Truth Unites... and Divides said...
Q: Does the Magisterium pick and choose among all the writings of the Early Church Fathers to come up with its doctrine? To be more precise, does the Magisterium pick one aspect of what an ECF wrote while rejecting other parts of what that very same ECF wrote that happens to contradict what the Magisterium has declared as Church dogma?
Yes or no?
If so, then why all this blabbering about citing Lampe and not accepting Lampe's other conclusions? After all, if the Magisterium cites an ECF on one issue, but doesn't accept that ECF's other conclusion on other matters, isn't John Bugay merely doing what the Magisterium has done way before John Bugay was ever born?
Hypocrisy. Pot. Kettle. Black. Special pleading. Etc. Are just some of the words that come to mind when reading the criticisms lobbied at Bugay and others by their Catholic detractors.
5:38 PM, September 10, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
24 comments:
Eg., Has the Magisterium ever cited Tertullian and Origen as evidence for its dogmatic teachings?
Guess what? Tertullian was a montanist and Origen was a universalist.
Is the Magisterium picking and choosing?
(Mr. Roger's voice) "Can you say, 'Yes'?
I think you need square brackets "[]" instead of parentheses "()" around "Mr. Roger's voice."
"Intellectual Inconsistency in the Infallible Magisterium?"
[Mr. Roger's voice] "Can you say, 'Yes'?
(Especially for those who allege that John Bugay is intellectually inconsistent for citing Professor Lampe's work on the early church while but refusing to accept Lampe's conclusions about 2nd Timothy).
But this raises another question: Why go after John Bugay by alleging "intellectual inconsistency"? Why go after Lampe's conclusions about 2nd Timothy? These are bogus red herrings.
Instead, why not engage and interact SOLELY with what Lampe wrote about the early church and the papacy?
Why don't Blogahon, Matthew Bellisario, Dozie, and other Catholic pop-epologists do that? Why the phony deflection of Lampe's and Bugay's arguments and pretending as if that's a substantive defense?
It's so pathetically and transparently lame that it's laughable.
P.S. FWIW, I have heard that some Catholics who would like to be in closer communion with the Eastern Orthodox are amenable to jettisoning the papacy. Not only because the papacy is an insurmountable and non-negotiable issue with the Eastern Orthodox, but because these Catholics also tacitly agree that the papacy is historically untenable.
Ah John, there you go picking [ ]'s over ( )'s! Why not go fancy and use { }'s instead?
To his credit, Bryan Cross did interact with one Lampe item. I plan to talk about that some time soon.
TUAD
would you venture a guess as to why the Magisterium of the papacy does not want to locate and build upon the Spiritual Wisdom of God from the First Century Writers, both Biblical and others of that time period, yet apply themselves as is reflected by what was the civil form of government of that era as some historians show from reading their writings?
One such writer I have been introduced to just yesterday is the historian/scholar, a freed man from Roman slavery, while living in Rome during that era, Polyhistor.
It is interesting to me that when the Bible is silent on some of Jesus' understanding "learned" while growing up to become a man, who Scripture testifies of Him: Luk 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man., Polyhistor is not. He is not silent about the form of government the Roman Caesars enforced upon the world of mankind, [Israel and other nations], during their tenure as the high human conquerors of the world of that time. Ironically, this same form or tyranical form of government is similar to the way the Roman Catholic Church Magisterium conducts and runs their affairs through their man made religious practices from the see of Rome's papacy!
Hmmmmmmm
Hi Natamllc,
I would take a stab at venturing a guess to your question, but alas, I don't understand what you're asking.
Your set-up is a bit lengthy, and I'm not really sure what the question is. Can you be a little shorter in your question?
Thanks.
TUAD
ah ok,
How about the "intellectual inconsistency in the infallible Magisterium" not paying attention to the History of Jesus written about Him and other people during His 33 and a half years of life on the earth? We don't have much, but we do have historians writing things about what was the way of people of government and societies and social interests of intellectuals, of that period of History, just before His birth, during His short lived Life and Ministry. And, of course, we have the written history, the Gospels and Epistles of Holy Spirit inspired men following into the Second Century, the Third, the Fourth and so on down through the written pages of History to date.
We know Christ was a man. History proves it. Historians of that era write about Him.
We know Christ is the Son of God. We believe it. I am not sure which Christ they believe? Do you?
Why is it that their Magisterium, which these RCC epologists put forth as the repository for His True messengers messages, is the only true way to the salvation for the soul? Why don't they want to stay in the confines of the First Century writers, both the historically Biblical writers or the secular Histories written? Is there something about that period of History that doesn't shine a good light on their way of proclaiming Truth to the nations? Could it be these writings show they err and their Magisterium is faulty and not infallible as they want us to believe?
I do have an opinion which I would give up if necessary. I am attempting to draw out of you your understanding of these things.
I will say the answer, when expressed, will give us all an understanding of why these men shy away from the First Century records and don't want to embrace Sola Scriptura the way we do or embrace historical reality the way we do with all of the parts of the doctrines of the True Faith.
Hope I spilled a little more of what I am considering?
By the way, I commend you on this good work by way of this thread. This good work reflects on the Biblical First Century writers' sentiments, like this guy's, here:
Act 26:19 "Therefore, O King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision,
Act 26:20 but declared first to those in Damascus, then in Jerusalem and throughout all the region of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds in keeping with their repentance.
Act 26:21 For this reason the Jews seized me in the temple and tried to kill me.
Don't you just have that warm and fuzzy feeling deep down inside knowing they most likely would kill you given the chance?
And I sure appreciate the civility and commity with which you are now addressing our opponents. We would be better off leaving pejoratives to them, don't you think?
After all, we indeed are as Peterine Doctrine teaches:
1Pe 2:9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.
1Pe 2:10 Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
It's just my own view that we should leave off name calling thus incite emotions that reflect something other than those esteemed reflections of our nature and character in Christ should reflect!
"I am not sure which Christ they believe? Do you?"
In my limited opinion, from the little that I know, I think their Christology is fine.
"Why is it that their Magisterium, which these RCC epologists put forth as the repository for His True messengers messages, is the only true way to the salvation for the soul?"
Actually, what I've found is that when you press them on Extra ecclesiam nulla salus the post Vatican II Catholic caves.
"Is there something about that period of History that doesn't shine a good light on their way of proclaiming Truth to the nations? Could it be these writings show they err and their Magisterium is faulty and not infallible as they want us to believe?"
I think this is what John Bugay is establishing. My comment, the topic of this post, was to clear away the specious objection that John was being "intellectually inconsistent", a phony objection to cheaply dismiss and discredit his arguments (especially his citations of Dr. Lampe's findings) so as to evade engaging the substance of the arguments.
"I do have an opinion which I would give up if necessary."
I do hope you clearly express your opinion shortly.
"By the way, I commend you on this good work by way of this thread."
The commendations belongs to John Bugay, Constantine, Pastor DT King, Tim Enloe, Ken, Rhology, TurretinFan who are really masterful at defeating Catholic apologetics.
"And I sure appreciate the civility and commity with which you are now addressing our opponents. We would be better off leaving pejoratives to them, don't you think?"
While I'm decidedly not a fan of Matthew Bellisario's bluster, I'm also decidedly not a fan of the tone police. For instance, Steve Hays often gets insulted. He returns the rhetoric in kind. I have no problem with him doing so.
TUAD
thanks for your thoughtful analysis.
You wrote:
I think this is what John Bugay is establishing. My comment, the topic of this post, was to clear away the specious objection that John was being "intellectually inconsistent", a phony objection to cheaply dismiss and discredit his arguments (especially his citations of Dr. Lampe's findings) so as to evade engaging the substance of the arguments.
Speaking now for myself, I think John is being totally intellectually inconsistent with himself!
These Romanist epologists aren't! They are being quite naturally consistent in their denial of being intellectual inconsistency!
I cannot blame them for being that way!
Why?
They do not hold to the "Faith" once delivered to the Saints! They, as yet, have not been given the Faith so they go about earning their Sainthood and we aren't! That is total intellectual inconsistency for them but they are charging us with it because of our consistent intellectually inconsistent stance towards ourselves! We don't believe there is anything "fixable" with our being and they think there is. So they argue their belief and we argue ours. We are at war, our flesh with the Spirit, consistently!
Like Dr. White asked Dr. Sungenis in the recent debate at his closing, loosely asked here, "who's will is going to win our soul, ours or God's?
That's the point! :)
So are you! So am I! So are the rest of the gang. None of them have any merits or leg to stand on, just as you cite this way wrongly:
The commendations belongs to John Bugay, Constantine, Pastor DT King, Tim Enloe, Ken, Rhology, TurretinFan who are really masterful at defeating Catholic apologetics.
I don't think any one of these guys feels a need for commendation of their self? Each of them were, as we, dead in trespasses and sins until the time of their reformation!
To my point of the challenge to you, then?
Have you read J.V. Fesko's work on the classic Reformed understanding of Justification? Justification * Understanding the Classic Reformed Doctrine P&R Publishing.
On page 375, he writes: Shea comments concerning Van Til's criticism that the RCC "was originally constituted by a compromise between the scripture and Greek culture. Although abstract (necessarily so, since it is theoretic), the criticism should make a Catholic thinker uncomfortable. Van Til struck home cleanly, and did so without insult."
Why do you suppose that is? Maybe a better Theological way of asking that is referencing back to Daniel and his vision: "....Dan 2:33 its legs were of iron, its feet were partly of iron and partly of clay...."
Daniel later on writes this: Dan 2:44 And in the days of these kings, the God of Heaven shall set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed. And the kingdom shall not be left to other people. It shall break in pieces and destroy all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever.
So, what is at work here? Intellectual inconsistency with ourselves because of the Revelation of the Truth we did not discover or earn to become Saints!
The RCC Magisterium is being quite intellectually honest exercising their own nature and we are not! They are living in denial, fooled. That makes them dishonest and anti-Christian all the while they charge us with being fooled of the devil!
Go figure that one out!
Well, that's not necessary because the Apostle Paul already did. By the hand of Tertius taught this:
Rom 8:7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot.
Rom 8:8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
And we, at least, it has been revealed to us, live by His Faith and not our own!
Hab 2:4 "Behold, his soul is puffed up; it is not upright within him, but the righteous shall live by his faith.
"Go figure that one out!"
Okay. I may need some help.
Natamllc: "Go figure that one out!"
Truth: Okay. I may need some help.
I don't think it's much of a mystery. The Magisterium is true to its fleshly nature:
The RCC Magisterium is being quite intellectually honest exercising their own nature and we are not!
Truth unites said, "It's so pathetically and transparently lame that it's laughable."
So, why did the Holy Scripture cited The book of Jasper (Joshua 10:13, 2 Samuel 1:18) or the book of Samuel the Seer (1 Chronicles 29:29) and 20 more books that were not even considered "inspired"? Do we need to ask the Holy Writ? Why don't we ask? Is it also pathetically laughable?
Same as with you guys on why we don't "ask " the Teaching Authority (Magisterium). The point of contention is not about the source of binding authority but more on the part where we try to dispute the other side's doctrines by employing and appealing to individuals (scholars) who are not even faithful to their own traditions which they belong to and make a refutation of their own tradition. It just doesn't make sense.
It's like us appealing to the work of Rev. Charles Russell (founder of Jehovah's) to refute the claims of Reformed Theology because he was once a Baptist pastor . Do you find it odd, fair and honest? Or do you prefer Joseph Smith or Rev. Joel Osteen to best represent you?
Peace to you.
Jae,
Le fait que vous parlez mal l'anglais ne sert pas d'excuse pour vos mauvais arguments.
À propos de ça, je n'ai aucune idée de quoi vous parlez au sujet de James White. Il n'a pas de PhD (son doctorat est un ThD) et son MDiv est de Fuller alors que son Bachelors est d'autre institut. Veuillez confirmer vos informations avant de dire des bêtises. Merci!
Bugay John,
Donc, désolé pour mon grammaire anglaise mauvais, mais le fait de la question est votre argument est vraiment mauvais .... vous pouvez même pas de réfuter les citations que j'ai posté, vous pouvez nier, spin autant que vous voulez, mais la triste vérité de la question que vous malhonnêtes.
Thèse est un THD et alors? le point de la question est James White est diplômé de l'COLUMBIA séminaire évangélique que chacun des principes du CES, y compris tous les mentors »(Walston, Fernandes, Weiss, et les jeunes) - valoir leurs diplômes de doctorat, soit de« CES "lui-même ou de« Potchefstroom Université ". Rick "Josh" Walston est le fondateur et président de l'école. Il arbore un Ph.D. Université de Potchefstroom.
Il ya une phrase qui décrit ce phénomène très bien, c'est ce qu'on appelle l'inceste académique.
C'est précisément pour cette raison, la plupart des établissements d'enseignement supérieur, vos chances d'être embauché retour en tant que professeur dans le même établissement à partir de laquelle vous avez obtenu votre diplôme de doctorat sont très minces. Les écoles veulent éviter un tel conflit d'intérêts évident. Évidemment, cela n'est pas considéré comme un problème au CES. En fait, je n'ai jamais vu un exemple flagrant de l'inceste académique. PU en effet!
Vingt-huit "membres du corps professoral» sont listés sur le site Web de la SCÉ. Parmi ceux-ci, sept revendiquer leurs plus hauts degrés du CES / Greenwich / PU (y compris Eric Svendsen et James White). Deux autres affirment leur «doctorats» des écoles très discutable (celle de la non agréés "American College and Seminary chrétienne» [Rectification: accréditation perdu avril 2004]) et celle de la désormais discrédité "Columbia Pacific University" (voir http:/ / www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/News/cpu.html). Cinq des membres du corps professoral ont leur plus haut degré de la vitamine D.. ou D. Miss.; ce ne sont pas les diplômes universitaires. Cinq autres se prévaloir d'aucune doctorat à tous. Je dois avouer que je m'interroge sur la valeur académique des MST "de Béthanie Theological Seminary, Dothen, AL» revendiquée par un instructeur et le "docteur de leadership stratégique de Regent University» revendiquée par un autre. Mais je n'ai pas plus d'informations détaillées sur les diplômes ou les institutions. Sur les vingt huit personnes, huit seulement ont un doctorat d'une institution que l'on pourrait appeler crédible.
Disons simplement que ce n'est pas exactement un line-up pour une école qui prétend être capable de donner des degrés tout le chemin jusqu'à et y compris, le doctorat niveau.
@ John,
Est-James White d'avoir un doctorat authentique? Voici ce que nous savons. Le diplôme est délivré par une école par correspondance non agréés. Il n'ya pas de plans de cours, les étudiants écrivent leurs propres plans de cours. CES a pas de bibliothèque, services aux étudiants ou à la librairie. L'école n'a pas de comités de programme et aucune procédure d'examen du cours. Il semble y avoir eu de comité et aucun mémoire ou une thèse de la défense, la seule signature de James White mémoire de maîtrise est celle de président de la SCÉ, Rick Walston. White "contrat" a également été avec Rick Walston. Est-James White d'avoir un doctorat authentique? Que pensez-vous?
How's that for "Dr" of Mr. James White? Whatever!
Merci et à plus tard
Jae,
Vous réclamez un doctorat vous-même. Ce que nous vous avons dit est que votre argumentation n'est pas d'un niveau qu'on accorderait normalement a quelqu'un qui a un doctorat. Vous êtes rarement logique et vous ne suivez que rarement nos arguments.
Et maintenant vous changez le sujet pour parler de James White. Je m'en fiche de parler de ses qualifications. Si vous croyez que c'est important, téléphonez-lui pendant son émission de webradio, the Dividing Line. Et vous pouvez voir cet article ou les articles nombreux qu'ont publiés James White à ce sujet. Ça n'a rien d'important.
Alors, je veux m'adresser à votre "français". J'ai un diplôme en littérature française et je parle français couramment. Vous nous aviez dit que le français est votre langue maternelle alors que les deux derniers commentaires que vous avez publiés sont très clairement traduits par Babelfish ou Google Translate. Ce n'est pas que votre grammaire anglaise qui est mauvaise; votre grammaire française est aussi défectueuse. Je m'en fiche de la qualité de votre grammaire anglaise donné le fait que vous pouvez vous faire comprendre. Mais vous nous aviez declaré que le français est votre langue maternelle, et ensuite vous nous écrivez 2 messages de basse qualité. Je ne crois pas que vous parliez français en tant que langue maternelle, donné cet évidence.
Vous avez 2 choix:
1) Présentez de l'évidence que vous parlez français couramment en nous répondant d'un message de qualité qui me ferait croire que vous parlez français comme langue maternelle, OU BIEN
2) Admettez-nous que vous nous avez menti et présentez-nous vos excuses d'avoir mis à la honte votre église catholique romaine. Nous vous pardonnerons si vous demandez notre pardon et confessez le mensonge.
Si vous ne faites aucun des deux, je supprimerai tous commentaires que vous publierez sur mes postes dans l'avenir, et je ferai savoir tout le monde la raison.
Je vous prie d'agréer, monsieur, l'expression de mes sentiments respectueux,
Rhology
Natamllc: "The RCC Magisterium is being quite intellectually honest exercising their own nature and we are not! They are living in denial, fooled. That makes them dishonest and anti-Christian all the while they charge us with being fooled of the devil!
Go figure that one out!"
Hi Natamllc, does this news article today support what you are saying?
Belgium: Amid sex scandals, de-baptism gains favor
Child sex abuse, and other church failings, lead Belgians to formally renounce religion. Excerpts:
BRUSSELS, Belgium — Faced with ever-more harrowing revelations of child sex abuse by Roman Catholic clergymen, Belgians are turning in record numbers to apostasy — formally breaking with their religion through a process of “de-baptism.”
“It has increased enormously since the cases of child abuse. It keeps going up,” said Bjorn Siffer, deputy director of Flemish Humanist-Secular Society. “We know from the bishops' secretaries that they can’t cope with all the requests they are getting for de-baptism.”
Siffer says 80 people ditched Catholicism during a single “de-baptism day” in Antwerp in June and a similar number dropped out of the Church in an event earlier this year in the western city of Kortrijk.
Leclerq said many people were also influenced to leave the church because of the decision by Pope Benedict XVI last year to lift the excommunication of Bishop Richard Williamson, who has described Jews as enemies of the Church and denied the existence of the Nazi gas chambers.
Belgium was shaken by the revelation in April that the Bishop of Bruges Roger Vanhegheluwe, one of the country’s best-known clergymen, had sexually abused his own nephew for 13 years, starting when the boy was just 5 years old.
The country was further shocked over the weekend when a Church inquiry commission published the often graphic testimony of hundreds of people who stepped forward to say they had been abused by priests in their youth.
Widespread suspicions that the Church authorities covered up such crimes intensified after newspapers last month published transcripts of meetings between Vanhegheluwe’s victim and Cardinal Godfried Danneels. Texts show the former head of the Church in Belgium trying to persuade the man, now in his 40s, to hold off on going public with his accusations.
The Catholic hierarchy has hit back, claiming the papers edited the text to carry out a “character assassination”of the cardinal and denouncing police searches of Danneel’s home and other Church properties. However, there’s no doubt that many Belgians have had their faith severely dented.
“With these cases of pedophilia, the Catholic Church no longer enjoys the same esteem among many people,” Cannon Herman Cosijns, episcopal vicar of the Brussels diocese, told French television last month. “It will come back, but this is a difficult time.”
Natamllc: "The RCC Magisterium is being quite intellectually honest exercising their own nature and we are not! They are living in denial, fooled. That makes them dishonest and anti-Christian all the while they charge us with being fooled of the devil!
Go figure that one out!"
Hi Natamllc, does this news article today support what you are saying?
Belgium: Amid sex scandals, de-baptism gains favor
Child sex abuse, and other church failings, lead Belgians to formally renounce religion. Excerpts:
BRUSSELS, Belgium — Faced with ever-more harrowing revelations of child sex abuse by Roman Catholic clergymen, Belgians are turning in record numbers to apostasy — formally breaking with their religion through a process of “de-baptism.”
“It has increased enormously since the cases of child abuse. It keeps going up,” said Bjorn Siffer, deputy director of Flemish Humanist-Secular Society. “We know from the bishops' secretaries that they can’t cope with all the requests they are getting for de-baptism.”
Siffer says 80 people ditched Catholicism during a single “de-baptism day” in Antwerp in June and a similar number dropped out of the Church in an event earlier this year in the western city of Kortrijk.
Leclerq said many people were also influenced to leave the church because of the decision by Pope Benedict XVI last year to lift the excommunication of Bishop Richard Williamson, who has described Jews as enemies of the Church and denied the existence of the Nazi gas chambers.
Belgium was shaken by the revelation in April that the Bishop of Bruges Roger Vanhegheluwe, one of the country’s best-known clergymen, had sexually abused his own nephew for 13 years, starting when the boy was just 5 years old.
The country was further shocked over the weekend when a Church inquiry commission published the often graphic testimony of hundreds of people who stepped forward to say they had been abused by priests in their youth.
Widespread suspicions that the Church authorities covered up such crimes intensified after newspapers last month published transcripts of meetings between Vanhegheluwe’s victim and Cardinal Godfried Danneels. Texts show the former head of the Church in Belgium trying to persuade the man, now in his 40s, to hold off on going public with his accusations.
The Catholic hierarchy has hit back, claiming the papers edited the text to carry out a “character assassination”of the cardinal and denouncing police searches of Danneel’s home and other Church properties. However, there’s no doubt that many Belgians have had their faith severely dented.
“With these cases of pedophilia, the Catholic Church no longer enjoys the same esteem among many people,” Cannon Herman Cosijns, episcopal vicar of the Brussels diocese, told French television last month. “It will come back, but this is a difficult time.”
I think I need to brush up on my Spanish! Ole'
:)
@ Rhology,
Je n'ai pas besoin de vous expliquer, M. Rhology parce qu'ils sont tous mauvais - je suis un immigré en France depuis maintenant 10 ans et avoir un doctorat en mathématiques - c'est tout ce que vous devez savoir, si je suis un menteur alors je n'ai pas d'affaires avec Jésus-Christ et pour quoi faire? juste pour discuter avec vous et de perdre mon temps? Mais si vous voulez en savoir plus sur les mathématiques plus je serai heureux de vous aider.
Je continue à répéter les mêmes arguments en raison du fait que vous et vos amis ne peuvent tout simplement pas les réfuter et vos pères.
Merci
Jae -- we will interact with you if you remain on topic with these posts.
One reason why we do not address you is because you do not give us "arguments." You cut-and-paste materials from "Catholic Answers" which frequently have no pertinence to the topics we are discussing.
The individuals who post here at Beggars All have, at one time or another, responded to virtually every item you have posted here. Early on, you threw out the Luther quote, for example, "there are as many doctrines as heads..." James Swan had analyzed this phrase in depth -- what the source of it was, how it was used and how it has been misused in history. Seemingly, you ignored this analysis and you again used that phrase, as if you were presenting a brand new argument that we had never heard.
You have thrown out the number "1517 years" repeatedly, as if we all have failed to understand how the Reformation has deep roots in (a) the New Testament, (b) the understandings of the early church fathers, and (c) the medieval church. There are deep roots in all three of these. In fact, the Reformers presented no novelties; they presented a return to the sources. It was Rome that had introduced repeated novelties. It was Aquinas who intertwined Christian theology with the pagan Aristotle and his unChristian thought system.
If you have questions, we will respond to them. But we feel no need to respond to the cut-and-paste items you post here. We have responded to all of them, in depth, in the past.
If you want us to interact with you, you must interact with us. If you ignore the things we say to you, we will ignore the "cut-and-paste" items you throw up to us. We have better things to do than to re-respond to things we've responded to in the past.
C'est bien VOUS qui parlez de perte de VOTRE temps? Hahahhaa, right.
OK, écoutez. Une opportunité - quelle est votre langue maternelle?
Vous avez dit que c'est le français; ça a été un mensonge. Dites-nous la vérité maintenant.
And what John Bugay said. Your repetition of the same old garbage, and your refusal to deal with the refutations of it such as my "Special pleading of Sola Ecclesia" post, time and again is insufferable.
Post a Comment