. Here are a few that I found particularly unconvincing as a protestant:

1. Clement, bishop of Rome, wrote authoritatively to Corinth as Pope. This is a non-argument, because the First Epistle of Clement does not actually have the name “Clement” in it. It could easily have been written by the priests of Rome (as in some letters to St. Cyprian of Carthage).
2. The 33 000 protestant denominations prove protestantism is a chaotic mess, and therefore Catholicism is right. This is a category mistake made out of ignorance of the Survey on which the claim is based. In fact, the Roman Catholic Church and the 22 sui iuiris eastern churches are part of that list of Christian denominations! We cannot establish our own Church’s authority over against the 33 000 in that list, because we’re considered part of the list itself. Protestants see us as just another claimant among the 33 000.
3. Peter spoke first at Acts 15, and showed his papal authority. Though Peter spoke first, it is not clear that he presided. The Apostle James closed the Council and made the definitive statement of the Council about doctrine and practice.

Can we please begin to realize that some apologetic arguments are very weak, and should not be used? They’re just not convincing. Let’s try to hash a few more out, and understand better ones. We have them, but they’re not used as often as they ought to be.

You say James closed the council and made the definitive statement of the council about doctrine and practice.I dont think so.James only expantiated on what Peter said.Prior to Peter’s speech there was disagreement between the apostles and elders on what to finally decide on circumscision(Acts 15:7).After his speech the assembly stayed quiet as they listened to Paul and Barnabas(Acts 15:12) because there was no reason for them to disagree and talk among themselves anymore since Peter had spoken.

 

[sennincatholic]

Thanks. Well, yes, to an atheist we’re all the same, and I see what you mean there. But one important thing to bring up, even to an atheist, is that the denomination explosion came from embracing sola scriptura, which Catholics and the Eastern churches are immune to. The denomination explosion is not a problem with Christianity, it’s a problem with sola scriptura. If you prove that point by argument, an atheist can see why it’s not a problem for Catholics but is a problem for Protestants, and he should be able to appreciate why they are different in this regard. (Eastern Orthodox have a similar problem, stemming from placing final authority in the bishops generally without a “head bishop.” If you’d like to read more about it, click here.) They didn’t run out of Church by embracing some aspect of its teaching, but by embracing a new doctrine, sola scriptura. The Anabaptists, on the other hand, left Lutheranism by embracing sola scriptura for themselves. “Just us and our bibles,” they said, “and we don’t need you Lutherans.” But the Lutherans set the precedent by doing that themselves. What that should show us is that sola scriptura is illogical, but it doesn’t prove anything about Catholicism because Catholicism doesn’t share that doctrine. Nope, because we don’t embrace the thing that caused those schisms, that was sola scriptura’s fault, and we repudiated that from the beginning. I hope the above analysis helps you see why that argument still works to our advantage, when the blame is placed at the feet of sola scriptura and when that finger-pointing is justified by argument. (Because of course just asserting it proves nothing.) James proposed what they should do now that the question was solved. But as far as solving the question goes, he constantly pointed to authorities outside of himself: Peter in verse 14 and the Scriptures in verse 15. His proposal that they write a letter declaring the rules for gentiles was not based on his own authority. Peter was the only one who claimed authority to decide the matter in verses 7-11, saying that Jesus had chosen him to be God’s mouthpiece to the Gentiles, and after that everything was just listening to people explain God’s work among the Gentiles (verse 12) and James saying that Peter and the Scriptures agree, therefore let’s write a letter about it (verse 13 to 30). To me, the whole thing shows quite clearly that Peter claimed authority to make the decision in verse 7, and James and the others agreed and decided it would be best to proclaim it in a letter. You’ll notice that before Peter speaks there is wide disagreement (verse 7); but after he speaks there is no mention of anyone disagreeing. That suggests that Peter’s authoritative speech solved the issue.

Excellent post.I posted something similar to this above without seeing your post…Thats what the communion of the faithful in the mystical body of christ which is the catholic church is all about! :yup:

 

[TimothyH]

1. Peter spoke first at Acts 15, and showed his papal authority. Though Peter spoke first, it is not clear that he presided. The Apostle James closed the Council and made the definitive statement of the Council about doctrine and practice.

Peter was observing a political protocol which is still used today. No leader today would make a definative policy statement while in the territory of another leader.

Do we not remember when the president of Mexico came to the USA and lectured Barak Obama on policy and the uproar that caused. Do we not remember when Barak Obama went to Europe and made all kinds of policy statements about America while on foreign soil and the uproar that cuased. These were breaches of one of the most basic protocols observed since ancient times.

The leader from another place will make a statement of opinion about what is believed, but the actual policy statement about what is to be done - the decision statement - is always made by the leader of the territory in which the decision and statement is made.

George Bush’s press conference with Tony Blair in England was perfect. President Bush said “We believe this, America stands for that, and our core principals are such-and-such” and then Tony Blair said, “Therefor we have decided to do such and such” It was perfectly sublime. The leader on foreign soil deferred to his host to make the official policy statement.

Peter was in the territory ruled by James. Peter deferred to James in the matter of making the policy statement. No bishop today would make a policy statement about his own dioces while standing in the territory of another bishop, just as no leader of a nation should be making policy statments while standing on foreign soil. It was Jame’s dioces so James got to make the statement.

-Tim-

 

[sennincatholic]

First, re. the 33,000 pro. denoms figure–I recall looking into this issue a few years ago. I do not recall the 33,000 including the Catholic Church, as Catholics were counted as 22 or 23–seperate from the 33,000 count.

Addiontionally, the 33,000 was discredited–as alluded to by a poster above–because each national denomination was considered a distinct denomonition, though in full commuion with others. Hence United Methodists of the US were accounted for as 1, while UM’s of say, England, were accounded for as another.

By the same standard, that would yield some 230+ Catholic Churches.

Howver, when this factor was corrected, the net result (upon recolleciton) was that there wre still 10,000+ denominations (actually, I think I heard one very conservative estimate, at 8,300+…)–vs. 22 Catholic Churches.

The bottom line, the point stands–even using the most conservative number I’ve heard of–8,300+ denominations!

Not 80; not 800. 8,000!!! EIGHT FREAK’N THOUDSAND, THREE HUNDRED, PLUS!!!

It doesn’t need to be 33,000; it doesn’t need to be 23,000; it doesn’t need to be 13,000; 8,000+ is beyond reconcialable with any notion of unity, by the most liberal standards conseivable.

Now, back to Catholicism–22 churches—EACH ONE OF THEM, able to trace their origins to the Apostles, thorugh Apostolic Succession…

…and the degrees of difference are significantly less, than those amongst our seperated brethren…(e.g.–SDA’s vs. Reformed Calvy’s vs. Lutherans vs. Baptists vs. Evangelical fundies…, are far greater than the Eastern Catholic Churches who don’t recognize PI)…

…what’s more, the Roman Catholic Church accounts for more than all other Catholic Churches, AND THE 8,300 (OR 10,000+ OR EVEN 33,000 PROTESTANT EC’s) COMBINED!

1.1 BILLION, IN ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH, accross the globe!

Each observing the same sacraments;

Each observing the same MASS;

Each celebrating the same Liturgy;

Each celebrating the same liturgical year!

Each celebrating the Liturgy of the Word, every Sunday–throughout the world, no matter which country, city, or whathaveyou, the same exact readings…every. single. Sunday…and every. single. major Feast Day!

---

To your other point–ok, so you mentioned some apologetics you don’t like–FSOA, we’ll just concede this assertion–but then, you referenced some which we could use, but don’t.

Please share these–I’d love to hear what you think they are.

I will add that the Catholic Church has thesame readings EVERY DAY all over the world…:yup:

 

[TimothyH]

And the Catholic Church is not a denomination. The Catholic Church is the original, universal Church from which all other Churches have de-nominated themselves.

The word catholic means universal. The word nominal means to bear a name.

The Catholic Church is the nominal “universal” Church. All other Christian Churches have de-nominated themselves, taken another name. The Catholic Church has not de-nominated itself. It has always born the name “Universal”.

When people ask me what denomination I am, I reply that I am not a member of a denomination, that I am Catholic.

-Tim-

 

[pablope]

That’s not the point, friend. The survey which produced the 33 000 number was simply a tally of Christian denominations. Differences in theology were not accounted for. Rome was included with the Presbyterians, Lutherans, Anglicans, Baptists, and others. It’s not in our favour or against us.

I think may you misunderstood the survey.

philvaz.com/apologetics/a106.htm

So we have, according to Barrett’s Encyclopedia:

a denomination is defined as existing within a specific country
there are 33,000+ total of these “Christian denominations” in 238 total countries
These 33,000 are subdivided into “6 major ecclesiastico-cultural mega-blocs”, and ordering them by denomination size we have (I am rounding up or down slightly for convenience, using year 2000 figures) :

Independents (about 22000)
Protestants (about 9000)
“Marginals” (about 1600)
Orthodox (781)
Roman Catholics (242)
Anglicans (168)
So the 33,000 number is from the total of these 6 mega-blocs:

22000 + 9000 + 1600 + 781 + 242 + 168 = 33,000+

That’s where the 33,000 figure comes from. If you count the “mega-bloc” of “Protestants” only it is 9000 / 33000 or 27% of the total. However, if you combine Protestants with Independents and Anglicans ( [22000 + 9000 + 168] / 33000) it is 94% of the total or 31,000+ . We will see below that most (about 97%) of the “Independent” churches are indeed Protestants. Now that we have that settled, I will examine what the source says about each of these “mega-blocs.” All of the information below is found on pages 16-18 (volume 1) of the World Christian Encyclopedia (2001, 2nd edition).

 

[pablope]

Friends,

Sometimes we use pretty lame points to defend the Faith. Here are a few that I found particularly unconvincing as a protestant:

1. Peter spoke first at Acts 15, and showed his papal authority. Though Peter spoke first, it is not clear that he presided. The Apostle James closed the Council and made the definitive statement of the Council about doctrine and practice.

Can we please begin to realize that some apologetic arguments are very weak, and should not be used? They’re just not convincing. Let’s try to hash a few more out, and understand better ones. We have them, but they’re not used as often as they ought to be.

The role of the Pope is not to preside. If he presided over contentious debates, it would have sapped his energy, and he would have been seen as taking sides.

The role is to listen to the various viewpoints…which Peter did.

V7…7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe.

After listening, Peter gets up and makes the doctrinal position. This is the role of the Pope…after listening, as the chief shepherd, he makes the doctrinal statement.

James issues the implementing rules of his area of responsibility. Which is what a diocesan bishop would normally do, when it receives a directive from the Vatican.

 

[Goya]

I think may you misunderstood the survey.

philvaz.com/apologetics/a106.htm

So we have, according to Barrett’s Encyclopedia:

a denomination is defined as existing within a specific country
there are 33,000+ total of these “Christian denominations” in 238 total countries
These 33,000 are subdivided into “6 major ecclesiastico-cultural mega-blocs”, and ordering them by denomination size we have (I am rounding up or down slightly for convenience, using year 2000 figures) :

Independents (about 22000)
Protestants (about 9000)
“Marginals” (about 1600)
Orthodox (781)
Roman Catholics (242)
Anglicans (168)
So the 33,000 number is from the total of these 6 mega-blocs:

22000 + 9000 + 1600 + 781 + 242 + 168 = 33,000+

That’s where the 33,000 figure comes from. If you count the “mega-bloc” of “Protestants” only it is 9000 / 33000 or 27% of the total. However, if you combine Protestants with Independents and Anglicans ( [22000 + 9000 + 168] / 33000) it is 94% of the total or 31,000+ . We will see below that most (about 97%) of the “Independent” churches are indeed Protestants. Now that we have that settled, I will examine what the source says about each of these “mega-blocs.” All of the information below is found on pages 16-18 (volume 1) of the World Christian Encyclopedia (2001, 2nd edition).

Great post! Thanks for sharing.

 

[steve_b]

Friends,

Sometimes we use pretty lame points to defend the Faith. Here are a few that I found particularly unconvincing as a protestant:

1. Clement, bishop of Rome, wrote authoritatively to Corinth as Pope. This is a non-argument, because the First Epistle of Clement does not actually have the name “Clement” in it. It could easily have been written by the priests of Rome (as in some letters to St. Cyprian of Carthage).

Except priests don’t have the authority expressed in Clement’s letter. The sedition in Corinth was among the bishops. Priests in (Greece) don’t ask priests in another country (Italy) to settle sedition among their bishops. It takes a powerful bishop whose authority spans the whole Church, not just his own diocese, to settle such a problem…

If all bishops had the same authority, Corinth could have gone to Athens, or Thessolonika or Ephesus (where John was), or Antioch, to settle their problem. But Corinth didn’t do any of this. They sought Rome…i,e, the bishop of Rome, the see of Peter to settle their problem. The expectation then, is that the bishop of Rome has the authority to do it. This suggests to me, the Church everywhere understood this dynamic of the see of Peter

When one Church writes another, letters are sent to the highest authority (the bishop) so the request being asked for can be handled authoritatively. To do otherwise would be foolish.

That understanding of authority in the Church (going to the bishop) is expressed by Ignatius. “Do nothing in the Church without the bishop” (letter to the Church @ Smyrna). Therefore, Re: your point, it’s understood then, the bishop of Rome was being asked by Corinth to solve the sedition in Corinth. In extension, it’s understood his power goes beyond his own diocese being the chair of Peter.
C:

1. The 33 000 protestant denominations prove protestantism is a chaotic mess, and therefore Catholicism is right. This is a category mistake made out of ignorance of the Survey on which the claim is based. In fact, the Roman Catholic Church and the 22 sui iuiris eastern churches are part of that list of Christian denominations! We cannot establish our own Church’s authority over against the 33 000 in that list, because we’re considered part of the list itself. Protestants see us as just another claimant among the 33 000.

“denomination” is protestant speak. It assumes a type of relationship like a wheel spoke relationship that isn’t there. Protestants are seperated from the Church. And their is no equality in division. There is no such thing as seperate but equal. There is no spoke wheel analogy. there’s no “we’re just one of many wheels” analogy. The Catholic Church isn’t a denomination. It is the Church Jesus established and gave all His promises to…period. Division from which is condemned by Jesus John 17:20-23 and from letters of Paul. Romans 16:17-20 Galatians 5:19-21 Eastern Rites within the Catholic Church aren’t denominations of the Catholic Church. They are in complete union with the pope. Therefore they are 100% Catholic. Even though ~98% of the Catholic Church worldwide is Latin / Roman rite, and the Eastern rites are ~2% of the total, all are 100% Catholic, and all rites are equal. There are no denominations in or from the Catholic Church.

Denominations, sects, dissension, divisions, of any type, is not allowed by Jesus John 17:20-23
C:

1. Peter spoke first at Acts 15, and showed his papal authority. Though Peter spoke first, it is not clear that he presided. The Apostle James closed the Council and made the definitive statement of the Council about doctrine and practice.

He didn’t speak 1st. When he did speak, it ended the debate that was going on. iow he settled the matter.
C:

Can we please begin to realize that some apologetic arguments are very weak, and should not be used? They’re just not convincing. Let’s try to hash a few more out, and understand better ones. We have them, but they’re not used as often as they ought to be.

Part of the problem is squishy language. We can’t communicate effectively without clarity of the words we use. When words lose their meaning, we can no longer communicate. When People pour their own understanding into words that should clear understanding but have become squishy instead, we lose our ability to communicate.

For Example

1. 
   *]“outside the Church”.
   *]“Seperated bretheren”.
   *]“fullness of truth”
   
   Seperation means seperated from something. It is no longer a part of what it is seperated from. therefore, seperate, can’t be inside something it is seperated from. At best it can only be outside of what it is seperated from.
   
   Jesus had no problem identifying the kind of unity He wills. Because it’s the kind of unity His Father wants. John 17:20-23 Unity is to be perfect, not only among the clergy but also the Church. No seperation what so ever is allowed in that prayer Jesus prays.
   
   The HS inspired Paul to preach unity, and the consequences for anyone who broke this unity Romans 16:17-20 Galatians 5:19-21
   
   Therefore I would say, we need to be clear as well, on what we mean when we use terms

 

[BrunoMaria]

Sometimes we use pretty lame points to defend the Faith.

In a brief talk, I’d say to an atheist: “and what will you do when you after your death find out that it’s all true?!”

To me, it is quite obvious from that that one cannot rely solely on the Bible!

Objection your honor! What about the countless absolutely illiterate in belief, who never read a thing and still do believe in God?
How about all these who never had any other source of faith but how they where told and taught.
What about the children who "simply believe in God”. See them countless mature Christians who believe solemnly, but can’t read, never read a single line, never could afford a book.

Let’s conclusively ask: How should one judge a Christian who needs confirmation of his tottery “belief” from countless homilies and religious publications Sunday after Sunday and in numerous discussions as to the propriety or validity of belief, to holt his connection to God upright?

In other words; poor those “believers” who need the scriptures to realize their belief and make it real.
In fact, yes, one can rely solely on the Bible, for the Bible is the Word of God. All the rest of the Church’s and Church-Father’s teaching help a lot to strengthen our belief, but real belief must be there first. It’s like with an apple-tree. If the tree isn’t there, all the fertilizers won’t help to make one.

Finally see Jesus’ word in Matt 18,3: Unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. - For these Children believe even without theological confirmation. Our belief though, is spoiled by the legions of books of doubts and evolution and relativisms and philosophies “proving” that there is no God.

Yours
Bruno