The difficulty is that Catholicism has provided some of the greatest minds the world has ever known. It has also has used those minds to develop many defenses against things I will state. They have had 500 years and more to develop responses to the issues I will state here. The other problem is that we have different groups in RC (e.g. Franciscans, Thomists, Jesuits). My criticisms shall be in the bounds of which every Catholic must accept.
Before you continue reading, I think some advice here should be provided to a young presuppositionalist. Catholicism isn’t Christian but it is a Christian cult. It should be treated as such. Its truth is dependent on Christianity. So, in those terms, Catholicism suffers from irreconcilable contradictions between it and the Christian religion.
1. Scripture
The Catholic Church is committed to the idea that the Bible is the infallible word of God. That means that the teachings of the Church must be consistent with the Bible. The issue is that that simply isn’t the case. They often teach contradictory and foreign doctrines to it. We have no better example than the Doctrine of Justification. Here are statements from the Catholic Church
Canon 24.
If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works,[125] but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of its increase, let him be anathema.
Canon 9.
If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone,[114] meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema.
In Catholic theology, Justification means that God makes us righteous. This was in contradiction to the Protestant doctrine of “Sola Fide”. The Protestant believes that God legally declares believers as righteous on the application of Christ. The application occurs when the individual places faith in the Gospel. This is different from Catholicism where justification is also ” sanctification and renewal of the interior man”(1989). Initial justification occurs at baptism and faith isn’t required for justification as stated in the Catholic Catechism “Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith.”(1992; 1997; 1999). Justification is also “entails the sanctification of his whole being” (1995). Thus it is a lifelong process tied in with the sacraments.
The issue of this has created much debate. Which is correct? I think the Protestant view is correct. The idea has both Old Testament and New Testament support. In the OT we have Exod 23:7,Deut 25:1, 2 Sam 15:4, 1 Kgs 8:31-32, 2 Chr 6:23, Prov 17:15, Isa 5:23, 41:26, 43:9-26, Jer 12:1, Job 9:2, Job 40:8. The majority of the New Testament evidence comes from the Pauline Epistles. In the Baur, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature affirm dikaioō, in the Pauline salvation passages in Romans 3, 4, 5 Galatians 2, etc., means “to render a favorable verdict, vindicate … justify, vindicate, treat as just … be acquitted, be pronounced and treated as righteous…” (Walter Baur, F. W. Danker, William D. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, [University of Chicago Press, 2000], p. 249). The Pauline literature leaves no room for Rome’s sacramental system or view of justification. The reason they force this view on the Biblical text is that they do not have a perfect atonement of Christ(Col 2:13-14, Heb 7-10). The Catholic view lacks evidence and consistency. They have this internal tension in their worldview. More can be said, but I will direct you to other resources of this here and here.
2. Metaphysics
The Catholic Church doesn’t only worship at the shrine of Aristotle, but it is also committed to the Creeds of the Early Church. The one of interest is the Nicene Creed. The Catholic has no basis to disagree with the ancient creeds. The Nicene Creed states:
And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
begotten from the Father before all ages,
God from God,
Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made;
of the same essence as the Father.
The Nicene Creed espouses a view called Eternal Generation. That is the Son is eternally begotten of the Father. That the Father is unoriginated and the Son and Spirit are originate. Here is a statement from a man most Catholics are guilty of committing idolatry with, Thomas Aquinas.
The role of a father is “to beget,” just as the meaning of sonship is “to be begotten.” The Father, therefore, is unbegotten, but is origin and progenitor of the Son, who himself does not beget, for there is no “Son” in the Godhead other than himself. That is to say, the whole reality of the Father is to beget, to generate, to give all that he has, namely, his whole divine nature, to the Son. And the whole reality of the Son is to be begotten, to be generated, to receive all that he has, namely, his whole divine nature, from the Father.
This would mean that the Father causes the Son to be divine. The Son is an effect of the Father. The Father is only a se and the Son is derivative of the Father. That the Son is conferred his divinity from the Father. The Father is the source and cause of The Son and The Spirit. They are Eternal products of his will. The Father in this paradigm seems to be greater in being than the other persons. I see no way for the Catholic to preserve the Trinity and the historical meaning of the Nicene Creed. This is that the “making vs begetting” is only a difference of kind. The Son is not “made” divine in the sense the world is made, but he gets his essence and existence from the Father. This is eternal, but yet casual.
Thomism, Doctrine Of God, & Roman Catholicism – The Council (spirited-tech.com)
Spirit of Truth – The Council (spirited-tech.com)
Is Eternal Generation Biblical? – The Council (spirited-tech.com)
The Eternal Generation Debate – The Council (spirited-tech.com)
3. Epistemology
The Catholics epistemology is based on the quest for certainty. They state that the Protestant has no infallible authority to tell him what the Bible means. The Protestant is able to be wrong in each of his interpretations and is in need of the Church to interpret it for him. That this leaves the Protestant with no ability to determine which interpretation is correct. A Protestant lacks the authority to make that call. They maintain that without a higher authority Protestants reduce to just their private opinions.
This has several problems:
i) The possibility of being wrong doesn’t equate to you not being correct. It also doesn’t imply you can’t be correct.
ii) This is also is a double-edged sword. The Catholic pushes the issue back only one step. In order to establish the authority of the Magisterium, they must interpret the texts apart from the authority of the Magisterium. They can’t use the Magisterium to prove the Magisterium. If you don’t have some confidence in your ability to interpret the church fathers, biblical text, and church councils than this skepticism renders it impossible for a Catholic to ever make a case for the Magisterium. They could also try to justify the Magisterium by some “Higher Authority”. This leads to an infinite regression of higher authorities.
iii) The other thought in the Catholic mind is that their position can be established on the consensus fidelium. That just reduces to circular reasoning as Steve Hays shows:
One weakness is his appeal to the consensus fidelium. But that’s just a fancy word for tradition. And tradition tends to be self-reinforcing. You believe it because the guy before you believed it, and he believed it because the guy before him believed it. But that makes belief its own justification, which is viciously circular. We need something to ground belief, and not just regressive or circular appeals to belief itself. Take urban legends that get passed on uncritically. To believe something just because other people believe it is a sorry substitute for evidence.
iv) The other issue is that just because people have competing interpretations of the Bible doesn’t make each interpretation is equally good. They are simply appealing to relativism. That is self-refuting. This also undermines the Catholic arguments as mere opinions as well. They also aren’t the only group in town offering their ability to infallibly interpret the Bible( Mormonism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Watchtower).
4. Mariolatry
The strange worship of Mary in Catholic theology is another reason I avoid it. They make Mary out to be the second most important person in the universe and yet the Bible is completely ignorant of this fact. It never mentions any of the doctrines Catholicism maintains has always been taught by the Church(Perpetual Virginity, Immaculate Conception, The Bodily Assumption). It also is recognized that these dogmas lack support in the Church Fathers.
The immaculate conception, for example, is one of the most implausible of the Roman Catholic dogmas. The doctrine states that Mary was born with no original sin because if she had been born with it then Christ would’ve inherited original sin.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2018/12/bryans-stalled-chess-game.html
This issue also grows more difficult for Catholics because the Biblical evidence also seems to imply that she was a sinner.
Matthew 12:46-50
46 While He was still speaking to the crowds, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. 47 Someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.” 48 But Jesus answered the one who was telling Him and said, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?”49 And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, “Behold My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother.”
Mark 3:21-35, 6:1-6
21 When His own people heard of this, they went out to take custody of Him; for they were saying, “He has lost His senses.” 22 The scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, “He is possessed by Beelzebul,” and “He casts out the demons by the ruler of the demons.”23 And He called them to Himself and began speaking to them in parables, “How can Satan cast out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 If a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. 26 If Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but he is finished!27 But no one can enter the strong man’s house and plunder his property unless he first binds the strong man, and then he will plunder his house.
28 “Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”—30 because they were saying, “He has an unclean spirit.”
31 Then His mother and His brothers *arrived, and standing outside they sent word to Him and called Him. 32 A crowd was sitting around Him, and they *said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are outside looking for You.” 33 Answering them, He *said, “Who are My mother and My brothers?” 34 Looking about at those who were sitting around Him, He *said, “Behold My mother and My brothers! 35 For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother.”
6 Jesus went out from there and *came into His hometown; and His disciples *followed Him. 2 When the Sabbath came, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands? 3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?” And they took offense at Him. 4 Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and among his own relatives and in his own household.”5 And He could do no miracle there except that He laid His hands on a few sick people and healed them. 6 And He wondered at their unbelief.
And He was going around the villages teaching.
Luke 2:48-50
48 When they saw Him, they were astonished; and His mother said to Him, “Son, why have You treated us this way? Behold, Your father and I have been anxiously looking for You.” 49 And He said to them, “Why is it that you were looking for Me? Did you not know that I had to be in My Father’s house?” 50 But they did not understand the statement which He had made to them.
Furthermore, others have documented the wide variety of Church Fathers that denied that Mary was born sinless and affirmed that Christ was the only sinless man to ever have existed.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/09/some-early-sources-on-sinlessness-of.html
https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/09/some-later-sources-on-sinlessness-of.html
https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/1991/12/01/a-biblical-basis-for-the-immaculate-conception/
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/08/thomas-aquinas-and-fathers-of-church-on.html
The Perpetual Virginity of Mary is also Catholic dogma. The dogma basically states that Mary was redeemed at her birth and that she remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus for her entire life. They maintain that when the Bible makes reference to Mary’s other children that they are ” not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact, James and Joseph, “brothers of Jesus”, are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls “the other Mary”(500). Other Catholic apologists maintain that the terms “brothers” and “sisters” can refer to cousins. The issue is that these ideas are found nowhere in the Bible and the evidence we have from the Bible seems to teach contrary to such notions:
Luke 2:7
7 And she gave birth to her firstborn son; and she wrapped Him in cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.
Matthew 1:25
25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.
This was discussed by Dr. Jerry Walls and Dr. Kenneth J. Collins in their work on Roman Catholicism:
Yet if simple consent makes a marriage, in an essential way, then perhaps many more people are married than even they themselves have imagined. Moreover, what is the effect of such a judgment on an understanding of the family itself? In contrast to this teaching, Scripture observes that Joseph did not know (in the biblical sense) Mary until she gave birth to a son: καὶ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν ἕως οὗ ἔτεκεν υἱόν63 (kai ouk eginōsken autēn heōs hou eteken huion; “But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son”; Matt. 1: 25a). The Greek text here is actually quite instructive and indicates not only that carnal knowledge is present, by the employment of the verb ἐγίνωσκεν (eginōsken) in this setting, but also that such knowledge did not take place until— the Greek word here is ἕως (heōs)— a specified period of time. Blaise Pascal expressed this truth succinctly in the seventeenth century: “The Gospel only speaks of the virginity of the Virgin up to the time of the birth of Jesus Christ. All with reference to Jesus Christ.” 64 To claim, then, that Joseph never had normal sexual relations with his wife is unfounded. Other passages from the Bible that impugn the postpartum view are found in Matthew 1: 18 and Luke 2: 7, among several others.
Walls, Jerry L.; Collins, Kenneth J.. Roman but Not Catholic: What Remains at Stake 500 Years after the Reformation (Kindle Locations 7718-7730). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
Mark 6:3
3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?” And they took offense at Him.
Matthew 13:55-56
55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”
Here is a case where Catholics maintain that the words “brothers” and “sisters” refer to close relatives. Or they posit that Joseph had a second wife. They also posit that he had other children with this other wife. This is commonly used by Catholic apologists. Gerry Matatics in his debate with Eric Svendsen took that defense. Scholars are well aware of such interpretation and have responded sufficiently:
Along with Mary, mention is made of Jesus’ brothers and sisters. The sisters are unnamed, which, according to Jewish custom, normally meant they were married. Of James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon, only James, who later headed the church in Jerusalem, and Jude are mentioned again. By the second century A.D. a reverence for the holy family, and especially for the sanctity of Mary, resulted in the brothers and sisters of Jesus being regarded as children of Joseph by a former marriage. Both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox traditions, in dependence on creeds from the fourth century and later, call Mary “ever virgin” and follow the view that Jesus’ siblings were half-brothers and half-sisters. Arguments that Jesus was an only child are based on later dogma, however. The plain sense of v. 3, and of the NT in general, is that Jesus was the oldest of five brothers and at least two sisters, all of whom were the natural children of Joseph and Mary.
In addition to the above references to James, the NT mentions Jesus’ siblings in 3:32; Matt 13:55–56; John 2:12; 7:5. The argument that adelphos means “cousin” in v. 3 is unsustainable. The Greek has a distinct word for “cousin” (anepsios; e.g., in Col 4:10). Although neither Hebrew nor Aramaic had a word for “cousin,” both customarily spoke of a cousin as “a son of an uncle” (Heb. ben dod; Aram.bar dad). Moreover, the LXX never translates either expression as “brother” or “sister.” It is true that adelphos sometimes means more than a blood brother, e.g., Gen 29:12; Rom 9:3 (kinsman); Matt 5:22–23 (neighbor); Mark 6:17–18 (step-brother). In such instances the context must determine the meaning, but in 6:3 there are no indications that adelphos should be translated other than in its natural sense as “blood brother.”
Edwards, J. R. (2002). The Gospel according to Mark (pp. 172–173). Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: Eerdmans; Apollos.
The most natural way to understand “brothers” is that the term refers to sons of Mary and Joseph and thus to brothers of Jesus on his mother’s side. To support the dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity, a notion foreign to the NT and to the earliest church fathers, Roman Catholic scholars have suggested that “brothers” refers either to Joseph’s sons by an earlier marriage or to sons of Mary’s sister, who had the same name (cf. McHugh, Mother of Jesus, 200ff.). Certainly “brothers” can have a wider meaning than male relatives (Ac 22: 1); yet it is very doubtful whether such a meaning is valid here, for it raises insuperable problems. For instance, if “brothers” refers to Joseph’s sons by an earlier marriage, not Jesus but Joseph’s firstborn would have been legal heir to David’s throne. The second theory— that “brothers” refers to sons of a sister of Mary also named “Mary”— faces the unlikelihood of two sisters having the same name. All things considered, the attempts to extend the meaning of “brothers” in this pericope, despite McHugh’s best efforts, are nothing less than far-fetched exegesis in support of a dogma that originated much later than the NT (see comments at 1: 25; cf. Lk 2: 7; see Broadus on 13: 55– 56).
Carson, D. A.; Carson, D. A.. Matthew (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary) (Kindle Locations 11209-11218). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
For dealing with more Catholic prooftext, I recommend this:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2020/03/marian-prooftexts.html
5. Tradition
Catholic views of tradition are like evolutionists that hold to punctuated equilibrium. In order to explain the gaps, they have for Biblical and historical evidence for a doctrine lands into something known as tradition. This also leads us to need to figure what is meant by “tradition”. If you ask a common Catholic you will probably get a different answer if you asked a Catholic scholar. Many Catholics think that the traditions were verbal doctrines taught by the Apostles that were passed down and preserved by the Church. Well, that idea isn’t correct. Another idea of tradition is the Sensus Fidelium. We look at the early church and see what the majority agreed upon and that was the correct tradition. That isn’t the Catholic view of tradition either. The view that now directs the Chruch of Rome is from Cardinal John Henry Newman:
Before Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers’ answer was emphatically negative… ’Tradition’ was identified with what could be proved on the basis of texts. Altaner, the patrologist from Würzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the fifth century; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the ‘apostolic tradition.’ And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared. This argument is compelling if you understand ‘tradition’ strictly as the handling down of fixed formulas and texts…But if you conceive of ‘tradition’ as a living process whereby the Holy Spirit introduces us to the fullness of truth and teaches us how to understand what previously we could still not grasp (cf. Jn 16:12-13), then subsequent ‘remembering’ (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it had not caught sight of previously and yet was handed down in the original Word,” Milestones (Ignatius, 1998), 58-59.
This has led to many changed traditions throughout time. The easiest example that has been pointed out is the change from exclusivism to inclusivism:
We declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. Unam Sanctam
There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved. (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)
The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church. Council of Florence (1442).
16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation. — Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846.
17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. — Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc. Pius IX, The Syllabus of Errors.
841 “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.” Catechism of Catholic Church.
3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. NOSTRA AETATE, Vatican II.
But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel. (20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. Lumen Gentium 16.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2018/08/romes-clouded-crystal-ball.html
Blunders of the Magisterium: Let us run through a number of examples in which the magisterium appears either to have contradicted itself or staked out an untenable position, from which it later retreated. i) In the papal Bull “Unam Sanctam,” Boniface VIII declared there to be only one true Church, outside of which there is to be found neither salvation nor the remission of sin, and he identified this Church with the Roman communion in particular since he went on to conclude, by way of consequence, that it is altogether necessary to one’s salvation to be in submission to the Pope. This position came to be codified at the councils of Florence and Lateran IV. Similarly, the Tridentine faith, as well as the oath of papal primacy (Vatican I) are both imposed on pain of damnation. Likewise, Pius IX, in his Syllabus of Errors (3:17; cf. 3:15-16,18), denies that a good hope is to be held out for the salvation of those who are not members of the true Church. When, however, we turn to Vatican II (Lumen Gentium 16; Gaudium et spes 22; Nostra Aeta 3); or John-Paul II’s book, Crossing the Threshold of Hope; or Cardinal Ratzinger’s book, God and the World, every allowance is made for the possible and actual salvation of an indefinite number of non-Catholics and even non-Christians. And, in this, the Pope and the Prefect are merely parroting the universalism of Rahner and Urs von Balthasar. ii) In the Council of Trent, “Sacred Tradition” is equated with an oral tradition that traces directly back to the words of Christ and the Apostles (Decree on the canonical scriptures). For the Tridentine debate, cf. D. Wells, Revolution in Rome (IVP 1972). That distinction is reaffirmed in Vatican I. Pius XII draws the same distinction in a major encyclical (Humani generis [21]). But by the time we get to Vatican II, the two-source model does a diplomatic disappearing act as we watch Sacred Tradition morph into a fluid and dynamic principle that is identified with the progress of dogma— scarcely distinguishable from the magisterium itself (Dei Verbum 8-10). The same tactic is on display in Ratzinger’s defense of the Assumption, which is a model of historical revisionism. Cf. Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977 (Ignatius, 1998), 58-59. iii) The traditional teaching of the magisterium repeatedly and emphatically affirms the plenary inspiration of Scripture—extending to its factual inerrancy—in opposition to Modernism. Cf. Vatican I; Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors; Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus; Pius X, Lambentabili; Pascendi; Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus; Pius XII, Humani generis. But in a watershed encyclical (Divino afflante Spiritu), Pius XII made allowance for a form of genre criticism that opened the door a dehistorical reading of Biblical narrative, and by the time we arrive at Vatican II, only a version of partial inspiration is affirmed, limiting inerrancy to those truths that God has confided in Scripture “for the sake of our salvation (Dei Verbum 11).” Cf. Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, H. Vorgrimler, ed. (Herder & Herder, 1969), 3:199-246. And since, as we’ve already noted under (i), the magisterium now maintains that Christian revelation is inessential to salvation, there is, in principle, nothing left in the subject-matter to Scripture to which inspiration necessarily attaches. iv) Vatican II affirms that the universal consensus of the laity cannot err in matters of faith and morals (Lumen Gentium 12). Now according to Paul VI’s’ famous or infamous “Humanae Vitae,” artificial birth control is inherently evil. This position is reaffirmed, among other places, in the official Catechism of the Catholic Church (¶2366-2370)—a work that carries the Imprimi Potest of Cardinal Ratzinger and an apostolic constitution of John-Paul II declaring it to be nothing less than “a sure norm for teaching the faith…by virtue of his Apostolic authority.” Yet it would be hard to find a magisterial teaching that has provoked more nearly uniform dissent on the part of the laity (not to mention priests and theologians. So which are we to choose? The magisterium or the consensus of the faithful? v) Vatican II quotes from the Pastoral and Prison Epistles in support of apostolic succession (Lumen Gentium 20). Such an appeal assumes the Pauline authorship of this correspondence. But since Roman Catholic scholars (e.g., R. Brown, Fitzmyer, Murphy-O’Connor, Quinn, Wacker, Wikenhauser) are now at liberty to deny Pauline authorship, the Magisterium is not entitled to collect on a claim after having cancelled the policy. So this appeal would, at most, prove pseudo-apostolic succession. This is commonplace. Vatican II carries over many of the traditional prooftexts from Trent and Vatican I. But those were underwritten by a Tridentine view of Scripture which Vatican II no longer endorses. It ought, in all honesty, make the necessary adjustments in its methods of prooftexting. But that would uncover an open rift between Trent and Vatican II, bringing both bodies into disrepute. I’m arguing, now, on its own grounds, not on Protestant turf. Even assuming Pauline authorship—which is a Protestant presupposition— the appeal falls well short of the mark, for it overspecifies their import, overgeneralizes their range reference, and disregards the distinctive role of the Apostolate. vi) Vatican II cites Acts 2:4 as a prooftext for the sacrament of holy orders (Lumen Gentium, 3:21). But this reading cuts against the grain. In context, the Pentecostal outpouring of the Spirit is treated as the firstfruits of a “universal,” as a anointing on the people of God (2:16ff.,38f.). To limit this charism to a clerical class runs in express opposition to the emphatic direction of the text—as G. B. Caird has pointed out, ibid., 37-38. vii) In Vatican II, Paul VI attaches an “explanatory note” (“Ministeria quaedam”) to Lumen Gentium—in which he has to counter the conciliarist thrust of Lumen Gentium and restore papal supremacy. Here we have a flat contradiction between the Pope and the Council. viii) In 1590, Sixtus V issued an edition of the Vulgate—the proud result of his own text-critical prowess—accompanied by a bull in which he declared this to be, by virtue of his apostolic fullness, and as an item of absolutely certain knowledge, the authentic and irreformable text of the Vulgate. But the Sistine edition turned out to be so riddled with blunders that it was quietly withdrawn from public circulation after his death, and a revised edition issued under Clement VIII, who naturally served up the same superlatives in favor of his own version. ix) In its canonical list, Trent mistakenly attributes the composition of James to the Apostle rather than the Lord’s brother. This identification has been surrendered even by Catholic scholars (R. Brown, ibid., 725-727,741). x) In the same context, Trent also codifies the Pauline authorship of Hebrews, although this cannot be sustained on either internal or external grounds, and is not defended by modern Catholic scholarship. (Cf. R. Brown, ibid., 693-695; cf. L. Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament [Fortress 1999], 460-61) xi) Vatican II has the disconcerting habit of appealing to the long ending of Mark to bolster some of its claims. To take just one example, it informs the reader that Christ himself “explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5),” (Lumen Gentium 29:14). But since the long ending of Mark is admittedly spurious on all hands, the Council is trafficking in an open falsehood. xii) Trent declares the Vulgate to be an “authentic” translation of the scriptures, and condemns anyone who would reject it under any pretext whatsoever. Now to point out just one of many major obstacles in the way of making good on this claim, standard editions of the Vulgate use the Gallican Psalter, which was not a direct translation from the Hebrew, but from the LXX, and thus a tertiary translation. xiii) Trent declares that all seven sacraments (baptism, confirmation, the Mass, penance, last rites, holy orders, and matrimony) were instituted by Christ (Decree on the Sacraments [Session 7, canon 1]). Of course, this claim is exegetically unsupportable. Indeed, I doubt you could find one major exegete of the post-Vatican II era who would attempt to defend it as it stands. Some might still defend seven sacraments, but that would be by appeal to the progress of dogma rather than direct dominical institution. xiv) In fact, the Tridentine Fathers depart from their own rules of evidence. For in the canons on Confirmation, no appeal is made either to Scripture or tradition. And in its defense of the sacramental status of marriage, it makes initial appeal to Gen 2:23f. But that is subversive of its claim that marriage is a dominical institution—for the recourse to the book of Genesis implies that marriage was a creation-mandate rather than a Christian sacrament. This ordinance obviously antedates the NT. Indeed, Trent still can’t come up with any dominical prooftext regarding the sacramental status and origin of marriage. It quotes Jesus on divorce, but that isn’t to the point—and, indeed, presupposes the institution of marriage. Finally, it cites the Apostle Paul. But this appeal is flawed on a couple of grounds: a) Even if this were adequate to establish the sacramental standing of matrimony, that goes no distance to establish its “dominical” origin. b) The Tridentine Fathers appear to be dependent on the Vulgate, which renders mysterion (Eph 5:25,32) as sacramentum. This reliance is doubly inept, by first assuming that sacramentum was a technical term in Jerome’s time, and then assuming that the semantic domain of sacramentum coincides with the semantic domain of mysterion. The former assumption is a semantic anachronism, while the latter is a semantic fallacy. Notice, once again, that I’m not imposing my Protestant rule of faith on the deliberations of Trent. It is the Tridentine Fathers who are trying here to justify their position by appeal to Scripture. By their own yardstick, they just don’t measure up. xv) We see the same pattern in their discussion of last rites. They begin by defining this “sacrament” as a means of perfecting the grace of penance, to be administered at the end of life. But they then go to Mk 6:13 and Jas 5:14-15 to corroborate their claim. Yet these verses are concerned with divine healing. The sick are cured and rise from their deathbed. This is a new lease on life, and not a rite for the dying. The difference could not be more elementary. I’ll wrap up with a few juicy gleanings of Ignaz von Döllinger, the great church historian: xvi) “Innocent I and Gelatius I…declared it to be so indispensable for infants to receive communion that those who died without it go straight to hell. A thousand years later the Council of Trent anathematized this doctrine,” The Pope and the Council (Boston, 1870), 42.” Incidentally, would this anathema apply retroactively, rendering Innocent and Gelatius excommunicate and thus making them anti-popes? xvii) “The Capernaite doctrine, that Christ’s body is sensibly touched by the hands and broken by the teeth in the Eucharist…was affirmed by Nicholas II at the Synod of Rome in 1059,” ibid., 45.” xviii) “In a Bull of 1471, Sixtus IV reserved for himself, as an exclusive prerogative of the Pope, the fabrication of waxen lambs used as a preservative against enchantments. According to him, their touch bestowed, besides remission of sin, security against fire, shipwreck, lightning, and hailstones,” ibid., 207.” In addition to the examples above, there are a number of other celebrated cases implicating at least a half dozen of the popes, viz., Liberius, Zosimus, Vigilius, Julius I, Honorius I, Celestine I, and Eugenius IV. Besides von Döllinger, consult J.N.D. Kelly, The Oxford Dictionary of Popes (Oxford, 1986); B.J. Kidd, The Roman Primacy to AD 461 (London: SPCK, 1936); R. McBrien, Lives of the Popes (HarperCollins, 1997), and The New Catholic Encyclopedia (CUA 1967, rev. 2003-). My citations are from the 1967 ed. If there are serious differences, that would only illustrate the instability of RC teaching.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2004/05/back-to-babylon-3.html
Recommendations:
TheCouncil:
Is Eternal Generation Biblical?
Steve Hays:
Catholic methodists and Protestant particularists
Epistleofdude:
VaticanFiles:
VaticanFiles
The Council 