Why is it better to be Catholic?

[susanlo]

I did leave some specific notes after first watching this video earlier this year. That was in the thread “Protestants: Who Founded the Catholic Church?” I can’t seem to find this thread or my post from this thread. I wish I would have kept my notes.

But, the big problems I found with this presentation were the obvious discrepancies from what Marshner quotes as the early succession of the bishops of Rome as compared to what the early writers actually wrote. I can’t figure out why he chose to change Irenaeus’ order to match Tertullian’s order since that order doesn’t agree with the official Roman Catholic list (or the one from Eusebius’ book either).

But many of the claims for the artwork don’t seem to check out either. I know less about the early artwork than the early writings, but with my skepticism about the accuracy of Marshner’s facts, I find it hard to believe that there was that much artwork preserved from the first 3 centuries of Christianity. How do we know that artwork depicting a man receiving the law on Mt. Sinai is “Peter under the guise of Moses?” How do we know it isn’t Moses? It seems to me like he may be stretching a bit here…

 

[pablope]

pablope:

Hi Susanlo,

Am not sure where. I, for one, know Dr. Marshner is a learned man and a scholor, and I do not think he would state or present something without evidence, otherwise, it would denigrate his credibility.

I found this website about him…https://www.christendom.edu/2016/10...aculty-member-dr-william-marshner-now-online/

At 4:30 in the video he cites Irenaeus’ succession list and states “Peter put in place Clement.” However Irenaeus wrote that Peter and Paul ordained Linus as the Bishop of Rome before Peter and Paul left Rome. Against Heresies Book 3, Chapter 3.3

Marshner also cites Tertullian’s succession list. (8:10 in the video) Tertullian did write that Peter ordained Clement directly as Marshner correctly reads in the video. Prescription against Heretics Chapter 32 So Marshner correctly represents Tertullian’s list, however this order does not agree with the succession list produced by the Roman Catholic Church.

I do not know much about Marshner, but I am concerned about the accuracy of what he says. Why does he misquote Irenaeus? Why does he give Tertullian’s list as proof of Papal succession when it actually is historically inaccurate compared to what the “official” succession list is?

Sure…he was making examples…could be possible his notes or miswrote some of the information…but would not “deliberately” misinform his audience.

But in minute 5:30…he cites the reason for this lists…which is the point he was making, not the accuracy of his notes.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm

According to Tertullian, writing c. 199, the Roman Church claimed that Clement was ordained by St. Peter (De Praescript., xxxii), and St. Jerome tells us that in his time “most of the Latins” held that Clement was the immediate successor of the Apostle (Illustrious Men 15). St. Jerome himself in several other places follows this opinion, but here he correctly states that Clement was the fourth pope. The early evidence shows great variety. The most ancient list of popes is one made by Hegesippus in the time of Pope Anicetus, c. 160 (Harnack ascribes it to an unknown author under Soter, c. 170), cited by St. Epiphanius (Haer., xxvii, 6).

Scholars have reckoned, after looking at all the records, the after Peter, it was Linus, Cletus, then Clement.

 

[pablope]

I did leave some specific notes after first watching this video earlier this year. That was in the thread “Protestants: Who Founded the Catholic Church?” I can’t seem to find this thread or my post from this thread. I wish I would have kept my notes.

But, the big problems I found with this presentation were the obvious discrepancies from what Marshner quotes as the early succession of the bishops of Rome as compared to what the early writers actually wrote. I can’t figure out why he chose to change Irenaeus’ order to match Tertullian’s order since that order doesn’t agree with the official Roman Catholic list (or the one from Eusebius’ book either).

I think, in your zeal to discredit him, you may focusing on something, and not looking at the big picture.

In Minute 5:30, do does cite the importance of the list of succession…

But many of the claims for the artwork don’t seem to check out either. I know less about the early artwork than the early writings, but with my skepticism about the accuracy of Marshner’s facts, I find it hard to believe that there was that much artwork preserved from the first 3 centuries of Christianity. How do we know that artwork depicting a man receiving the law on Mt. Sinai is “Peter under the guise of Moses?” How do we know it isn’t Moses? It seems to me like he may be stretching a bit here…

Again, in your zeal to discredit him…are you looking for anything to latch onto?

I thought he stated this artwork, that came out after the persecution, was in the catacombs and in the early churches…and dated as early as 2nd century.

Maybe you should visit the catacombs, if you have not.

 

[MichaelP3]

We all have. And to lay claim to any of them is a mistake.

Have you ever read Augustine? So he said many things but where he goes against Catholicism (and he does) then he “was wrong”. Seems a bit “playing both sides” or doesn’t it?

 

[Pup7]

You referred to Sola Scriptura as “a faulty method”. What would you replace it with?

At the very least? Prima scriptura.

And there are multiple main line non-Catholic, Christian Trinitarian denominations that agree with that.

 

[Crocus]

@pablope and @susanlo, this discussion about the credibility of Dr. Marshner’s work is beginning to be a topic on its own.

Perhaps start another thread, if it needs continuing?

 

[Pup7]

I would challenge you, if you are here to really know what our beliefs are to read more material from Catholic sources on the subjects you have asked about. Otherwise, it seems you may be looking just for debate.

The winner of the Internets for the day is… BELIEVE85!

I honestly doubt that truer words have ever been spoken. He’s clearly here to poke the bear, screen name notwithstanding.

 

[MichaelP3]

That’s actually funny.

But still check it out!

 

[nearlycatholic]

I’m curious about why so many people here seem convinced that the Catholic Church is a much better choice than any protestant church. I realize that these kinds of choices can be (for lots of people) mostly subjective, but is there an objectively good reason to choose the Catholic Church over any of the various protestant churches?

Yes, it is the church that Jesus Himself founded. When He told Simon his name’s was now Peter and upon this rock He was going to build His church, He did and He did then not get things started some 1500 years later. The CC is our Lord’s church!

 

[AlNg]

The Catholic Church has been consistent in it’s beliefs for 2000 years.

Not according to the Eastern Orthodox Church. The original creed said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Currently, the teaching in the Roman Catholic Church is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son, but the Eastern Orthodox maintain the original teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.

 

[susanlo]

In Minute 5:30, do does cite the importance of the list of succession…

His lecture is based on making the case that Eusebius had enough information to write his book Church History. Eusebius cites that Linus was the first Bishop after Peter and Paul. That is different from what Marshner shared in his lecture. I haven’t seen anywhere in Eusebius’ 4th century book on the history of the Christian Church that it is claimed that Rome held a primacy over the other churches anyway. So making the case that Eusebius had accurate information - although he actually had conflicting information - that doesn’t even lead to a Papacy anyway - I am not sure where he was going with all of it.

 

[JanetF]

I love Fr. Riccardo!!!

 

[stpurl]

Semantics. Are the Father and the Son One?

 

[MichaelP3]

From Augustine? Well all of it.
It is a great read for any Christian!

 

[Seagull]

I find the Catholic faith - much more peaceful. More real.

Its more structured. Offers wide range of saints - and their stories.
Catholic books - without question - far exceed other writings from other various faiths.

 

[RKS89]

Someone correct me if I’m wrong but I was under the impression this issue had been patched up at the theological level. That is to say, I think theologians on both sides have agreed it’s a situation where we’re saying the same thing, just using different language. Again, correct that impression if you know better than I.

 

[nogames]

Also, everything that is important to Christianity isn’t “clear” in scripture. Case in point in the Trinity. So using that as your dichotomous key is going to make conversations with Catholics difficult.

Well said.

 

[LaughingBoy1503]

Nothing wrong with further clairifying doctrine. Besides, our track record is still great even if stuff needs to be further clairified later.

Got any more? Start a new thread and tag me to it, we already disrailed this one

 

[SuperLuigi]

It does. And there’s a lot of trapped Protestants there who need your prayers!

 

[Darryl_B]

If I only had one dollar for every time someone claimed to have read Augustine’s selected quotes as published by protestants on the internet. But I would much rather see Augustine read.