Somehow a Catholic propaganda site (Reformation Apologetics @HolyCatholicFaith) wormed itself into my Facebook feed. I could unfollow it but for now I'm using it for target practice. The latest exchange:
Hays
Protestant patrologists and Protestant church historians are just as deep into church history as their Catholic academic counterparts. They see the same evidence, but draw a contrary conclusion. For that matter, modern-day Catholic church historians concede that the traditional narrative of the papacy is a historical fiction.
Jayson
You mean different people have different opinions on the truth? What exactly does that prove other than people have different opinions? And as for your claim about catholic scholars, I hope you make the same claim about “Protestant scholars” and the deity of Christ, etc.
Hays
It proves that the maxim "to be deep into church history" doesn't select for Catholicism. Next question?
As for making the same claim about Protestant scholars, you fail to grasp the dialectic. I'm simply responding to the Newmanesque appeal on its own grounds. That doesn't mean I share his assumptions. So your attempted parallel fails.
Jayson
Newman’s appeal was simply a claim couched in rhetorical flourish. It is either true or false on the basis of its claims, not anything else. If you really think his claim was that “once you read a lot of history books you automatically become Roman Catholic” then you’re certainly more obtuse than you let on. His point was that it’s a deeper look into the historical data that makes it obvious that Protestantism is false. That there are so called catholic scholars that deny the historicity of the papacy is both irrelevant to Newman’s point and irrelevant to whether or not Protestantism is reasonable once delving deeply into history.
Hays
Quoting Newman is a Catholic convert trope. "I used to be a Protestant who knew nothing about the church fathers, but once I began go read them the scales fell from my eyes"–as if that automatically validates the traditional claims of Rome. That's the point of the comparison with Protestant patrologists and church historians.
And I'm always amused by lay nobodies and one-man magisteria who presume to say mainstream Catholic scholars aren't real Catholics. The hierarchy doesn't share your assessment. You don't count. You don't have a vote. Get over yourself. Submit to your bishop and shut up.
> "That there are so called catholic scholars that deny the historicity of the papacy is..."
ReplyDeleteSo, he both argues for Rome on the basis of the unique reliability of its hierarchy and structures, whilst at the same time holding that it doesn't matter what the people occupying those positions believe. In my experience, Rome's apologists attempt to square this circle by arguing "it's the office, in certain specific situations only, not the person holding it." This is to say that these people don't belong to the actual Roman Catholic church that you can meet somewhere and interact with. They belong to an imaginary Platonic ideal, which exists only in their imaginations. They have Gnosticised, attempting to rescue themselves from the challenges of bodily existence and the world that is, by constructing a quite independent intellectual fantasy to admire in its place.
> His point was that it’s a deeper look into the historical data that makes it obvious that Protestantism is false.
ReplyDeleteAlso... has the Magisterium at some point officially endorsed Newman's claim, or Jayson's version of it? If not, how does Jayson know it's true? What is Jayson's methodology here? Is this just his own private judgment?
This is why you need the Baptist Magisterium. Since John the Baptist's ministry predates Peter's by at least a decade, his line of successors have the most reliable interpretation. After all, who are you going to trust - the 2000-year-old church or the 2010-year-old church?
Delete"Submit to your bishop and shut up". Kaboom. That has put a smile on my face.
ReplyDeleteYeah, same here 😊
Deletehttps://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2019/08/26/john-henry-newmans-confession-early-church-is-different-than-later-church-in-history/
ReplyDeleteLink inside article to Keith Matthison’s excellent article on Newman’s claim.
Hays
ReplyDeleteQuoting Newman is a Catholic convert trope. "I used to be a Protestant who knew nothing about the church fathers, but once I began go read them the scales fell from my eyes"–as if that automatically validates the traditional claims of Rome. That's the point of the comparison with Protestant patrologists and church historians. “
Excellent. Hence the great need for Paristic study from honest and balanced and Protestant viewpoint .
Ignorance creates the shock and deception.