On Debating Catholics - Part 2

I'd like to reiterate that this is obviously not an exhaustive study of this topic, it's an overview on a blog. Therefore, I am not laying out every argument against Catholic doctrine and dogma.

With that in mind, I start with a recent exchange I had with a Catholic in regard to a comment I made concerning Pope Francis' condemnation of the US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. In my comment, I listed (close to verbatim, in English) the decrees of the Papal Bull "Cum nimis absurdum" from Pope Paul IV (July 14, 1555). In that decree, the Pope condemned Jews to "eternal slavery" (and he declared it absurd to believe otherwise).

In response, a Catholic scolded me for not knowing history and pasted a link about Pius XII helping Jews during the Holocaust. Well, everything I posted in that discussion was directly pulled from Paul IV's Papal Bull.

This is an example of what I've encountered countless times: quoting Popes and Councils is somehow tantamount to "Catholic bashing," apparently.

You will encounter argument flows along the following lines.

• A. Catholic argues that they have the Popes to gather around; state there are 220,000 different "Protestant" denominations because we have no central authority [Note: very few, if any, of them, understand what the Evangelical gospel teaches about "the church" which adds to their confusion].  

• B. You are told that Jesus founded the only true church on Pope Peter and they have 2000 years of tradition and the "early church fathers." The Seat of Peter has "the keys of the kingdom" and he may "bind and loose" on all matters of faith and morals.  The RCC is thus superior because of this single, unifying, infallible source. 

At this point, you may start quoting contradictory or vile or crazy things from Popes and Councils.

You may be called a "Catholic basher" at this point (I was banned from a Catholic forum for quoting popes and councils) or you will encounter one of two responses:

• A. Catholics don't really have to listen to the Popes. It's only when they speak "ex cathedra" that they are infallible. Push them and it comes down to only two doctrines. They then feel free to disagree on just about everything else. What they don't realize is that the popes and councils have a very different view of their obedience and what MUST be obeyed. They are charged with "submitting both mind and will" to the Pope on all matters of faith and morals, whether spoken ex cathedra or not. Ecumenical Councils are also said to be "infallible."

• B. Another popular response to quoting a pope from the 12th, 16th, 19th centuries (etc.) goes  something like this, "how about quoting something since the invention of the light bulb!" The inference, of course, is that somehow popes long removed from the "early church fathers" are better equipped to interpret doctrines in the present (ignoring those 2000 years of tradition in the process).

Can you see what happens? While arguing a unifying source and 2000 years of tradition, they feel free to tell us that they essentially are allowed to disagree with Popes, even on the matter of salvation itself. 

If you follow conservative political sites, you see a lot of "I'm Catholic, but this Pope has to go!" comments or similar. Well, that's not just a denial of the papacy, it argues against the Magisterium which elected him (are they not Holy Spirit led?). They also have to ignore their own list of "anti-popes" and the period when there were two papacies (Rome and Avignon), each condemning the other. Failing to note that all of the dual-papacy are popes listed in the official list of succession. And we can't even mention the downright wicked popes (rapists, adulterers, etc.) without backlash.

If one pope can be wrong, ALL popes can be wrong. 

Of course, as with most of these arguments, their worst witnesses are the popes and councils themselves. In this latter case, the idea that a clearly stated decree from Pope or council can be "better understood" over time is itself condemned by Popes (Leo XIII, etc.).

So, before long, you have Catholics who just touted the  "2000 years of tradition" and "Apostolic succession" and "unity under the popes" denying popes and councils and arguing they don't have to listen to some old pope.

Now, Catholic apologists have their own list of stupid "Protestant" arguments or some list of atrocities, etc. But there is a stark difference, I don't care what anybody else taught. Luther being an Anti-Semite means nothing to me. But if you tell me Paul IV is infallible on all matters of faith and morals, and that he may bind and loose... and he declares that Catholics must refuse to eat with Jews (etc.) as a matter of faith and morals... you have the problem, not me. Often the phrase, "we declare, affirm and pronounce" is used in regard to a doctrine held by "the universal church."

Another tactic is to put arguments into your mouth. "You Protestants believe" or "You think Catholics believe" are convenient ways to set up red herrings and straw men. Beware and don't allow them to caricature biblical truths. And, again, if I say "You Catholics believe X because Pope Y and Council Z decreed it so," they must defend. I only have to defend my own beliefs, not those of any other Christian.

I am careful not to put arguments in their mouths and I try to use only Catholic sources (the Vatican web site when possible).What I will do, however, is put Papal arguments in their mouths. I defend the popes as knowing what the CC teaches! I've been accused of being a Sedevacantist on more than one occasion, to which I reply, "No, but I admire their knowledge of CC history and their fidelity to what the popes have taught."

The Bible

In regard to the Bible, they'll claim the CC gave us the Bible, then tell us why it is inferior to their "sacred tradition" (or simply subject to it).  They will soon be explaining away or dismissing it as "old." They also deny its infallibility. Be careful here. They will speak in glowing terms about scripture, then undermine it.

And, as noted, they will readily dismiss "Sacred Tradition" too when it becomes uncomfortable.

I taught Religious Education in the CC. I still have my textbook on this subject. I have other books (with imprimatur) denying inerrancy. They will attack these textbooks and authors (nuns and priests and archbishops, etc.), but you will not find them demanding these things be removed from CC classrooms or textbooks. How can they if the material has an imprimatur of a "prince of the Church?"

I'll stop here. As noted, I don't engage much these days as it has grown tiresome over two decades to deal with such arguments.

But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless.
-Titus 3:9

When someone starts to contradict one of his own core premises in order to salvage a pronounced conclusion, such a one probably has no interest in truth, only in argument. 

From such, turn away. 

Having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away!
-2 Tim 3:5

Remember, many lay Catholics just like being Catholic. I saw a bumper sticker recently which read "I love being Catholic!" I bet they do... but I bet they'd quickly deny Popes, Councils and more in a heartbeat if confronted with certain quotes and declarations.

That's all I'm going to say on this topic. If you know a Catholic who is truly seeking truth, trust the scripture. Preach grace. Invite them to read the Book of John.

Part 1 can be read HERE

On Debating Catholics - Part 1

A number of years ago, on a now defunct blog, I posted an entry on the topic of debating Catholics. It was born out of numerous frustrating conversations with Catholics in regard to their faith. If it is not known, I am a former Catholic. I was very devout. I was educated in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia under the auspices of John Cardinal Krol. I went on to be be active in high school, college and eventually serving as an acolyte and Religious Education teacher and youth conference speaker.

I do not list these things to present myself as an expert, but rather to show that my knowledge of both the doctrines and culture of the Catholic Church (CC) come, in part, from inside. I also readily note that my experiences in the CC were almost universally positive. I have very fond memories of my years in a CC school: serving as an altar boy, being active in the youth group and as part of the Newman Center in college. Certainly, personal relationships with Catholic family and friends was overwhelmingly positive.

But positive doesn’t make something true nor does it negate the realities of Catholic doctrine.

Remember, something isn't true merely because it is old; or because it is held by many people; or because it is declared by some ecclesiastical body.

Obviously, on a blog, I will not be dissecting 1500 years of Catholic dogmas, decrees and declarations (only as appropriate in context of my topic). To be sure, although educated as a Catholic in a conservative Catholic parish and after serving as an altar boy, acolyte and Religious Education teacher and youth leader, I can safely say I have learned more about the bulls, encyclicals and catechisms (etc.) of the Catholic Church after leaving her. (In my debates I use only Catholic sources when possible.) It is my experience that most Catholics are wholly unfamiliar with their own history or with the teachings of their own church..

I have found over the last quarter century that most of my efforts among Catholics have been mostly fruitless, although not completely so (and who knows what the Lord may have done with any seed sewn?). I turned my attention to teaching the individual responsibility of all men to seek truth for themselves, with a prayerful and honest heart. And that applies to those within and without Christendom.

But lately it has been impressed upon me that I need to renew my warning to those who may want to engage Catholics in discussion or debate. This will serve as simply a warning as to what you are up against (and what the strategy of the greater CC is). It is a gigantic (monstrous?) entity which appears unknowable, mysterious and complex. However, many of its doctrines were so clearly declared by Popes and Councils that we need not get caught up in the purposefully complex debate in which many Catholics want to engage. Trying the explain the clear with the complex is a fool’s errand.

Before moving on, I would suggest to those who feel insufficient either in their grasp of the totality of scripture or the vastness of the dogmas of Rome, that you teach and live grace. The centrality of the cross and the resurrection is the starting point of all true faith. From there, one can only add or subtract from the accomplished work of God himself. And, when understood, all “adding” is merely “subtracting” from his glorious gift and his all-sufficient work. In short, it is prideful blasphemy.

We rest on the only foundation which can be laid, because there is only one sacrifice for sin (complete and eternal).

For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
-1 Cor 3:11

Then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God.” He takes away the first that He may establish the second. By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.
-Hebrews 10:9-14

In Part 2 I will briefly list the type of arguments you will probably see. Again, I will not be exhaustively refuting them, rather I will be alerting you to the methodology of most of the Catholics you will encounter. As with all witnessing, if you can see only argument and no seeking, prepare to  shake the dust from your feet and move on.

But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless.
-Titus 3:9

When someone starts to contradict one of his own core premises in order to salvage a pronounced conclusion, such a one probably has no interest in truth, only in argument. 

From such, turn away. 

Having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away!
-2 Tim 3:5

Part 2 can be read HERE

How to Prevail Against The Gates of Hell

And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. -Matthew 16:18

Throughout history, and to the present day, a whole lot of bad theology has been based on this verse in Matthew. But I’d like to focus on the words “gates of hell” in this brief study.

The first thing we need to do is to step back from the translation from the Authorized Version and KJV. “Gates of hell” is not only the translation used therein, it is often quoted that way by people who may not even own a KJV bible. But let’s take a look at the phrase in Greek.

πυλαι αδου = pýlē háidēs = gates [of] Hades

Covering all the words translated and words used for “hell” is not part of our scope here, but we need to distinguish Hades from another word used in Matthew which the KJV also translates as “hell.”

And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire . -Matthew 18:9b

Here the Greek for “hell fire” is γεενναν του πυρος = géenna ho pŷr = Gehenna that fire

Hades is “ the grave, the place of the dead” [Stong’s #86]; Gehenna is “Valley of Hinnom” [Strong’s #1067]. The Valley of Hinnom is a very real place in Israel and a very prophetic place. But we’ll have to leave that for another study. Our point here is that “hell” isn’t always “hell.”

So, we go back to Hades. Hades is not associated with fire (as Gehenna is). It is “the grave” and is rendered as such in the KJV in 1 Cor 15:55. From other studies, we know 1 Cor 15 is the great resurrection chapter. It is where we read of the future conquering of death and the grave. That brings us back to the Gates of Hell.

In Matthew 16:18, the Lord Jesus is explaining that the company of the “called out” (the church, in this case, Israel), built upon the solid rock of himself, shall experience the victory over death and the grave (Hades) referenced in 1 Cor 15.

But wouldn’t it be nice if this truth was spelled out even clearly elsewhere? Well, let’s take a look at this phrase in Hebrew in Isaiah 38. King Hezekiah was lamenting his expected death (notice in scripture that no one looks at death as some gateway to bliss).

“I said in the cutting off of my days, I shall go to the gates of the grave: I am deprived of the residue of my years.” -Is 38:10

(R to L) בְּשַׁעֲרֵ֣י שְׁאֹ֑ול = sha‛ar she'ôl = gates of the grave [Sheol]

Sheol is the Hebrew word which is the equivalent of Hades (gates of Sheol). We find “ πύλη ᾅδης” in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament). This is identical to the Greek used in Matthew 16. 

Hezekiah was expecting to die. He spoke of the grave as “the gates of hell,” for that is what it is. Death is not to be celebrated, that comes with resurrection. But we have confidence in death that “the gates of hell” will not “prevail.” If I run a tank into a chain link fence, which will prevail?

κατισχυσουσιν = katischýō = prevail = to be able / overcome [Strong’s #2729]

So, how we do beat the gates of hell, overcome the grave and conquer death? We need to be saved [rescued] from the curse of death and decay. We do so in resurrection, secured by the death, lack of decay in Hades, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ (who alone is immortal). So upon what do we build our hope? We build it on the Rock, which is Christ alone. We accept it as a free gift by grace alone through faith alone.

Let’s go back to Matthew 16...

Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter [Gk: a stone], and on this rock [Gk: bedrock] I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be rescued. - Acts 16:31

This is the witness of scripture, the bereaved are comforted with Resurrection, never with the thought that the dead are anything but dead. 

When I die, I will not float about without a body. I will not be “happier than I’ve ever been.” I will not be dancing in heaven. I will be dead... but, in resurrection, the gates of the grave will not prevail and I will rise in a new, sinless body on that day! Because he rose again, I will rise again!

Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.” Martha said to Him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.” Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. -John 11:23-25

As we will see in the next two-part study, the Biblical way to comfort the bereaved is not to say "he went on to be with the Lord" or "he's with the Lord now." There is only one scriptural comfort, resurrection!