Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Catholic vs Catholic


I found this quote amusing.

This is a traditionalist/sedevacantist Roman Catholic writing about original sin and calling Karl Keating a Pelagian. I will say, this particular website provides a good deal of documentation to support the claim that modern-day Roman Catholics diverge from historical Roman Catholicism.

"Present-day Pelagian rationalists, who reject the doctrine of the transmission of guilt from Adam, like to say that as a consequence of Adam’s sin people are merely deprived of supernatural benefits to which they have no claim: they are not guilty and they are not being punished for that guilt. According to them, man was simply reduced to his natural state after Adam sinned. The Pelagian Karl Keating of “Catholic Answers” well summed up the contemporary Pelagian position with the following claim.

“Adam and Eve committed the original sin--called ‘original’ because it occurred at the origin of the human race. They incurred guilt for that sin. Their offspring – including us – did not. What we have been saddled with is not the guilt of their sin but the consequences of their sin. They forfeited the preternatural gifts God had given them, and that forfeiture has extended through all the generations. But the guilt of that first sin was theirs alone.” (E-letter of February 10, 2004)

We shall now see the texts of the councils of Carthage XVI, Lyons II, Florence and Trent in which the Catholic doctrine of original sin was defined..."
Source

(Update: a commenter has alerted me to the fact that the website linked to above contains some anti-semitic material and perhaps other inappropriate material. I certainly don't endorse that type of viewpoint nor do I agree with the non-offensive sedevacantist theology, but that doesn't negate the fact that there are a subset of Roman Catholics who believe the current RCC has drifted from historical Roman Catholicism and can provide a fair amount of documentation to back up their claims.)

19 comments:

Kepha said...

If you don't mind me asking, Tq, which one of these two positions is the Reformed?

Paul Hoffer said...

Before you wrote this article and provided a link to the site, did you look at the links the site which link to anti-semitic and white supremacy papers and groups? Did you find those links and arguments to be "pretty good" as well? Did you find them to be as amusing as the quote? Would not such linkage suggest the value of the information actually being posted there? Or did the opportunity to bash the Catholic Church again blind you to what that guy was all about? Is this the kind of website that Beggars All wishes to promote?

Saint and Sinner said...

"If you don't mind me asking, Tq, which one of these two positions is the Reformed?"

The correct belief concerning Original Sin is that both the guilt of Adam's sin was imputed to every individual human since Adam was our federal head/representative AND the corruption of human nature is passed on to each human being through ordinary generation.

Saint and Sinner said...

Here are a few posts that Michael Patton did on the topic a while back:

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/05/24/a-short-defense-of-imputation/

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/05/27/a-defense-of-adamic-imputation-of-sin-or-thank-you-god-for-imputing-adams-sin-to-me/

EA said...

Paul Hoffer said: Would not such linkage suggest the value of the information actually being posted there?

Would not the linkage of such popes as Alexander VI, Honorius, Liberius, and Julius II suggest the apostasy of the papacy?

Even a clock that is broken is right twice a day.

Paul Hoffer said...

Hi ea, you said, "Even a clock that is broken is right twice a day."

My response: not if it is missing both hands.

God bless!

Carrie said...

Before you wrote this article and provided a link to the site, did you look at the links the site which link to anti-semitic and white supremacy papers and groups?

No, I did not, but thanks for bringing it to my attention. I have added a disclaimer to my post to reflect this issue.

There are many articles on that site and I have only read a few, but I thought the documentation of the deviations of the current and former pope from historical teachings (and of some of the salvation articles) was a good sampling. I guess it was the rather extensive use of council, church fathers and papal documents that made a good argument regardless of the arguer.

Would not such linkage suggest the value of the information actually being posted there?

Of course not. I do not agree with historical Roman Catholicism nor modern Roman Catholicism, so my use of the material was not a rubberstamp of approval in any sense. The kookiness of the poster doesn't negate his use of historical documents and that is what I was referring to as "a good argument".

Or did the opportunity to bash the Catholic Church again blind you to what that guy was all about?

Is Karl Keating now the Catholic Church? Sorry, I don't see how quoting one Roman Catholic calling Keating a Pelagian is "bashing the Catholic Church".

Is this the kind of website that Beggars All wishes to promote?

First, I don't speak for Beggars All. My posts are my opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the rest of the team. Second, linking to a website is not meant as a form of promotion, b/c if it were, I would no longer link to CA, Envoy, Sippo, etc.

Augustinian Successor said...

"Before you wrote this article and provided a link to the site, did you look at the links the site which link to anti-semitic and white supremacy papers and groups?"

Since when did British Imperialism equates white supremacy? Are you saying that the British colonialists were fascists in the racist mould? Are you aware of the Boer War in which thousands of Afrikaans (i.e. descendants of the Dutch settlers) were interned in concentration camps. By association, you might as well repudiate Christianity's civilising mission as white supremacy.

No, British Imperialism was wrong, but it was not about white supremacy. It was about British (read: national) supremacy. I happen to be acquainted with the webmaster of the site and he is no racist. About his anti-Semitism, he does not hate Jews. His beef with the Jews is not with their *race* but *religion*. You'd notice he says nothing about Zionism. And Zionism is broader than Judaism in its many forms.

As for the Roman Church, it is afflicted with the abominable disease of paedophilia. Hardly surprising, given that it is that the papacy is the seat of the Antichrist.

Augustinian Successor said...

Carrie,

You are right about the post-Tridentine deviation of the Roman Church from western catholicism, not to mention Vatican 2. From nulla salus extra ecclesiasm, the Roman Church now speaks of separated brethren, Jews and Moslems worship the same God (reminds one of Jimmy Carter when visited Sadat in Egypt and Golda Meir? Menachem Begin? in the State of Israel), and invincible ignorance of the pagan. The website was precisely set up to dispel the myths arising from the aggiornamento of Vatican 2.

Augustinian Successor said...

Carrie and Beggars All,

Ya'all are doing a great job, and I jest want to say, keep it up. Your site in included in my links.

I mean, heck even the Roman Church cannot agree with herself! And we know that this covers lotta things which we won't go into here in this comment boax.

Matthew Bellisario said...

Blogger Augustinian Successor said."As for the Roman Church, it is afflicted with the abominable disease of paedophilia. Hardly surprising, given that it is that the papacy is the seat of the Antichrist."

This is great scholarship here. What evidence has been brought forth to substantiate such a claim? Must we now pull out the cases of pedophilia in Protestantism and compare with that of the Catholic Church? When you want to take up that challenge let me know. If we are going to base the seat of the Antichrist on that, I guess it is the Protestant rebellion. There are more cases per year reported of sexual abuses by Protestants than that of Catholics.

Please, this is just bad argumentation. One has to wonder why one would equate these two statistics with each other. Then again this sounds like something that Luther or Calvin would say. Nothing new. All talk, no substantiation.

EA said...

This is great scholarship here.... There are more cases per year reported of sexual abuses by Protestants than that of Catholics.

Really? Who told you that, Cardinal Law? Citations, please.

eklektos said...

The problem is not that most priests are pedophiles, but that the RCC covered up their acts. This happened in not just in Boston but also in California, where the abuse was even worse. The fact that this occured is not in dispute. I know of no parallel in any protestant church I'm aware of. This of course doesn't mean that the Pope is the antichrist. It doesn't even mean that the Roman Catholic church is more wicked than other churches necessarily. It did however occur, is well documented, and is a sin for which the Roman church should come clean, which has not happened to date. It has stalled investigations, protected perpetrators, and further abused the victims. So making the argument that these crimes don't mean that the Pope is the antichrist is one thing, lamely responding "where's the proof?" is another. I have no desire to prove WWII happened either, the facts are to well documented to bother responding to such weak replies. one could rightly wonder given the events surrouniding the abuse cases in Boston and California how many other such crimes were sucessfully covered up by the Roman church. It happened, so deal with it and pray for those who were abused!

Matthew Bellisario said...

"Blogger EA said...

This is great scholarship here.... There are more cases per year reported of sexual abuses by Protestants than that of Catholics.

Really? Who told you that, Cardinal Law? Citations, please."


The National news is who reported it. Here are a few blurbs from one article and links to several others. Sources like the NY Times and Fox News. Now I want to see how the Augustinian Successor is going prove the seat of the Anti-Christ from his statement, since the Catholic Church has sexual abuse going on in less numbers than the Protestants since 1950. Does that make the Protestant churches the actual Hell that houses the seat? Come on.... Below is a portion of an article. Links below..

"The mainstream media has all but ignored the recent Associated Press report that the three major insurance companies for Protestant Churches in America say they typically receive 260 reports each year of minors being sexually abused by Protestant clergy, staff, or other church-related relationships.

Responding to heavy media scrutiny, the Catholic Church has reported that since 1950, 13,000 “credible accusations” have been brought against Catholic clerics (about 228 per year.) The fact that this number includes all credible accusations, not just those that have involved insurance companies, and still is less than the number of cases in Protestant churches reported by just three insurance companies, should be making front page of The New York Times and the network evening news. It’s not."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286153,00.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/16/us/16protestant.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0405/p01s01-ussc.html

As I said, don't throw stones in glass houses.

EA said...

...the three major insurance companies for Protestant Churches in America say they typically receive 260 reports each year of minors being sexually abused by Protestant clergy, staff, or other church-related relationships.

How many were by Protestant clergy alone (as opposed to "staff or other...")? The 13,000 figure for the RCC was pertinent to CLERICS. These are apples and oranges comparisons.

Furthermore, the 13,000 figure does not include the numbers of nuns that have reported sexual assault.

And finally, the RCC is the one that keeps putting forth lofty claims about its pedigree. But when push comes to shove, the RCC's apologists claim that others are 'just as bad'.

Is the RCC qualitatively 'better' or not? And if it is, what outward manifestation does it exhibit?

Matthew Bellisario said...

Look Ea this is not even worth discussing. This only data from 3 insurance companies with the Protestant figures, that is not even close to the total. Read the articles. If you want to use this as point to argue the seat of the anti-Christ then have at it. Next I'll be hearing the old "Call no man father" argument coming out. Have fun on your witch hunt. Good day.

EA said...

Look Ea this is not even worth discussing. This only data from 3 insurance companies with the Protestant figures, that is not even close to the total. Read the articles. If you want to use this as point to argue the seat of the anti-Christ then have at it. Next I'll be hearing the old "Call no man father" argument coming out. Have fun on your witch hunt. Good day.

I never made the seat of the anti-Christ argument; I simply provided perspective into the numbers that YOU cited. It is interesting that at the fisrt sign of rebuttal, you go all 'Sippo' and retreat from the battlefield under the cover of an 'anticipated attack'. Pretty weak.

Matthew Bellisario said...

I never debated any thing other that the anti-Christ argument my friend. I never entertained anything other than that. read..not reading what i post, thats weak.. Sippo..

Augustinian Successor said...

All you papists here, read the secret Vatican report on covering crimes relating to priests including paedophilia, approved by Pope Benedict XVI no less.