I registered to the Catholic Answers forum...

[Confessor]

I thought I'd tell ya guys.

"Confessor" was taken to my chagrin, so I took the tag "Confessor01."

The ignorance of many people there is saddening. They understand that Protestantism is their enemy, but many understand "Protestantism" to be broad evangelicalism rather than any resemblance of Reformed confessionalism. So, their ignorance in that respect is mitigated to some degree.

But nonetheless, I have found the debates so far to be easy. I'll be sure to ask on this forum if I come across a more difficult argument, probably one that has to do with Church history or patristics.

[charliejunfan]

sweet

[Jake]

I've considered joining before, as they do allow Protestants there. However, I have felt like I'll have trouble keeping a Christlike attitude if I am there to debate, without humility. However, I may be more mature now and be able to.

[Confessor]

Originally Posted by Jake

I've considered joining before, as they do allow Protestants there. However, I have felt like I'll have trouble keeping a Christlike attitude if I am there to debate, without humility. However, I may be more mature now and be able to.

Yeah, that is one thing I am keeping a huge check on. If I find myself being angry in my replies, then I am simply not going to reply, because my emotions will likely show through my posts.

Or at least, that's my rule for now. By God's grace I'll actually follow it.

[AThornquist]

Good on you, Ben. Hopefully the dialogue will be beneficial to the saints. The only time I registered to a forum to talk to Catholics was last year in late October to wish the Catholics Happy Reformation Day and to thank God that He was faithful to bring the truth of Rome's abominations to light. Maybe that wasn't so edifying.

[sans nom]

Why?

[Confessor]

Originally Posted by sans nom

Why?

Good question.

To let them know what Reformed theology is. Most of them there, from what I have seen, think that the "sinner's prayer" is a hallmark of Protestant orthodoxy.

[SolaGratia]

Originally Posted by Confessor

They understand that Protestantism is their enemy, but many understand "Protestantism" to be broad evangelicalism rather than any resemblance of Reformed confessionalism.

Don't you think that the Papist (and others) understanding of what true Protestantism really is has to do in part with us (Reformed) as well?

Thanks for being a very needed advocate for the Reformed Faith.

[Confessor]

Originally Posted by SolaGratia

Don't you think that the Papist (and others) understanding of what true Protestantism really is has to do in part with us (Reformed) as well?

Yes, you're absolutely right. Part of the reason that Catholicism can be so rampant today is because the Reformed faith has not made itself conspicuous enough.

[SolaGratia]

Agreed.

To the Papist, the World, etc. This is who we are, This is what we believed according to the Scriptures as found in our Reformed Confessions, such as the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity.

[ExGentibus]

One of the first things you will probably have to deal with is their understanding of Sola Scriptura as "me and my Bible," and the whole "the RCC gave you your Bible" argument on the canon.

[Confessor]

Originally Posted by ExGentibus

One of the first things you will probably have to deal with is their understanding of Sola Scriptura as "me and my Bible," and the whole "the RCC gave you your Bible" argument on the canon.

Yes, I have seen that already. But thus far I have not been able to counter it. I plan on making a thread sometime that differentiates the two. It won't be a full-fledged defense of sola Scriptura, but it will make note of the distinction.

[Josiah]

Originally Posted by Confessor

Good question.

To let them know what Reformed theology is. Most of them there, from what I have seen, think that the "sinner's prayer" is a hallmark Protestant orthodoxy.

Have you read Deconstructing Evangelicalism by D.G. Hart? He points out in the book, need to Identify ourselves as Confessional Protestants as opposed to Evangelicals (echoing the sentiments of CVT). He also points out in the book that before the rise of the Neo-Evengelical movement in the 40's , American Protestants were identified by their Denominational affiliation. Since the 40's however, we have all been lumped together in one unhelpful mass by Christians and unbelievers alike (called Evangelicalism) and he advocates that we shouldnt allow ourselves as (Confessional Protestants) to be lumped into it.

[Confessor]

Josiah,

No, I have not read that. But that seems to nicely recap what has occurred. Think of how many people today refuse to be "labeled"? They think it's divisive to be denominational, etc. This is all due to a complete ignorance of Biblical teaching which is simply disgusting.

[historyb]

Originally Posted by Confessor

I thought I'd tell ya guys.

"Confessor" was taken to my chagrin, so I took the tag "Confessor01."

The ignorance of many people there is saddening. They understand that Protestantism is their enemy, but many understand "Protestantism" to be broad evangelicalism rather than any resemblance of Reformed confessionalism. So, their ignorance in that respect is mitigated to some degree.

But nonetheless, I have found the debates so far to be easy. I'll be sure to ask on this forum if I come across a more difficult argument, probably one that has to do with Church history or patristics.

I am on their too, every once in a while I'll go back and get into a thread. Same user name, well I use that user name all over

[Reformed Thomist]

Have you heard the one about Sola Scriptura being a self-refuting principle yet?

Or how about the Epistle of James debunking Sola Fide?

[Confessor]

Originally Posted by Reformed Thomist

Have you heard the one about Sola Scriptura being a self-refuting principle yet?

Or how about the Epistle of James debunking Sola Fide?

Yes to both. I have basically refuted the latter thus far.

Right now I'm having to defend the charge that the Bible can't be infallible because an "infallible text" is a category mistake.

[dudley]

To Ben, Confessor

From: Dudley

Ben, you said "Yes, you're absolutely right. Part of the reason that Catholicism can be so rampant today is because the Reformed faith has not made itself conspicuous enough."

Please remember that I am an ex Roman catholic and now a Reformed Protestant and a Presbyterian. They the Roman Catholics do an excellent job of publicizing Protestant conversions to Roman Catholicism which in reality are very few. However we Protestants do not do the same job publicizing ex Roman Catholics like myself who have become true Protestants with Reformation conviction.There are actually 15 million ex Roman Catholics like myself in the last 2 decades who have left Roman Catholicism and become Protestants. Type in Roman catholic conversion to Protestant on Google and the only stories that come up are Protestant conversion to Roman catholic. however type in Dudley Davis reformed Presbyterian Protestant or Presbyterian Protestant and you will see my testimony and stories all over the Internet. It is why I am so outspoken now a s a Reformed Protestant and Presbyterian. Also please remember that Roman Catholics wrongly use the term catholic and it is a mistake, they a re Roman Catholics. I stress I left Roman Catholicism and renounced the Roman pope and the church of Rome as did Calvin and all the reformers. if you have any questions please feel free to write me immediately for any assistance and and i will try to write you back for any help I might be able to offer.

In grace,
Dudley

[P. F. Pugh]

Go for it, Ben! Show'em who's really catholic!

[A.J.]

Originally Posted by SolaGratia

Don't you think that the Papist (and others) understanding of what true Protestantism really is has to do in part with us (Reformed) as well?

Thanks for being a very needed advocate for the Reformed Faith.

Another reason I can think of would probably be the small number of Reformed believers and churches in predominantly Roman Catholic areas. In my country where there is a Roman Catholic majority, the word "Protestant" for instance is in many cases identified not with the Reformed but with mainline liberal groups.

In recent years, some Roman Catholic scholars here have published tracts and books attempting to discredit the Protestant Reformation. Their writings, however, does show that it is modern evangelicalism that they are actually attacking, not historic and confessional Protestantism.

A big problem with our situation here is that the bigger Reformed denominations are Reformed in name only. They have largely become broadly evangelical and/or liberal in many of their positions. Good Reformed churches are very few.

[dr_parsley]

Originally Posted by Confessor

Josiah,

No, I have not read that. But that seems to nicely recap what has occurred. Think of how many people today refuse to be "labeled"? They think it's divisive to be denominational, etc. This is all due to a complete ignorance of Biblical teaching which is simply disgusting.

With respect, disgust seems an odd response to ignorance, to say the least. How does that work?

[Confessor]

Originally Posted by dudley

however type in Dudley Davis reformed Presbyterian Protestant or Presbyterian Protestant and you will see my testimony and stories all over the Internet.

I was wondering why you often introduced yourself in that way. It makes sense now.

Originally Posted by dudley

if you have any questions please feel free to write me immediately for any assistance and and i will try to write you back for any help I might be able to offer.

Thank you! I probably will.

-----Added 7/9/2009 at 09:18:00 EST-----

Originally Posted by dr_parsley

With respect, disgust seems an odd response to ignorance, to say the least. How does that work?

There is such a thing as culpable ignorance. People ought to read their Bibles.

Or, if nothing else, people ought to know that there are disagreements in Christianity. From what I have seen most people favor a "don't label me", non-divisive disposition because they don't even know what they would disagree with. Not many professing Christians even know what Calvinism is.

-----Added 7/9/2009 at 09:32:27 EST-----

Hey guys, what are some verses that demonstrate that good works are an effect of saving faith?

[Confessor]

Originally Posted by Confessor

Hey guys, what are some verses that demonstrate that good works are an effect of saving faith?

...

[PCFLANAGAN]

"There is such a thing as culpable ignorance. People ought to read their Bibles."

Juxtaposed so closely with

"Hey guys, what are some verses that demonstrate that good works are an effect of saving faith? "

seems a bit striking.

I don't mean to offend, and yet I feel compelled to suggest that you take a little bit of a break from engaging in contra-Romanist apologetics and read up on the historical defenses of the faith against the errors of Rome.

If you should decide to ignore my suggestion, the most obvious place to look for the verses you need is James' remarks about the relation of faith and works. But I will be blunt - there are some sharp Romanists out there and if you have not properly grounded yourself in the Word, you risk being torn to shreds (or at least of appearing to be torn to shreds to those whom you are seeking to convert). You need to know not only what the verses are, but what the traditional Romanist response is, and what the rebuttal to that response is if you want to be fully armed.

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Originally Posted by PCFLANAGAN

But I will be blunt - there are some sharp Romanists out there and if you have not properly grounded yourself in the Word, you risk being torn to shreds (or at least of appearing to be torn to shreds to those whom you are seeking to convert). You need to know not only what the verses are, but what the traditional Romanist response is, and what the rebuttal to that response is if you want to be fully armed.

Or at least have read the pre-Trent Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott.

AMR

[SoliDeoGloria]

Originally Posted by Confessor

Yes, you're absolutely right. Part of the reason that Catholicism can be so rampant today is because the Reformed faith has not made itself conspicuous enough.

This is true, they don't know anything about reformed theology most of the time. They clump us together as a sinners prayer sort of people and don't know what makes Presbyterians different from Baptists or Pentecostals.

I just encourage you to speak in love, grace, and humility. And like Matthew says, if they hit you on the cheek, present the other.
I hope you enjoy yourself though, I gave up debating Catholics. It almost always resorts to TRADITIONTRADITIONTRADITIONTRADITIONTRADITIONTRADI TIONTRADITION and so forth.

Plus, I have found this humorous although considering the massive intellect of this forum you already know this argument.

Me: "What's wrong with Sola Scriptura?
Catholic: "Fallible man, interpreting infallible Scripture."
Me: "Why is the pope infallible?"
Catholic "*points towards that portion of Scripture*"
Me: "So, you're accusing me of incorrect interpretation when your entire system is built on interpretation?"
Catholic: "No."
Me: "wat."



-----Added 7/9/2009 at 05:44:51 EST-----

Originally Posted by Confessor

Im having to defend the charge that the Bible can't be infallible because an "infallible text" is a category mistake.

I actually left my previous forum over that argument. I was so irritated, tired, annoyed, and just angry over such a stupid and redundant argument I left. And I was ironically, debating it with a Catholic.

-----Added 7/9/2009 at 05:48:55 EST-----

Originally Posted by Confessor

...

Perhaps Ezekiel 36:26-27, if you see it in that sense.
James 2 (which ultimately speaks about works coming about as a product of faith, not saving us)
You could also argue the fruits of the spirit, when acted out, are byproducts of saving faith.

[Confessor]

Originally Posted by PCFLANAGAN

"There is such a thing as culpable ignorance. People ought to read their Bibles."

Juxtaposed so closely with

"Hey guys, what are some verses that demonstrate that good works are an effect of saving faith? "

seems a bit striking.

I don't mean to offend, and yet I feel compelled to suggest that you take a little bit of a break from engaging in contra-Romanist apologetics and read up on the historical defenses of the faith against the errors of Rome.

If you should decide to ignore my suggestion, the most obvious place to look for the verses you need is James' remarks about the relation of faith and works. But I will be blunt - there are some sharp Romanists out there and if you have not properly grounded yourself in the Word, you risk being torn to shreds (or at least of appearing to be torn to shreds to those whom you are seeking to convert). You need to know not only what the verses are, but what the traditional Romanist response is, and what the rebuttal to that response is if you want to be fully armed.

Thank you for your concern, but I am certainly able to battle Rome, by God's grace. I was simply asking for rather explicit verses that speak of works as explicitly stemming from saving faith. I have already gone in depth in James, if you see the link I provided earlier in this thread.

[PCFLANAGAN]

"Thank you for your concern, but I am certainly able to battle Rome, by God's grace."

My wish is not for you to avoid battle but to enter it well armed. At least check out Bullinger's Decades, Volume 1, 1st Decade, Semon VI, on Justification by Faith ( The decades of Henry Bullinger ) and from the Sermons/Homilies annexed to the 39th Articles, Book 1, Homilies 4 and 5 (Of the true and lively Faith and Of Good Works) ascribed, I believe, to Cranmer ( Sermons or homilies appointed to be read in churches in the time of Queen Elizabeth of famous memory, to which are annexed The Thirty-nine articles of the United Church of England and Ireland, and the constitutions and canons ecclesiastical ).

Maybe one of the folks more experienced in responding to Romanist views than myself can point out some even better short works on Justification.

[Hebrew Student]

Hey Everyone!

You need to know not only what the verses are, but what the traditional Romanist response is, and what the rebuttal to that response is if you want to be fully armed.

I agree that you need to know what the scriptures are, but it seems to me a bit burdensome to learn all of those responses. What I did [and it has worked well for me] is learn how to do exegesis, and learn other languages than Greek and Hebrew. When you start doing that, you begin to see how meaning in language works. This will enable you to see the weaknesses in Roman Catholic interpretations.

The reason I say that is because, when I have done this in my dialogues with Roman Catholics, I have unfailingly seen how they insert things into the text out of the blue. I'll never forget the first time I heard a Roman Catholic say that the phrase "God my savior" in Luke 1:47 meant that God saved Mary from falling into the pit of original sin. Of course, no first century Jew would have ever viewed God as savior in that way, and worse, the Mary's Magnificat very clearly has parallels to Hannah's song in 1 Samuel 2. In other words, the language of the Magnificat already had a long history in Jewish literature by the time Mary said it [in fact, if I recall correctly, there is a Psalm that picks up on this langauge as well]. However, the idea that Hannah was speaking of being saved in the sense of not falling into a pit of original sin is absolutely absurd.

I don't know what it is. I have come to the conclusion that conservative Roman Catholics can't do exegesis, because they already have their exegetical conclusions handed to them by the Papal decrees and ecumenical councils. Yes, it is important to be able to interact with historical arguments, but you can't take them for granted! It almost seems like, with these guys, if you lived before 500 A.D., you were an infallible exegete.

God Bless,
Adam

[KS_Presby]

Originally Posted by Confessor

I thought I'd tell ya guys.

"Confessor" was taken to my chagrin, so I took the tag "Confessor01."

The ignorance of many people there is saddening. They understand that Protestantism is their enemy, but many understand "Protestantism" to be broad evangelicalism rather than any resemblance of Reformed confessionalism. So, their ignorance in that respect is mitigated to some degree.

But nonetheless, I have found the debates so far to be easy. I'll be sure to ask on this forum if I come across a more difficult argument, probably one that has to do with Church history or patristics.

Good luck.

[Jeff Allen]

Ben

You are too young to be so argumentative, or maybe it is because you are so young.

Join a bowling league or something similar and get to know some people in a non threatining environment. Accept them just as people and then show Christ instead of arguing Christ.

Just a thought from an much older fellow.

[Hebrew Student]

Confessor,

Hey guys, what are some verses that demonstrate that good works are an effect of saving faith?

Ephesians 2:8-10 is a good passage:

Ephesians 2:8-10 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them [NASB].

Notice how we are created in Christ Jesus for good works, not that we do good works in order to be created in Christ Jesus. Also, verses 8-9 are good bring up to a Roman Catholic concerning Justification by Faith Alone.

God Bless,
Adam

[Confessor]

Originally Posted by Hebrew Student

Confessor,

Ephesians 2:8-10 is a good passage:

Ephesians 2:8-10 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them [NASB].

Notice how we are created in Christ Jesus for good works, not that we do good works in order to be created in Christ Jesus. Also, verses 8-9 are good bring up to a Roman Catholic concerning Justification by Faith Alone.

God Bless,
Adam

I remember looking at Eph. 2:8-10 and thinking that a Catholic would probably reply that it says we are created to do good works in the sense that that is our purpose, but for whatever reason I totally ignored the part "which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them."

[dudley]

I agree with Adam and use the following also when explaining my conversion to Protestantism, justification by faith alone and my renunciation of Roman catholicism.

In grace,
Dudley

or Ephesians 2:8-10 is a good passage:

Ephesians 2:8-10 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them [NASB].

Notice how we are created in Christ Jesus for good works, not that we do good works in order to be created in Christ Jesus. Also, verses 8-9 are good bring up to a Roman Catholic concerning Justification by Faith Alone.

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Originally Posted by PCFLANAGAN

Maybe one of the folks more experienced in responding to Romanist views than myself can point out some even better short works on Justification.

Well, like I said, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott is a must read. It was my Jesuit seminary text back in the late seventies.

Also, please review the posting here:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...09&postcount=1

As they represent what I think to be the standard pro-Catholic arguments by someone who I have interacted with at length. Note: the TOL site is a concentrated nest of open theists mostly following the lead of one Bob Enyart of the Denver Bible Church.

If I have violated a rule by posting a link to another discussion site, rebuke me and delete this portion of my post.

AMR

[TeachingTulip]

Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion

Well, like I said, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott is a must read. It was my Jesuit seminary text back in the late seventies.

AMR

Do you, or have you, ever participated on this Catholic forum, AMR?

Seems you would be a most informed witness there.

[DTK]

I don't know what it is. I have come to the conclusion that conservative Roman Catholics can't do exegesis, because they already have their exegetical conclusions handed to them by the Papal decrees and ecumenical councils. Yes, it is important to be able to interact with historical arguments, but you can't take them for granted! It almost seems like, with these guys, if you lived before 500 A.D., you were an infallible exegete.

I do think you are right in your conclusion "that conservative Roman Catholics can't do exegesis," but I think the reason needs a bit of fine tuning. As much as Romanists love to claim that "an infallible Bible requires an infallible interpreter," the reality is that there are only a handful of biblical texts that have been officially defined by the Roman communion as to what the text itself means. Those few officially defined texts, then, are "exegetical conclusions."

But by and large it is official church teaching that precludes members of the Roman communion from doing exegesis with any kind of sound hermeneutical approach, i.e., church teaching not drawn from the text of Scripture, but church teaching that renders exegesis unnecessary, and for all intents and purposes, irrelevant. To put it bluntly, most hardened Romanists don't sweat that "Bible stuff."

I think some of the following quotes demonstrate what I'm saying...

Catholic Encyclopedia: (a) Defined Texts.—The Catholic commentator is bound to adhere to the interpretation of texts which the Church has defined either expressly or implicitly. The number of these texts is small, so that the commentator can easily avoid any transgression of this principle. The Council of Trent teaches that Rom., v, 12, refers to original sin (Sess. V, cc. ii, iv), that John iii, 5, teaches the absolute necessity of the baptism of water (Sess. V, c. iv; Sess. VII, De bapt., c. ii), that Matt., xxxvi, 26 sq. is to be understood in the proper sense (Sess. XIII, cap. i); the Vatican Council gives a direct definition of the texts, Matt., xvi, 16 sqq. And John, xxi, 15 sqq. Many more Scripture texts are indirectly defined by the definition of certain doctrines and the condemnation of certain errors. The Council of Niceaea, e.g., showed how those passages ought to be interpreted on which the Arians relied in their contention that the Word was a creature; the Fifth (Ecumenical Council (II Constantinople) teaches the right meaning of many prophecies by condemning the interpretation of Theodore of Mopsuestia. Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. V, Exegesis (New York: The Encyclopedia Press, Inc., 1913), p. 699, 2nd column.

Catholic Encyclopedia: It is well further to explain: (a) that infallibility means more than exemption from actual error; it means exemption from the possibility of error; (b) that it does not require holiness of life, much less imply impeccability in its organs; sinful and wicked men may be God’s agents in defining infallibly; (c) and finally that the validity of the Divine guarantee is independent of the fallible arguments upon which a definitive decision may be based, and of the possibly unworthy human motives that in cases of strife may appear to have influenced the result. It is the definitive result itself, and it alone, that is guaranteed to be infallible, not the preliminary stages by which it is reached. Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VII, Infallibility (New York: The Encyclopedia Press, Inc., 1913), p. 790, 2nd column.

Roman Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid: . . the dogma being defined here is Peter’s primacy and authority over the Church — not a formal exegesis of Matthew 16. The passages from Matthew 16 and John 21 are given as reasons for defining the doctrine, but they are not themselves the subject of the definition. As anyone familiar with the dogma of papal infallibility knows, the reasons given in a dogmatic definition are not themselves considered infallible; only the result of the deliberations is protected from error. It’s always possible that while the doctrine defined is indeed infallible, some of the proofs adduced for it end up being incorrect. Patrick Madrid, Pope Fiction (San Diego: Basilica Press, 1999), p. 254.

Ludwig Ott, while commenting on Pius IX’s papal bull Ineffabilis that defined the dogma of the immaculate conception of Mary, wrote: “The Bull does not give any authentic explanation of the passage [i.e. Gen. 3:15]. It must be observed that the infallibility of the Papal doctrinal decision extends only to the dogma as such and not to the reasons given as leading up to the dogma.” Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, ed. James Canon Bastible (Rockford: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., reprinted 1974), p. 200.

Johann Adam Möhler states: Catholic theologians teach with general concurrence, and quite in the spirit of the Church, that even a Scriptural proof in favour of a decree held to be infallible, is not itself infallible, but only the dogma as defined. Johann Adam Möhler, Symbolism: Exposition of the Doctorinal Differences between Catholics and Protestants as evidenced by their Symbolical Writings, trans. James Burton Robertson (New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1997), p. 296.

Raymond E. Brown: Roman Catholics who appeal explicitly to Spirit-guided church teaching are often unaware that their church has seldom if ever definitively pronounced on the literal meaning of a passage of Scripture, i.e., what the author meant when he wrote it. Most often the church has commented on the on-going meaning of Scripture by resisting the claims of those who would reject established practices or beliefs as unbiblical. Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1997), p. 31.

Raymond E. Brown: To the best of my knowledge the Roman Catholic Church has never defined the literal sense of a single passage of the Bible. Raymond E. Brown, The Critical Meaning of the Bible (New York: Paulist Press, 1981), p. 40.

Maurice Bévenot, S.J.: But very few indeed are the Scripture texts of which the Church authorities have defined the meaning, and even there, their intervention has generally been to say what Scripture does not mean, otherwise leaving open what it does. See his chapter “Scripture and Tradition in Catholic Theology” in F.F. Bruce and E.G. Rupp, eds., Holy Book and Holy Tradition (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968), p. 181.

Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J.: When one hears today the call for a return to a patristic interpretation of Scripture, there is often latent in it a recollection of Church documents that spoke at times of the ‘unanimous consent of the Fathers’ as the guide for biblical interpretation. But just what this would entail is far from clear. For, as already mentioned, there were Church Fathers who did use a form of the historical-critical method, suited to their own day, and advocated a literal interpretation of Scripture, not the allegorical. But not all did so. Yet there was no uniform or monolithic patristic interpretation, either in the Greek Church of the East, Alexandrian or Antiochene, or in the Latin Church of the West. No one can ever tell us where such a “unanimous consent of the fathers” is to be found, and Pius XII finally thought it pertinent to call attention to the fact that there are but few texts whose sense has been defined by the authority of the Church, “nor are those more numerous about which the teaching of the Holy Fathers is unanimous.” (fn. 24) Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Scripture, The Soul of Theology (New York: Paulist Press, 1994), p. 70.

Speaking of the difficulty of the so-called Unanimous patristic consent as a reliable locus theologicus in Catholic theology, Cardinal Congar wrote: “Application of the principle is difficult, at least at a certain level. In regard to individual texts of Scripture total patristic consensus is unnecessary: quite often, that which is appealed to as sufficient for dogmatic points does not go beyond what is encountered in the interpretation of many texts. But it does somethimes happen that some Fathers understood a passage in a way which does not agree with later Church teaching. One example: the interpretation of Peter’s confession in Matthew 16.16-19. Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy; they worked out exegesis at the level of their own ecclesiasiological thought, more anthropological and spiritual than juridical. . . . Historical documentation is at the factual level; it must leave room for a judgement made not in the light of the documentary evidence alone, but of the Church's faith.” Yves M.-J. Congar, Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and a Theological Essay (London: Burns & Oats, 1966), pp. 398-399.

And Cardinal Congar even goes on to insist “It is the Church, not the Fathers, the consensus of the Church in submission to its Saviour which is the sufficient rule of our Christianity.” Yves M.-J. Congar, Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and a Theological Essay (London: Burns & Oats, 1966), p. 399.

Saving the best for last, here is sola Ecclesia with a vengeance...

Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, Henry Edward Manning (1808-1892): It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine. How can we know what antiquity was except through the Church? No individual, no number of individuals can go back through eighteen hundred years to reach the doctrines of antiquity. We may say with the woman of Samaria, ‘Sir, the well is deep, and thou hast nothing to draw with.’ No individual mind now has contact with the revelation of the Pentecost, except through the Church. Historical evidence and biblical criticism are human after all, and amount to no more than opinion, probability, human judgment, human tradition.
It is not enough that the fountain of our faith be Divine. It is necessary that the channel be divinely constituted and preserved. But in the second chapter we have seen that the Church contains the fountain of faith in itself, and is not only the channel divinely created and sustained, but the very presence of the spring-head of the water of life, ever fresh and ever flowing in all ages of the world. I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves. The Church is always primitive and always modern at one and the same time; and alone can expound its own mind, as an individual can declare his own thoughts. ‘For what man knoweth the things of a man, but the spirit of a man that is in him? So the things also that are of God no man knoweth, but the Spirit of God.’ The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. Henry Edward Manning, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.

DTK

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Originally Posted by TeachingTulip

Do you, or have you, ever participated on this Catholic forum, AMR?

Seems you would be a most informed witness there.

No, I have not. I am over subscribed in the forums I already participate in to date. It has also been my practice to cast few pearls to those that are decidedly entrenched in their views.

AMR

[Confessor]

That quote from Manning would undercut all the Romanists' appeals to the Church Fathers, wouldn't it?

[louis_jp]

Based on DTK's quotes, it seems to me that it would be nearly impossible to argue with Catholics on any point of faith or doctrine. The bible simply means what the Catholic Church says it means; and this foundational principle of the Church's authority is itself not subject to proof or testing of any kind -- not historical, textual, or otherwise. They can give you reasons for Papal infallibility, but those reasons need not be accurate, and yet the conclusion is still true.

In other words, Catholic authority seems to be taken as a matter of faith, as Cardinal Archbishop Manning says: "It is not enough that the fountain of our faith be Divine. It is necessary that the channel be divinely constituted and preserved.... The Church contains the fountain of faith in itself." There can be no appeal to any authority outside the Church itself, not even to God's own Word, as the Word is bound up with the Church.

If that's the case, then one can argue scripture, history, logic, exegesis, etc., all day long and not get anywhere. Either you accept the Church's authority as a presupposition or you don't.

Is this correct? If so, how does one get around this?