Thursday, November 09, 2017

Fake Good News

I don't know what else to call this. This is the precise thing that I grew up with, the precise thing that didn't ring true, the precise thing that I investigated, the precise kind of dishonesty with the facts that I rejected.

Why Be Catholic and Not Just Christian?

I could not be more disappointed that this sort of thing is what counts for popular among Roman Catholics.


  1. Authority to tell you what's what based on the papacy. Is that all they got?

  2. I remember sitting in an EO Church when the letter was read from the Bishop that the Church's position was unapologetically pro-life. You could almost literally hear the ocular nerves snapping from the members rolling their eyes.

  3. Bizarre. Yet, what of the 'overseer' parable? I can't say I have run across that argument before.

    1. Trent, it's the steward mentioned in Isaiah 22:22. Supposedly that's a prophecy of Peter.

    2. Which I have debunked here:

    3. Thanks Jesse, I will give that a look

    4. The priest asks: what do you do when something is not in the Bible? Answer: you make it up. That's the problem.

    5. /// The priest asks: what do you do when something is not in the Bible? Answer: you make it up. That's the problem.///

      This is ridiculous. It is a misrepresentation of Sola Scriptura. No one just “makes it up”. Protestants discuss things, think about things, pray about things, and universally seek the Holy Spirit’s guidance. This treatment is also a gross misrepresentation of the value of “councils”.
      1. Apostles are present in Acts 15.
      2. Acts 15 is in the Bible.
      3. The question that they solved is something that apostles needed to solve.
      4. Later councils were not nearly so effective. This includes all of them.
      5. Nicaea (325) came up with a good definition that excluded Arianism, but it was contested for centuries.
      6. The 2nd council where we got “the Creed” that has been said for centuries, wasn’t attended by anyone from Rome.
      7. Rome then questioned one of the conciliar tenets: that the bishop of Rome was important because Rome was a political capital.
      8. The Council of Ephesus (431)was rigged. It was further rigged after-the-fact by a back-room deal that required yet another council to sort out.
      9. The council of Chalcedon (451) reiterated that the bishop of Rome was important because Rome was a political capital. Apparently they didn’t accept Rome’s first rejection of that notion.
      10. Councils after that accepted things that were contradictory to Biblical teaching. They also illicitly condemned men like Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius (of whom it is now said that they were not guilty of the heresy of Nestorianism – see item 8 here)
      This is just a brief summary off the top of my head of the way that Roman Catholicism twists facts and buries history to make its points. It is a total travesty

    6. I'm awaitng a defense of the good presbyter from Pope Arvinger I; should I hold my breath? If he can't help, perhaps you can guide me to how one comes up with the hare-brained notion that a parcel of caparisoned rogues suddenly become an infallible committee under the guidance of the Holy Ghost just because they call their assemblage an ecumenical council? This seems not only a contradiction of scripture, but flies in the face of the experiences of any who have endured committee meetings of any stripe.

    7. "As for Peter's alleged successors, the New Testament says nothing. From other historical sources, little is known about them through the first two centuries. Church historian Philip Schaff writes, 'The oldest links in the chain of Roman bishops are veiled in impenetrable darkness.' Consequently, it is impossible for the Roman Catholic Church to substantiate its claims of papal succession from Peter to the present Pope.

      Furthermore, through published lists of popes down through the centuries look impressive, one should be aware that a comparison of the present list with those of earlier years reveals continuing revision, the last being made in 1947 by A. Mercati. Since then no other changes have been found necessary. It is not even clear how some of the men listed have any claim at all to being Peter's successor as the Bishop of Rome, in that from 1305 to 1378 seven consecutive popes chose as their residence and seat of government not Rome, but Avignon, France! Disputes involving the lineage of the popes further obscure the picture. Roman Catholic scholars identify over 30 men as antipopes, or false claimants. Most notable among the antipopes are those involved in a 39-period called the Great Schism. In 1378 the cardinals elected Urban VI as pope. Soon after that they had announced that they had made a terrible mistake. Urban, in their opinion, was an apostate, and so they elected a new Pope, Clement VII. Urban countered by appointing a new college of cardinals. After years of dispute, further successors, and great confusion, cardinals from both sides met and elected yet another man as Pope, Alexander V. When even this did not settle the controversy, Emperor Sigismund called the Council of Constance (1418-1418) to address the problem. When the smoke finally cleared, yet another man, Martin V, was found sitting on the papal throne. Official lists of the lineage of the popes today identify Martin V as the 206th successor in the 'unbroken' lineage of the popes.

      In a very real sense, it is misleading for the Roman Catholic Church even to list popes during the first five centuries of church history. Church historian Michael Walsh observes:

      'Papal authority as it is now exercised, with its accompanying doctrine of papal infallibility, cannot be found in theories about the papal role expressed by early Popes and other Christians during the first 500 years of Christianity.'
      -An Illustrated History of the Popes

      The papacy as it is known today took centuries to develop. Its origin can be found in the emergence of the bishops in the second century and events which took place during the forth and fifth centuries..."

      James G. McCarthy, The Gospel According to Rome, pgs 254-255

  4. hi Jesse -- concering this statement from Schaff:

    ///Church historian Philip Schaff writes, 'The oldest links in the chain of Roman bishops are veiled in impenetrable darkness.'///

    Have you seen these links?

    There is a whole lot of back-and-forth between, but there is also a huge amount of illumination that has occurred about the "oldest links in the chain of Roman bishops". The short story is, the whole Roman story is pretty much a later fabrication.

    1. John,

      Thank you for the links. I'll be sure to check them out, and may leave a few comments.