Well before Martin Luther came along, the Roman Catholic Church had problems that stemmed directly from the very structures that were designed (theologically and politically) to unify church and society. The so-called Western Schism witnessed a papal crisis – three popes at one time – that only the Council of Constance (1414-1418) could solve. (Warning to triumphalist Protestants: this was the Council that also condemned those good old forerunners of the Reformation, John Hus and John Wycliffe.)
Here is Francis Oakley on Constance:
A divided Christendom had indeed been reunited but only because a general council, acting in the absence of its papal head, had formally claimed on certain crucial issues to be the legitimate repository of supreme power in the Church, had been able to vindicate that claim, and had been willing to do so even to the point of trying and deposing popes. In the month prior to the papal election and as part of the reform package to which all the conciliar nations had already given their approval, it had also gone on to set up constitutional machinery designed to prevent in the future any reversion to papal absolutism. In the decree Frequens it decreed that general councils were to be assembled, the first in five years’ time, the second in seventh, and thereafter at regular ten-year intervals. In this decree . . . the fathers at Constance were careful to ensure that, even if the pope chose not to convoke them, general councils would assemble automatically at nothing less than ten-yearly intervals and, in the unhappy event of renewed schism, within no more than a year of its outbreak. (42)
In other words, a century before the Reformation, the papacy was on the ropes and apparently chastened. The Restoration popes were also increasingly limited in their power, not simply by councils but also by the circumstances of European politics.
Loss of control and concomitant loss of revenues notwithstanding, possession of the actual substance of power over the provincial churches of Christendom mattered less, it seems, than the retention of a theoretically supreme authority over the universal Church. Its almost inevitable corollary, however, the revenues flowing in to Rome from the Church at large having been grievously diminished, was the pressing need for the popes of the Restoration era to turn inward and to focus their attention on the government of the papal states upon which they had now come to depend for a full half of their overall revenues. In effect, however grandiose their theoretical powers as supreme pontiffs and however much people continued to pay lip service to that position, they themselves had to concentrate a good deal of their day-to-day effort on their role as Italian princes, involving themselves in the complex diplomacy and ever-shifting coalitions required by the need to protect their Italian principality, to maintain, accordingly, the balance of power in Italy, to save off the recurrent threat of French and Spanish intervention in the politics of the peninsula, and when such efforts failed, to control and diminish the extent of that intervention. (53)
Such diminished authority was obviously crucial for the assertion of the provincial churches’ authority (subsidiarity in action?), which of course happened in spades with Luther’s appeal to the German nobility, Henry VIII’s “reform” of the Church of England, the rise of city churches in Switzerland, and the eventual emergence of a Dutch Reformed Church in rebellion against Spain. Still, conciliarism was key to Protestantism’s rise and to Trent’s failure to resolve Rome’s constitutional crisis.
In November 1518, in anticipation of the papal sentence, and again in 1520, Luther himself appealed from the judgment of the pope to that of a future general council. In his appeals, ironically enough, he drew the legal sections from the text of the earlier appeal launched by the theologians of Paris. For the pope, it may be, that was worrying enough in itself, but probably less worrying than those later calls, emanating from Catholic as well as Lutheran circles, for the assembly of a ‘general, free Christian council in German lands’. But, for one reason or another, worry did not prove enough to precipitate any sort of action that was truly timely, decisive, and effective. In that respect, two particularly surprising things may be noted about the response of the popes to the Protestant challenge. First, their failure for the better part of a quarter-century to convoke the general council for which so many Christian leaders called and upon the determinations of which so many anxious and conflicted spirits reposed their hopes. Second, when finally it did assemble, and despite the challenge laid down by the novel Protestant ecclesiologies of the day, the failure of that long-awaited council to promulgate any dogmatic decree on the nature of the Christian Church – and that despite its readiness to address so many other controverted issues. (58)
Again, I wonder when Jason and the Callers’ theory of papal sufficiency is going to catch up with historical reality.
Postscript: Oakley apparently has not left conciliarism to the archives or study carrel.
Old Life 
Very interesting.
So, what happened to Frequens? Was the decree to meet regularly not an infallible one?
LikeLike
Darryl,
First you would need to demonstrate that CTC’s “theory of papal sufficiency” contradicts “historical reality.” Merely quoting a few paragraphs from Oakley does not establish anything.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
In other words, history shows us a neat, tidy, unquestioned line directly from Peter to Francis…
The Callers will respond that the three popes at a time was merely a failed attempt of the gates of hell to prevail against Christ’s one true church. The Council was part of God’s remedy.
How are we to know contemporaneously, however, what other attempts of the gates of hell to prevail against Christ’s one true church require a Council? Do we just wait for the Pope or Popes to cry “uncle” and then convene it?
How do we distinguish between Papal audacity and Papal going off the rails?
LikeLike
Bryan – Merely quoting a few paragraphs from Oakley does not establish anything
Erik – Other than demonstrating the Papacy was really goofed up at the time of the Western Schism.
How were these three Popes going to resolve this without a Council?
LikeLike
The Irony is that many of the Callers converted to avoid the problem of “private judgment”. “There must be a final authority!”, they cried. At some point in the history of the Church, however, we see that three men were claiming final authority and it was left to the private judgment of a Council to sort out who the true final authority was. So wouldn’t the Council be the one with final authority? If then, why not now? And if a Council, why not many diverse bodies of believers scattered all over the world guided by the Holy Spirit and looking to Scripture?
LikeLike
And again we have Jason calling his Council of one:
I will now disclose all the stuff about Catholicism that I don’t like, in random order:
1. I don’t like it when priests molest people. They should be castrated and imprisoned, along with those who enable them.
2. I am uncomfortable with some of the pomp and excess of the Vatican, and when the culture faults the Church for it in the light of worldwide poverty, I think, “Well, if you’re going to sit in a chair like this one, you’d better brace yourself for some justified criticism.”
3. Same goes for Francis’s whole “Follow me on Twitter and get out of purgatory quicker” idea. Now, I know that that’s not really what he said, but it’s close enough that the unbelieving media pretty much gets a free pass to make fun of us on this one, as far as I’m concerned at least.
4. I don’t like it when popes back in the old-timey days threw their weight around politically, or treated their office as a means for earthly wealth or power.
5. I think Vatican 2 confused a lot of people, as evidenced by the fact that it has taken 50 years to get back to the idea that lesbian priests doing puppet shows at Mass is not what the council had in mind.
6. Moreover, I can see that there is a lot of tension (at least at first glance) between the idea that the Church retains a single and once-given deposit of faith, and the idea that doctrine develops to the point of seeing Protestants as separated brethren. As my mate Zrim likes to say, “I liked you guys better when you just consigned me to hell. At least that I can understand.”
7. Whatever the truth is behind this whole Inigo Montoya thing that Darryl’s been raving about, I will happily go on record as saying that no, popes shouldn’t kidnap babies. They shouldn’t kick puppies or waterboard people, either. I can’t emphasize this enough: If something is a crime, and a guy does it who’s also the pope, it’s still a crime (perhaps even a worse one). Francis, I’m looking in your direction here. Don’t go stealing any kids, or Darryl’ll never let us hear the end of it.
8. I hate almost all contemporary Catholic art and web design. I constantly have to brace myself before clicking a new link, because my equilibrium can only handle being teleported back to 1997 so many times before I my soul starts to slowly die. And what’s the deal with that ’70s Jesus shooting rainbows at people? It’s like he’s the kinder, gentler alter-ego of the Emperor from Return of the Jedi.
9. I really don’t like the Breaking Bread worship hymnal. I don’t like Air Supply either, for similar reasons.
10. Lastly, the Crusades? Not a fan.
LikeLike
Well, Bryan, what have you written recently on the Avignon Papacy? Let’s not forget Edgardo Mortara.
LikeLike
Fascinating subject! My undergrad degree is in history and my focus was on the middle ages and Reformation. I did my honors thesis on the Investiture controversy between the popes and the German emperors.
Some of my favorite stories are of the popes behaving badly through the middle ages. You have suspicious deaths, illegitimate children given positions of power, competing factions naming popes at the same time, years without any pope at all, children named pope, 3 popes at the same time in Italy, the Avignon years, etc.
I’ve never understood how anyone with a sense of history can defend papal infallibility and succession. There was a very good reason for the Reformation.
BTW, here’s a list of some of the more infamous popes (from a book called The Bad Popes):
Pope Stephen VI (896–897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber.
Pope John XII (955–964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.
Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, 1045, 1047–1048), who “sold” the Papacy
Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303), who is lampooned in Dante’s Divine Comedy
Pope Urban VI (1378–1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.
Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503), a Borgia, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.
Pope Leo X (1513–1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors’ reserves on a single ceremony
Pope Clement VII (1523–1534), also a Medici, whose power-politicking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.
Alexander VI should be noted for being especially infamous. His illegitimate children include Cesare Borgia and Lucrezia Borgia.
LikeLike
Bryan, can you articulate (or have you articulated somewhere) how bad one of Christendom’s traditions becomes before our religion must re-think said tradition? Forget the papacy for this thought experiment. After all, you found protestantism wanting, so you do exercise private judgement, and determined the Christian tradition embodied in reformed Protestantism did not agree with your understanding of Christianity. How did you come to that conclusion to leave RP? Well, by determining something better was out there. Protestants are no different, they thought something better was out there, and we still think so. The dialogue will continue, but I think Darryl’s point is that if your C2C was the only thing out there, we’d only get half the story, if that. Criticism ain’t always a bad thing, you know, you obviously still read Hart..
LikeLike
Bryan,
I’ll ask again. Can you provide a reference to a historian who demonstrates that Oakley’s thesis is false. My historian friends take his work pretty seriously. I see no reason to rehash Oakley’s debate here. If you haven’t had the time to read it and the responses, that’s fine. Life’s short. Just say so and we can move on. Asserting that reference to this work doesn’t prove anything is didactic. Of course a simple reference doesn’t, but the source being referenced does provide an extended argument that falsifies key claims you make about the papacy – claims that certain RC intellectual historians who shan’t be named endorse. All I’m asking from you is a scholarly source I can look at that contests Oakley’s thesis. Again, if you don’t know of such a source and haven’t had the time to investigate Oakley’s scholarship, that’s fine. Just don’t pretend the problem with DGH’s challenge is some logical fallacy…it isn’t very conducive to ecumenical dialog….
LikeLike
Excellent stuff, Darryl. If the pope can be wrong, then he can be wrong about not being wrong. Perhaps the book is not closed on “conciliarism” just yet.
I would add however that the “democratization” of theology and scripture is too great a danger the other way. Unitarianism began as a series of Biblical arguments against Trinity, but was voted into what is now a “religion” that doesn’t even necessarily believe there is a God. So too, we see the Protestant mainline becoming indistinguishable from secular humanism. [Or as they say of reformed Judaism, it’s the same thing as the Democratic Party except for the holidays.]
First you would need to demonstrate that CTC’s “theory of papal sufficiency” contradicts “historical reality.” Merely quoting a few paragraphs from Oakley does not establish anything.
Bryan Cross’s objection is sustained, as a matter of formal argument: “assuming facts not in evidence.” One must make the whole argument–state the other fellow’s position fairly, then rebut it.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Neither that question, nor that admonition, demonstrate a contradiction between some historical fact and something we have written.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan,
Do you or “We” (Called to Communion) have an opinion on Jason Stellman’s recent list that I posted above?
LikeLike
Erik wrote: Bryan,
Do you or “We” (Called to Communion) have an opinion on Jason Stellman’s recent list that I posted above?
Well, at least one Roman Catholic commenter on Jason’s blog rebuked him for what she saw as serious deviations from orthodox RCC teaching in his list. Diversity… Every member Sola Romanism?
LikeLike
Bryan, it’s not what you’ve written. It’s precisely what you’ve NOT written.
Regards,
AB
LikeLike
Bryan, so far your responses show no awareness of Oakley, conciliarism, or an attempt to reconcile your high papalism with the history of Roman Catholicism.
LikeLike
I actually respect what Jason did there. I haven’t engaged with him much, but he has a sense of humor and isn’t afraid to speak his mind. I don’t think he’s done evolving by any means. Hopefully it’s a better direction than his latest move. I don’t think he will be with the Callers long term. It seems like a bad fit.
LikeLike
Darryl,
No, but Bryan has farted in your general direction in the peace of Christ.
LikeLike
Re. Jason’s post – If nothing else it was a milestone. When have we seen anything remotely like that from a Caller? Compare it to Jeremy Tate’s cheerleading or Bryan’s logical gamesmanship. Jason is the only one practicing true ecumenism in confronting Rome’s dirty laundry with some honesty and humor.
LikeLike
Erik, and it turns out that rainbow Jesus is essential Romanism. I hadn’t known that until reading those comments.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Nor does this ad hominem demonstrate a contradiction between some historical fact and something we have written.
Here’s the point: although you keep claiming (in these successive posts) that there is some contradiction between something we have written and some fact of history, you have not actually demonstrated that claim to be true. In each case your claim is only a mere assertion. And those are a dime a dozen. Anyone can assert anything. If you want to make your accusation worth something, then you need to show how something we wrote contradicts some fact or facts of history.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
@BC You are incorrect. dgh was not making an argument in that statement, rather he was criticizing you intellectual irresponsibility. He pointed out a historical work that creates serious problems for the relatively modern claims of papal infalliblity and supremacy…claims whose implications create serious problems for your antiprotestant apologetic. You responded that this line of reasoning is begging the question because careful study undermines Oakleys thesis. This is a remarkably bold claim as the implication is that Oakley was not a careful scholar. Your assertion should be backed up.
It is not reasonable to expect anyone to reproduce Oakleys argument on a blog and I don’t expect you to provide a point by point refutation in a commbox. What you should do now that you have claimed Oakley was not a careful scholar is provide some source that shows this. Now if you aren’t familiar with his work, rather than slander a well respected scholar just say so (and note if you must that the claims presented here are not consistent with your understanding of this history).
Hiding behind (erroneous) assertions of logical fallacies is a cowardly approach and suggests a sophomoric understanding of argumentation.
LikeLike
Bryan, this is just me here, but all I see are polemics against what we believe. I can understand what would drive someone to such. I read your disagreement with Hart from 2007. I only met you on the interwebs last summer. So I get there’s a lot of history here I won’t understand. My only original thought in this combox post ist that your pointing out alleged logical fallacies proves nothing, but only is self serving. You may say our proprietor is no different, and I can understand your perceived need to defend your band. I think the interwebs have only served to reveal how deep the chasm is in Western Christianity, not how much we have in common. I think we are fooling ourselves to think what much of any of us are up to out here is doing anything good for Christ’s church. Regards, AB
LikeLike
Bryan, where have I asserted a contradiction? That may be an implication. But I’ve not said it. What I have said repeatedly here and at CTC is that the view of the papacy you et al present is one sided and does not grapple with historical contingencies. Those contingencies also turn out to pose many more problems for Rome and your claims on Rome’s behalf than any of the conversion narratives ever acknowledge. That means at least that Roman Catholic claims to superiority are just as hard to maintain as are Protestant ones. We both have great theories of our ecclesiologies. Protestants are united by the Spirit. You point at the history and say no. You say Rome is united by the papacy. I say no, look at the history.
So if you want to continue to bad mouth Protestantism for its inadequacies, you should not presume your own institution’s superiority without admitting that it comes down to trust, not rational argument.
Either way, the historical scholarship produced by your own Roman Catholics would not lead to the rosy estimates of the papacy that give life, breath, and being to CTC.
LikeLike
AB, how deep the chasm in Western Christianity is? Someone should tell the Vatican (and then tell the Vatican to tell Jason and the Callers).
LikeLike
As the CtC apologetic continues to get whittled down to either non-existence or just so much selective justification after the fact, I continue to wonder what’s more revealing about the whole tempest in a teapot. Is it more reflective of a shallow presbyterianism or a reinvention of RC as a prot-catholic hybrid in anglo-catholic communions and on the internet?
I think it’s become pretty obvious that it’s not reflective of Vat II RC, either interpretively, culturally or popularly. It’s got some Baltimore catechism styled RC in it, but in the context of modernity and the backdrop of Vat II, it can’t ever amount to more than quaintness, like visiting an old town in Europe where the locals dress up in period pieces for the tourists. Even Benedict(the hero) resigned under the impossibility of it. And If Rome is undergoing at least it’s third significant posture(interpretive and pastoral) change since Vat II, where’s the northern star type of religious consistency(Fideistically principled or not) that so exceeds protestant schismatic communions in that? Is the MOC, which ultimately relies on a “supernaturally enabled faith”(Kantian) response the driver of all this? This all seems to point more toward an Vacuous protestantism than a genuinely compelling RC. I guess on that point we’d all agree. Which makes the RC compulsion a last gasp or romantic interlude.
LikeLike
Excellent, Sean — the word I was looking for: Called to Quaintness. Some RCs might use the word “cute.”
LikeLike
Darryl, the interwebs attract syncretists. Maybe this CTC phenomenon mirrors syncretists of the 1920s religious history. I haven’t read far enough in your book to know…That, and the geological chasm on hole 2 where I am playing next Friday. I hear that’s a tough one. Take care.
LikeLike
Sean – Is it more reflective of a shallow presbyterianism
Erik – In order to fully evaluate the Callers I would like to know more about their P&R backgrounds. Stellman is a Westminster grad and ministered in the PCA. Tate is an RTS grad (or attendee?) and was also in the PCA (although not as a minister?). Chalk apparently grew up RC, his family left, and he came back. Were any of these guys in the smaller NAPARC churches (URC, OPC, RCUS, etc.) as members or ministers?
Why is it relevant? One of our contentions here is that the PCA is becoming a big tent to the point of being perhaps in some ways suspect. Tim Keller at one end, Peter Leithart at the other. If all of these guys come out of the PCA, that’s worth noting. I need more data.
LikeLike
If someone leaves a happy-clappy PCA or a PCA led by a Federal Visionist I am a lot less impressed with the Callers “get” than I am if someone who is well catechized leaves a URC or OPC. Where is the Darryl Hart, David Van Drunen, R. Scott Clark, Michael Horton, or Carl Trueman on the Callers roster? I’ll even settle for a non-academic who has been a URC or OPC elder for two decades. Seminarians and recent seminary graduates are no big deal. Chalk that up to youth and inexperience.
LikeLike
Erik, I think as long as we don’t try to play pop psychologist in a combox, it’s fair game.
In the PCA you’ve got an entrenched FV proponent which has been widely acknowledged to be sympathetic with and even a pathway to RC. This is certainly inclusive of both Keller and his NY metro presbytery and Leithart. You have the ‘union’ school of soteriology which at it’s most diabolical is cover for a Shepherdian understanding of salvation as covenantal faithfulness, the obedience of faith, and union as renovative that is antecedent to justification and sola fide. This includes Calvin vs. the Calvinists and Gaffin’s BT constructions. Covenant Seminary seems to have been complicit with much of the Kellerite and even Leithart styled FVisms. I think they followed West East too closely in their BT developments, searching for theoligical credibility(imo), and combined it with Keller’s postmodern church speak and growth templates. At it’s minimum it’s diminishes theology and creedal commitments, at it’s worst it lays an anglo-catholic groundwork for the kind of jumps you see out of some of the CtC guys. Then of course you’ve got the Frameian, RTS, analytic theology crowd who’s attracted to the thomism of Rome.
LikeLike
I major in pop sociology. I only minor in pop psychology.
I liked sociology in college because it was basically about everything. I think I even have a book somewhere in my garage called “the sociology of sociology”.
LikeLike
Darryl,
What matters, fundamentally, is whether what we have said is true, not whether a “view” “grapples” with x, or is presented from n sides. And nothing you have said shows that anything we have said is not true.
And here is where mere hand-waving is inadequate. Imperatives such as “look at the history” do not show anything we have said to be false. Hand-waving imperatives are cheap and easy, but they do not do any argumentative or refutational work.
Again, if anything we have said is false, please feel free to show that. Speculating about my wants does not show anything we have said to be false.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Dr. Hart: AB, how deep the chasm in Western Christianity is? Someone should tell the Vatican (and then tell the Vatican to tell Jason and the Callers).
Robert: I think the Vatican already knows, right. It’s just a little ditch, maybe a pothole, or a fence between two neighbor’s backyard. We’re separated brethren, right? At least that is what Vatican II teaches.
Which puzzles me as to why CTC feels this compulsion to make an apologetic for RC. It actually puzzles me as to why anyone feels compelled to make an apologetic for RC. We’re all united to the pope somehow anyway. What harm does it do to let us think otherwise? We’re all going to get there eventually (to heaven), right?
Why doesn’t anyone realize that Rahner and Vatican II put Roman Catholic apologetics out of business? Even the lay Roman Catholic seems to recognize that.
LikeLike
Bryan, what do you do to one of your children (if you have them) if they don’t tell the whole truth?
Here’s where you and differ (in technique): You say the Vatican is the church Christ founded. I don’t say the OPC is the church John Calvin founded. If you can understand the problem of the latter, you can also see the problem of the former. (Though I know you have motivations not to see.)
LikeLike
Darryl,
If, behind this question, is the claim that we merely haven’t stated every truth there is to state about the Catholic Church, then I’ve granted that (to you) many times over. We don’t claim to be an exhaustive encyclopedia concerning the Catholic Church. But the charge that we haven’t stated every truth there is to state about the Catholic Church is a very different claim, and a much weaker claim, than the claim that history falsifies something we have claimed (particularly something we have claimed about the papacy).
If you think you can show that the Catholic Church (not the Vatican, the Vatican is a political state) is not the Church Christ founded, I’m all ears. But from the fact that the OPC is not the Church Christ founded, it does not follow that the Catholic Church is not the Church Christ founded. Nor from the fact that a person has the mental capacity to understand whether an institution is or is not the one Christ founded, does it follow that the Catholic Church is not the Church Christ founded.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Darryl, the bait and switch doesn’t work if you show people the switch. Bryan is already on record as being unwilling to ‘help’ make the polemic argument against Rome(as you’ve noted). It’s a matter of faithfulness to Rome for him. That’s why he sanitizes all the arguments at CtC and when he’s been pushed into a corner in a syllogism he starts slicing and dicing away at the internal coherence of the counter syllogism rather than addressing the substance of the objection. I’m not sure how you make headway with that approach other than to deny premises all day long which he’s happy to do. It’s too bad because it’s not actually getting down to the substance of the discussion but becomes this pedantic exercise in crafting syllogisms. Which is great, I guess, if that’s what you do for a living and your just trying to get people through the door before they read the consumer guides.
LikeLike
Old Lifers, all your arguments are invalid: Mystery Angel Priest!
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/07/angel-crash-missouri/2630227/
LikeLike
Bryan, you have not shown that the Roman Catholic Church is the church Christ founded. What is more, that is a historical claim and you (purposefully it seems) avoid history. And even though I wrote about Calvin rather than Christ, it is just as laughable to assert that the OPC is the church that Christ founded (even though I think it is a true church).
Your criteria for settling your claim about the church Christ founded appears to rely on philosophy and logic even when this is a historical matter. If it is not historical then say hello to docetism. Though fundamentalism seems more fitting of your stance (thanks Sean).
In fact, part of what makes your claim about the Roman Catholic Church attractive to other Christians is the antiquity involved in it. And you have made great hay out of Protestantism’s recent start compared to Rome having so many more centuries, nay millenia, of history. So then own up to the history and start to make some historical judgments. If you don’t, then you are being dishonest.
LikeLike
Sean, what you said:
LikeLike
Bryan – What matters, fundamentally, is whether what we have said is true, not whether a “view” “grapples” with x, or is presented from n sides.
Erik – Crap. No one told me that algebra was a prerequisite for this course. Or is that geometry?
LikeLike
And Bryan, the claim C2C is a website for dialog between RCs and reformed protestants (RPs) is laughable. I find handwaving galore in articles and comboxes there, yet you only point out Darryl’s alleged actions of doing so. Our two sides can have healthy, or unhealthy, dialog. Formerly identifying with the reformed does not grant you free reign to say what we are and what we are not. You can come over here and speak your mind, and you are given free opinions. Your website does not afford RPs a fair hearing, and you know it, despite your allegations of fairness. Take care.
LikeLike
Bryan – We don’t claim to be an exhaustive encyclopedia concerning the Catholic Church.
Erik – Indeed, as I found out when I tried to comment on something other than the narrow topic of a post and about five guys there peed their pants. That’s what happens when you have to defend 2,000 years and 3,000 catechism entries. It’s hard to just have a simple discussion. Too much territory to defend conversationally.
LikeLike
Darryl,
None of these assertions by you shows that anything I (or anyone else at CTC) have written at CTC is false. And if all that I’ve written is true, then you have no good reason to object to it.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan, I used to use that with my parents.
“all that you have written is true” and I have no reason to object? Hey Bryan, this is not the Roman Catholic Church of the Inquisition and Index of Books. Vatican 2 allows for my conscience to be free. So I can object all I want.
LikeLike
D.G.,
Here’s a potential exercise with some benefit. Pick a recent CTC article and post it. We can all give our best shot at identifying everything in the article that boils down to a faith claim. Then we’ll let Bryan take his best shot at our comments. He’s always asking us to point out anything they’ve written that is not true. We maybe can’t show it’s not true, but we can show how much they take on faith, not reason. If Bryan wants to confine the discussion to logic and reason, I’m game.
LikeLike
Actually, I have a piece by Bryan that would be excellent to post. Find the post on CTC where he makes a lengthy response to Michael Horton and makes historical arguments for the RCC being the Church that Christ founded. It’s long, but we could take it piece by piece. I read the whole thing in one sitting last winter.
LikeLike
Erik, C2C articles always bring me a couple strokes down. Don’t make golf harder for me than it is. So, eh, no, I’ve had enough C2C. Just me and my little private opinions here. Take care.
LikeLike
I like Bryan’s argument. It ties in with the illegitimate parsing of the law the pharisees were guilty of; ‘you ignore the weightier matters of the law in favor of your traditions’;
Mark 7
6 And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,
“‘This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
7 in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
8 You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”
9 And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ 11 But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, “Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban”’ (that is, given to God)[d]— 12 then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, 13 thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.”
CtC: ‘we haven’t said anything false. Ignoring or bypassing material contrary evidences is not positively proclaiming error or misleading’- It’s your(protestant) job to proclaim the ‘whole’ truth.’
Me: Thanks Bryan. O.L. is on that.
Me: This is so violating of Imago Dei moral culpability it’s embarrassing. Even the gentiles who have not the law do better than this Bryan.
LikeLike
Proof that Bryan does history when he’s in the mood:
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/11/sola-scriptura-a-dialogue-between-michael-horton-and-bryan-cross/
LikeLike
Darryl,
I never denied your *freedom* to object. I only pointed out that if everything we have written is true, then you have no good *reason* to object to it, because ultimately there *is* no good reason to object to what is true.
If, however, you think something we have said is false, then, please feel free to show it to be false.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
In Bryan’s piece he makes a defense of the notion of Apostolic succession (using names and dates!). Even if it was valid early on, how do we know that it has continued up until the present day, especially in light of the things that RGM cited yesterday (and the Avignon Papacy, and Edgardo Mortara, and the sex abuse scandal, and…). The rosy picture Bryan paints doesn’t appear to account for these bumps in the road. How do we know it hasn’t been a game of telephone where what we have today is nothing like what we were intended to have originally.
And even if he can draw a line in time and space to the current Bishop of Rome, why is this necessarily superior to a line Protestants can draw from faithful Christians in the early Church to faithful Christians today, worshipping and living in accord with what Scripture teaches?
If Rome’s fruit had been better throughout the centuries, would Protestantism have been born?
LikeLike
True and False Prophets
15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
Perhaps the true church is not the same administratively throughout history, but is found where Christians are consistently producing good fruit?
LikeLike
Wow! This is absolutely breathtaking. Did Bryan really write this? It is absolutely not true that ignoring contrary evidence to your argument is not misleading. If I were to run an experiment and I only presented positive evidence and ignored counter evidence (picked and chose my data points), I would be fired with cause, lose my ability to acquire federal grants, and probably not be able to work in the scientific community again. Cherry picking is an egregious form of intellectual dishonesty. Insofar as this is an accurate representation of his views, he is a liar and fraud and there is nothing to be gained by entering into discussions with such a person.
LikeLike
sdb,
What it is is short sited because the converts you win over by only giving them the rosy stuff will have trouble when confronted with the seedier side of your particular faith. When we convince someone to become P&R we had better tell them about Servetus at the same time we tell them about Calvin’s Institutes. You have to account for the good and the bad.
This is why Jason’s post about the things he doesn’t like about Catholicism may be the beginning of another shift for him. I doubt he would have produced that same list on the day he converted. He ends his piece by pledging continuing devotion to Rome in spite of the deficiencies he’s just listed, but he’s a thinker and these things are going to keep gnawing at him. There will be other things added to the list the longer he stays in the church, too.
LikeLike
sdb, to be clear. The first part is his. The second part is a compilation that I condensed. The last part, is his statement of faithfulness to the one true church, that it’s not his job to present or help present contrary argument.
Your analysis of the comment is spot on. I’m not completely comfortable with liar and/or fraud. I’m more comfortable with noumenalist and intellectually dishonest.
LikeLike
sean,
Here’s the dilemma your position faces. On the first horn, if you have not published articles or essays engaging with each of the “material contrary evidences” to your present religious tradition, are you prepared to admit that you are “intellectually dishonest”? If not, then why the double-standard? But if you are prepared to admit that you are intellectually dishonest, then there is no reason to take your arguments seriously.
On the other horn of the dilemma, if you have published articles or essays engaging with each of the “material contrary evidences” to your present religious tradition, then where are these articles and essays?
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan, well on the upside, you haven’t said that anything I’ve written is false. So how my truth supports yours is something only the
development of doctrinehermeneutic of modernism can fix, I guess.LikeLike
Erik, I’m intrigued by your suggestion. Let me consider.
LikeLike
Erik, I do believe the bishops of Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Constantinople would have snickered at Bryan’s historical chops.
LikeLike
sbd, think Invasion of the Body Snatchers where the copies where kangol caps.
LikeLike
Erik, I am not convinced that Jason is a thinker. I do think he wants a wider stage, so maybe a form of performer. I’m not sure he finds a bigger stage than Rome (that is, if the theater doesn’t go poof like the Globe).
LikeLike
Bryan, why are you addressing this to Sean? when did he start blogging?
But if you are addressing that to Protestants in general, I’ll point out that Old Life is not aimed at calling Roman Catholics to Reformed Protestantism. Your blog is designed to be (get this) ecumenical and apologetic. Since you adopted that mission, honesty of an intellectual variety and answering the objections (that arise from history) is part of your job. It doesn’t mean you have to engage “each of the ‘material contrary evidences,'” just that you need to address some.
If you don’t, it’s a rigged game of bait and switch.
Or it could be you just don’t know history. Wouldn’t be the first Roman Catholic guilty on that count (not to mention Protestants). But then again, there is that historical whopper, Rome is the Church Christ founded.
LikeLike
Whoa there hoss. I’m not the one maintaining a propaganda site under the auspices of ecumenical dialog all the while running formerly ordained protestant T.E. and R.E. converts up the flag pole as convinced of the ‘truth’ of RC, some with your ‘help’ no less. You purport to function, among other credibility claims, on two maxims; ‘you catch more than you learn and dinner table conversations’. Well, I’ve done both more than you and a few of your colleagues combined. So, I’m your RC huckleberry.
Where have you been living?! We bag on protestantism so much, if we were an officially sanctioned arm of any NAPARC denomination they would’ve run us out on a rail after they tarred and feathered us.
You’re the one hanging your shingle as RC apologist for ‘hire’ and syllogistic moderator extraordinaire. And CALLLING folks to communion, particularly those of prot reformed persuasion. So buck up little helper, or quit. That way you don’t have to answer for every careless word coming out of your keyboard. Talk about entitled.
LikeLike
Darryl, you see where I did the ‘we’ thing. It’s this NPD it’s a bear.
LikeLike
Bryan, I’d happily describe the experience of meeting you and your blog, sometime. I’ve never been RC, and Protestantism is home for me. I know it’s just me and my opinions and experiences, but I’m left scratching my head on a lot of this I see you doing. Please don’t take offense on anything I say. Just I saw you post here, I figure you don’t mind some random dudes feedback. Take care.
LikeLike
sean,
You seem to be saying that if a person runs an ecumenical site, then if he has not published articles or essays engaging with each of the “material contrary evidences” to his present religious tradition, he is intellectually dishonest. Since you don’t run such a site, therefore, the conditional doesn’t apply to you.
Ok, but that pushes us back to the conditional you are presupposing. How does it follow that if a person runs an ecumenical site, then if he has not published articles or essays engaging with each of the “material contrary evidences” to his present religious tradition, he is intellectually dishonest? (I’m asking that question sincerely — I don’t know why you hold that presupposition.)
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan, the intellectually dishonest bit comes in your less than circumspect representation, maybe it’s ignorance, so fair enough. It also rears it’s head when instead of engaging the ‘meat’ of a polemic you have often resorted to trivial contests of syllogistic construction. I’ve also ‘watched’ you lead people down a path without full disclosure of where you’re leading them and I called you on it at least once at Jason’s site. You did go ahead on that occasion and lay out all your cards, after it was noted. Whether prompted by me or not, I have no idea.
How you moderate your site is your business, but it’s not what I would call equal representation dialog much less ecumenical dialog. And when your ‘business’ involves the current state and future state of men’s souls, well, this is why Paul tells us not many of us should seek to be teachers for there is a greater burden to bear. You can’t be engaged in this kind of endeavor and representation which is not shared within your own communion and characterize what you do as anything much more than partisan.
I think you are less than holistic in the picture you’ve painted of RC and I’ve noted that your apologetic morphs as you encounter obstacles or pushback. So, consider this ecumenical pushback and if it’s just been mere ignorance on your part, than I ask forgiveness.
Sean
LikeLike
sean,
I don’t see how that reply answers my question.
But thanks for trying.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Well Ok Bryan, maybe it’s a semantic opportunity. Does Religiously or parochially dishonest better reflect the criticism?
Sean
LikeLike
Bryan,
In the interest of ecumenism, would you give us 10 things that bug you about Catholicism as Jason did? If not, why not? What did you think of Jason’s post? Since you refer to your fellow contributors as “we” I assume you have some opinion.
LikeLike
Bryan, thanks for interacting with Oldlifers here. May God help us all to read Psalm 133 with a heart for those we seek to be reconciled more to, in all aspects of charity and mutual respect.
AB
LikeLike
Bryan,
Regarding CTC never saying things that are not true. From Jeremy Tate yesterday:
“She (Rebecca VanDoodewaard ) honestly acknowledges the mass exodus of young evangelicals out of the denominations they grew up in and into ‘High Church’ traditions, especially Roman Catholicism”
What qualifies as a “mass exodus”?
What sources can Tate cite as evidence for a mass exodus?
Has Tate considered the number of young people leaving Catholicism for evangelicalism?
What is the net, not gross, exodus when this reverse exodus is taken into account?
Is this mass exodus global, or only in the United States? When the Pope was in Latin America I heard reports on NPR of a mass exodus from Roman Catholic Churches to Pentecostal churches.
That’s just one paragraph, Once we settle these issues we can move forward with the essay.
LikeLike
I posted the bulk of this comment at CTC. Let’s see if it gets through. I got an e-mail from Tom Brown today that I comment I submitted a week ago did not make it through moderation. A week to moderate a comment? And these guys are doing this in good faith?
LikeLike
Darryl,
I agree that intellectual honesty is essential to our ecumenical activity. I also agree that answering objections rooted in history, and not running away from such objections is critical to genuine ecumenical dialogue. That’s part of the reason why we have open comboxes (moderated only for civility and respect, not theological content); people can raise objections, and we can discuss those objections. What does not follow logically and is not charitable, is inferring from the fact that we haven’t written an article about some historical event x sometimes appealed to as problematic for the Catholic position, to the conclusion that we are either “intellectually dishonest” or “ignorant.” There are many other more charitable explanations available, one among many others being that we’re busy, and have many other things to do, and not everything has equal priority. A more charitable and sincere response to noticing that we have not addressed objection x, is simply to ask us what is our response to objection x.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan – What does not follow logically and is not charitable, is inferring from the fact that we haven’t written an article about some historical event x sometimes appealed to as problematic for the Catholic position, to the conclusion that we are either “intellectually dishonest” or “ignorant.” There are many other more charitable explanations available, one among many others being that we’re busy, and have many other things to do, and not everything has equal priority.
From Tom Brown to Me Today –
Dear Erik,
I have moderated your comment as it does not conform to our posting guidelines. Specifically, and as I have mentioned to your repeatedly in another combox, your comments must relate to the post at issue. The invitation to comment does not include within its scope an open invitation to speak about any issue one wants to raise about Catholicism. That would create for unwieldly comboxes. I would be happy to discuss privately whatever point you were seeking to make with the below comment.
Peace,
Tom B.
Erik – So if one of your contributors never “gets around” to writing a piece on these “problematic historical events”, and if our attempts to bring them up never make it through moderation (because it leads to “unwieldy comboxes”), how do they ever get addressed? It sounds like all you have to do is ignore that they exist. That’s not ecumenical dialogue.
If you are serious about ecumenical dialogue I triple dog dare you to put Jason Stellman’s recent piece about the 10 things that bug him about Catholicism up on Called to Communion.
LikeLike
Erik,
There are plenty of CTC articles addressing historical issues or related to historical questions, under which such an objection could be raised. See the Index.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan,
I’m not spending much more time there until I am convinced that people there intend to discuss objections in good faith. When you were gone there was a lot more whining taking place than debating.
I posted a comment on Jeremy Tate’s piece so we’ll see how that goes.
You are definitely the “A” team and I’m not very impressed with the bench.
LikeLike
Bryan,
And reposting Jason’s piece?
Why or why not?
This is a chance for you to demonstrate good faith and address inconvenient history that took place around a week ago.
LikeLike
Bryan, I have to say this is a first. Somebody actively engaged in a polemic against a particular communion up to and including running a virtual trophy case, asking for charitable relief from a segment of that same group as it regards criticism of the antagonist’s polemic against their communion. I thought Keller had pushed winsomeness beyond it’s usefulness and legitimate application. I was wrong.
LikeLike
Bryan,
Sean raises a great point. Why not drop the former-Presbyterian & Reformed schtick and we can all be friends? I can count on a stopwatch how much time I spend in a year thinking about Catholicism, evangelizing Catholics, or going on Catholic websites other than when D.G. brings up a Called to Communion post. On one hand I’m flattered that you think highly enough of us to target us. On another hand I wonder why. Just have a site touting the glories of Catholicism without the former P&R angle. If Catholicism is all that then P&R people will discover it, along with other Protestants of all stripes.
In twenty years will you still really be featuring what you used to be?
LikeLike
Bryan, you post conversion stories. Those narratives are all about the wonders of Rome and the woes of Protestantism. That’s the dynamic at CTC. Nothing ecumenical. And I doubt the conversion narratives would sound so positive if converts had to come in acknowledging the Church’s errors. Oh wait, the church doesn’t err. Got it.
LikeLike
Bryan, as I noted yesterday, nothing at CTC on conciliarism or the Western Schism or the three popes (simultaneously). Nothing what I’ve said is false.
LikeLike
Sean, but the callers do it in the peace of Christ. kaMON!
LikeLike
There is a very big difference between ignoring evidence and being unaware of evidence. It is misleading to ignore evidence that contradicts your position. That is cherry picking and it is intellectually dishonest. For example, a Texas DA successfully prosecuted Mike Morton for the murder of his wife. Everything the prosecutor said was true, however, there were comments by a witness and a bloody bandana found at the scene. The prosecutor ignored this evidence and didn’t bother mentioning it to the defense – as it turns out the evidence was exculpatory. Now if the prosecution hadn’t been aware of this evidence, there would have been no ethical problem. But they were aware of the evidence and they ignored it and thus mislead the jury. If the quote above represents your approach to scholarship, I stand by my conclusion that you are intellectual dishonest and have no place in the academy.
There is no dilemma. The intellectual dishonesty comes from “ignoring” evidence rather than being unaware of various pieces of evidence, not understanding a piece of evidence, or not having had a chance to address some issue.
LikeLike
Bryan,
I don’t get it. I’ve read your appeals to reason and history and your dismissal of Protestant fideism. Do you really think you avoid the “problem” of fideism by appealing to the reasonable trustworthiness of the Apostolic witness and the magisterium? After Kant and Kung my friend reasonable with regard to religion is a bit like the last girl in the bar at closing time. “Why yes, doctor I thought it was reasonable at the time, now I just itch and burn.” Protestants have just as much claim to reasonableness as do toad lickers and sacrificers of hamsters. Indeed a Protestant can say with great confidence their faith is just as reasonable as yours. How you ask? Because both claims to reasonableness ultimately rest on faith. You are arguing the faith position that is according to you more reasonable, and, in turn, you are thrown back history. Unfortunately trusting history requires a great deal of faith whether Catholic or Protestant, and here is your dilemma. You cannot escape the burden of private judgment. It’s ok, neither can I. You, me, Alasdair MacIntyre, Oprah, Darryl, and every other human are stuck with the terror of having to choose.
LikeLike
Darryl,
If ‘ecumenical’ meant only finding common ground, and never making any arguments for the truth of something not held in common by all, I would agree. But that definition of ‘ecumenical’ is itself controversial and contested, and in that respect is not self-consistent. Another sense of the term ‘ecumenical’ doesn’t stop at finding presently existing common ground, but seeks also, in a way open to argumentation from persons of all participating traditions, to come to agreement concerning the truth even in areas of present disagreement. This is a more robust ecumenism, because it does not preclude argumentation (in charity) from any particular point of view, aimed at truth, and responding to such argumentation (again charitably) with objections and refutations, also aimed at coming to agreement in the truth. I laid out this distinction four years ago, in “Two Ecumenicisms.”
Sean, if you think that someone criticizing certain aspects of your tradition means that you get to be uncharitable toward him, then you need to read Matthew 5. If any person calls himself a Christian, whether he is Catholic or Protestant, and is not charitable, he should expect other Christians to point this out to him. And on top of that, when you look for excuses to be uncharitable, you make the Reformed tradition look bad.
Erik,
That wouldn’t be true to our history. Our history is part of who we are. To hide from history is to hide from the truth. It also wouldn’t be charitable to the communities from which we came, and to which we are still, in various ways, connected, both in friendships, in prayers, in gratitude, and in a longing for a restoration of full communion.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan, “to hide from history is to hide from truth.” If you believe that, then don’t make history merely personal — your past — but also include Unam Sanctam, the Syllabus of Errors, Lumen Gentium, and Edgardo Mortara. You are connected to that history too but you refuse to acknowledge it.
As for your understanding of ecumenicism, it flies in the face of your understanding of paradigms. You don’t tolerate other paradigms. So how can other paradigms pursue the truth at CTC? I even hear comments from others don’t get through.
CTC is a sham.
LikeLike
Bryan – and in a longing for a restoration of full communion.
Erik – Indeed. You guys are always welcome to come back to P&R churches (ha, ha).
Are you living in Cedar Rapids, Iowa now? If so, welcome to Iowa.
LikeLike
Bryan, I’ll leave making the reformed tradition look bad to you. When it comes to cultic fealty and false teachers neither Jesus nor Paul nor Peter, for that matter, minced words. I’d quote you the scriptures but what would be the point of that.
LikeLike
Darryl,
That’s not true. I fully acknowledge that Unam Sanctum, the Syllabus of Errors, Lumen Gentium, and the Mortara incident are part of my history as a Catholic. I’ve never written about the Mortara incident, but I’ve written about the other three. And you assume (uncharitably, and unjustifiably, it seems to me) that if someone hasn’t written about x, then he is refusing to acknowledge x.
This too is not true. I tolerate other paradigms all the time. Again, if you want to make accusations that aren’t just empty, you’ll need to substantiate the charges.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
This is untrue. You said ignoring evidence is not misleading. This is the problem. If you are willing to ignore contradictory evidence, then honest dialog is not possible.
LikeLike
sdb,
Where did I say that?
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Was this quote inaccurately attributed to you?
LikeLike
If you didn’t write those words, then I retract my claims. I’m leaving now and won’t be back to my computer until this evening…
LikeLike
sdb,
Yes, I never said that.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan, you fully acknowledge Unam Sanctam, the Syllabus of Errors, Lumen Gentium, and Edgardo Mortara? Really?
Here’s what we find at CTC:
Unam Sanctum, a post on marriage (big disproportionate HUH?).
Syllabus of Errors, one, count it, ONE! post on church and state, and one on culture.
Lumen Gentium and the question of salvation outside the church, one post criticizing David VanDrunen.
Edgardo Mortara, a big, Fat Tuesday, doughnut.
And of all these posts, you wrote only the one on marriage.
Again, you’re not being above board with this “fully acknowledge” bits of the Roman Catholic past that might be a tad difficult to reconcile with the glowing conversion narratives of CTC’s apostles.
LikeLike
I get a doughnut when I search for “Stuff I Don’t Like That Much: Catholicism Edition” by Stellman. Good thing he moonlights elsewhere.
http://www.creedcodecult.com/stuff-i-dont-like-that-much-catholicism-edition/
LikeLike
We all have time constraints, I understand that. All I ask is that Catholics be willing to have a conversation (not a logic contest) over how they process these historical incidents in light of a church that, when it comes down to it, cannot err. How do we square these things with an infallible head that does not run roughshod on the concept of infallibility? We bust Bryan’s chops, but he brings it on himself. Let’s just converse.
LikeLike
Sensai Cross instructs student Stellman in the proper way to deal with Hart:
“Sweep the Leg” = logical gamesmanship, not admitting to Catholic shortfalls.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Yes.
We’ve discussed Unam Sanctum under ten different posts.
You wrote:
We have discussed “church and state” not only in those places, but I have laid out the Catholic position on this question in moderate detail in two separate places at CTC, one of those being comment #7 of the “Philosophy and Papacy” post. And I’ve also discussed it in “The Relation of Man’s Two Ends to Church and State.” (I’m of the opinion that once I lay out an argument or position, I don’t need to keep doing so; I only need to link back to it when the need arises. Hence *once* is sufficient, all other things being equal.)
You wrote:
And that was adequate. If you think it was not adequate, then feel free to explain why in the combox under that post.
Yep, as I said, we haven’t addressed that event yet. From that fact you can conclude either that we are hiding from history, or (more charitably) that we simply haven’t gotten to it yet. Which you choose says more about you than us.
No, you just don’t know how to search the site very well. (And this happened once before, if I recall.)
Either that, or you just haven’t learned how to search CTC very well, and are rushing to unjustified (and uncharitable) judgments.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan, comments in comm boxes don’t count as full. Says me.
Maybe you should do a better job of tagging (comments too).
LikeLike
DG, I think Bryan has charged you with being temperamentally defective.
LikeLike
First Jason, now David Anders on CTC:
David – Anyway, I wonder why you even point this out. To my mind, the amazing thing about Protestant conversions to Catholicism in recent years is that we have all joined a church that we know to be empirically flawed, weak, intellectually and morally poor, and oftentimes unwelcoming. I’m trying to think of one Protestant congregation run with such knavish imbecility that can boast anything like the number of conversions seen in my very ho-hum, boring Catholic Parish
Erik – I appreciate your honesty. I have not heard this from many of Called to Communion’s members.
I can do business with these guys…
LikeLike
Erik, I prefer “break the wrist, walk away.”
LikeLike
My apologies. I misunderstood who was being quoted or what part of the statement was a quote.
LikeLike
(I’m of the opinion that once I lay out an argument or position, I don’t need to keep doing so; I only need to link back to it when the need arises. Hence *once* is sufficient, all other things being equal.)
Dude doesn’t get it.
We’ve seen how he lays out an argument here and we is not impressed.
Much more, he assumes all his arguments are ipsit dixit valid/true – never mind implicit faith or fatutities like “all deviations from Tradition have roots in the Tradition” (thanks Wormtongue, we wouldn’t have ever guessed that until the truth serum kicked in for a brief moment of clarification) yada, yada yada.
So suck it up, little grasshopper.
IOW if Bryan can’t tell us in the proverbial 25 words or less what he is up to, I for one couldn’t care less, much more bother to go over to CtC and wade through the verbal sewage. (Yeah, I know. IF what we say is true, then Rome is golden. And this guy is over here talking about performative handwaving and question begging by prots? Come on. The nerve of the punk. He should have got the bum’s rush long ago. (Ding, ding. That’s ad hom in both senses and true on top of it.)) The mormons cleaned his clock when he answered the door the first time and from then on it has been downhill, however profuse, verbose and boasting/gloating he can be when it comes to the Roman version of Christ’s church.
David – Anyway, I wonder why you even point this out. To my mind, the amazing thing about Protestant conversions to Catholicism in recent years is that we have all joined a church that we know to be empirically flawed, weak, intellectually and morally poor, and oftentimes unwelcoming. I’m trying to think of one Protestant congregation run with such knavish imbecility that can boast anything like the number of conversions seen in my very ho-hum, boring Catholic Parish
Snicker.
Papists like to pretend at times they have the common (read protestant) touch.
This is no more than David buddy giving free rein to his private judgement for a moment.
Wait a few. He’ll get over it, I guarantee you.
Hint, romanism appeals to the natural man.
They love it. That’s why they convert. You can deny the Reformation gospel of JBFA in Christ alone and still have your works count for salvation – not that your works put Christ on the
crucifixcross in the first place and but for his mercy and grace would continue to damn those he has sovereignly chosen and redeemed through faith alone in his name alone.That scandal Francis, Benedict, Chesterton and the Callers cannot comprehend to their eternal shame and damnation unless they repent and the pope will not, because he’s the pope and the “conciliarism” of Vat. 1 declared him the infallible vicar of Christ on earth.
Gotta love that paradigm. It’s slick, wicked and philosophically consistent, which in the end is all that counts. As for Scripture, history or reason, not so much.
LikeLike
This too is not true. I tolerate other paradigms all the time. Again, if you want to make accusations that aren’t just empty, you’ll need to substantiate the charges.
Yeah, and if you care to make assertions that aren’t just empty, you need to substantiate them.
(Duh.)
Just for the record, we’re still waiting to hear you or any other of the CtC clones correctly characterize the doctrine of Sola Scriptura in any other way than the typical caricature of mormon/anabaptist burning of the bosom. You never did it over at Green Baggins and you were challenged more than once or twice on it. And every time it comes up, the same old nonsense gets repeated by the usual suspects.
So don’t go telling us you wrote a tome on it over at CtC – unless you make it clear in the same that to begin with you are clearing up your previous errors in mischaracterizing the position – even if you disagree with it.
But we already know that.
And could care less besides.
LikeLike