The challenge lies in the fact that Catholicism has produced some of history’s greatest intellects, leveraging their insights to craft robust defenses against the critiques I’ll raise. Over centuries, they’ve refined their arguments and apologetics. Complicating matters, Catholicism encompasses diverse groups like Franciscans, Thomists, and Jesuits, each with distinct perspectives.
Before delving further, a word of advice, especially for a young presuppositionalist: Catholicism, while bearing the Christian label, diverges significantly from fundamental Christian doctrines. It’s more accurately classified as a Christian cult rather than a true representation of Christianity. This distinction is crucial for understanding the deep-seated contradictions between Catholicism and authentic Christian beliefs.
1. Scripture
The Catholic Church upholds the belief that the Bible is the infallible word of God, implying that its teachings must align with scripture. However, there are instances where this alignment seems lacking, particularly evident in the Doctrine of Justification. Here are excerpts from the Catholic Church’s canons that illustrate this:
Canon 24: Anathema is declared upon those who claim that good works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, rather than the cause of its increase. Canon 9: Anathema is pronounced against those who assert that sinners are justified by faith alone, without any cooperation or preparation on their part.
In Catholic theology, justification refers to God making us righteous, a concept that contrasts with the Protestant doctrine of “Sola Fide.” Protestants believe that believers are declared righteous by God through the application of Christ, attained by placing faith in the Gospel. This differs from Catholicism, where justification encompasses “sanctification and renewal of the interior man” (Catechism 1989). Initial justification occurs at baptism, and faith isn’t solely required for justification, as stated in the Catholic Catechism: “Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith” (1992; 1997; 1999). It also involves the ongoing sanctification process, tied to the sacraments, reflecting a lifelong journey.
This theological disparity has sparked extensive debate. Which perspective is correct? I lean towards the Protestant view, supported by both Old and New Testament scriptures. Old Testament passages such as Exod 23:7, Deut 25:1, and New Testament references in Pauline Epistles like Romans 3, 4, 5, and Galatians 2 affirm justification as “to render a favorable verdict, vindicate, treat as just, be acquitted, be pronounced and treated as righteous” (Baur, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon). The Pauline literature, in particular, leaves little room for Rome’s sacramental system or justification view.
The Catholic perspective appears to lack consistency and evidence, creating internal tensions within their theological framework, especially regarding the perfect atonement of Christ (Col 2:13-14, Heb 7-10).
The concept of “satis passio,” as expounded in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (by Ludwig Ott), fundamentally challenges the Protestant understanding of the completeness of Christ’s atonement and the sufficiency of faith in securing salvation. This doctrine posits that the remission of venial sins occurs through an act of contrition and the bearing of expiatory punishments in purgatory, introducing a works-based righteousness that contradicts the biblical teaching on the sufficiency and exclusivity of Christ’s atonement (1).
Moreover, the Catholic notion of increasing in righteousness through works and the belief in a treasury of merit further accentuates this divide (2). These concepts not only challenge but directly contradict verses such as Romans 5:9 (“Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God”) and Hebrews 10:14 (“For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified”), which affirm the completeness and sufficiency of Christ’s atonement for salvation.
2. Metaphysics
Amidst the depth of Catholic tradition lies a profound commitment to the Nicene Creed, which articulates the concept of Eternal Generation concerning the Son’s relationship to the Father. This creed, a cornerstone of Catholic belief, proclaims:
“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.”
However, this doctrine of Eternal Generation, as expounded by theologians like Thomas Aquinas, raises significant theological questions. It suggests that the Father is the source and cause of the Son and the Spirit, leading to the Son being seen as an effect of the Father and deriving his divinity from Him. It seems to introduce a form of divine subordinationism where the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father.
3. Epistemology
The Catholic epistemology hinges on the pursuit of certainty, arguing that Protestants lack an infallible authority to interpret the Bible and are susceptible to error in their interpretations. According to this perspective, Protestants rely solely on their private opinions without the authoritative guidance of the Church, leading to uncertainty about correct interpretations.
However, this argument faces several challenges:
i) The potential for error does not negate the possibility of being correct in one’s interpretations. Acknowledging the fallibility of human understanding does not preclude the ability to arrive at correct interpretations through careful study and reasoning.
ii) The Catholic reliance on the Magisterium as the ultimate authority encounters a dilemma of circular reasoning. To establish the authority of the Magisterium, one must interpret texts independently of the Magisterium’s authority, leading to an infinite regression of higher authorities. This undermines the basis for the Magisterium’s authority and raises questions about the validity of its interpretations.
iii) The appeal to the consensus fidelium, or tradition, as a basis for authority can become circular and self-reinforcing. Believing something simply because it has been traditionally believed lacks a solid grounding and can devolve into regressive or circular reasoning. This approach fails to provide substantive evidence for the validity of beliefs. As Steve Hays stated:
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 existence of competing interpretations among different groups, including Mormons, Eastern Orthodoxy, and others, challenges the notion of a singular authoritative interpretation. This diversity highlights the subjective nature of interpretation and undermines claims to infallible authority.
4. Mariolatry
The veneration of Mary in Catholic theology is a significant point of contention for many, including myself. The elevation of Mary to a position of such prominence, often considered second only to Christ Himself, seems to lack biblical support and historical grounding.
The Bible remains notably silent on many of the doctrines surrounding Mary upheld by Catholicism, such as her Perpetual Virginity, Immaculate Conception, and Bodily Assumption. These teachings are often traced back to Church traditions rather than explicit biblical references, leading to skepticism among some believers.
Take, for instance, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, which posits that Mary was born without original sin to ensure Christ’s sinlessness. This concept appears far-fetched and lacking in substantial biblical or historical evidence. It seems to introduce theological complexities without a solid foundation in Scripture or early Christian teachings.
Furthermore, the acknowledgment that these dogmas find little support among the Church Fathers raises questions about their authenticity and origin. If these beliefs were indeed central to early Christian faith, one would expect clearer references and consensus among early Christian writers, which is often not the case.
In essence, the emphasis on Mary’s exalted status in Catholic theology, coupled with doctrines lacking robust biblical and historical backing, presents a stumbling block for those seeking a more grounded and scripturally-based understanding of faith.
The logic is regressive. If the mother of Jesus must be immaculately conceived so that she doesn’t transmit original sin to Jesus, then the same principle applies to the mother of Mary, and Mary’s grandmother, and great-grandmother, &c. Conversely, if God can simply intervene to prevent the transmission of original sin, then Mary’s immaculate conception is superfluous, because God could skip over Mary by to intervene one step further down the line at the conception of Jesus. Short of divine revelation, how would anyone be in a position to know that Mary was immaculately conceived? Where’s the evidence that such a revelation was ever given? To whom? And if it wasn’t given, it has no warrant. To all appearances, the immaculate conception is a legend that hardened into dogma.http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2018/12/bryans-stalled-chess-game.html
Indeed, the issue becomes even more intricate for Catholics when considering the biblical evidence that seems to imply Mary’s status as a sinner. The Bible portrays Mary as a devout and faithful servant of God, but it does not present her as sinless or free from human failings.
For instance, in Luke 1:46-47, Mary herself acknowledges her need for a Savior, proclaiming, “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.” This statement implies an awareness of her own need for redemption and points to a recognition of her humanity, including the possibility of sin.
Additionally, in Luke 2:22-24, Mary and Joseph offer a sacrifice for purification according to the Law of Moses after Jesus’ birth. This act aligns with Jewish customs related to childbirth and purification, indicating Mary’s participation in rituals associated with sin and purification.
Furthermore, in Mark 3:31-35 and Matthew 12:46-50, there are passages where Jesus’ family, including Mary, comes to speak with Him. Jesus uses this occasion to teach about spiritual family relationships, but there is no indication in these passages of Mary’s sinlessness or elevated status beyond her role as Jesus’ earthly mother.
These biblical nuances present a challenge to the dogma of Mary’s sinlessness as proclaimed by Catholicism. The biblical narrative portrays Mary as a faithful servant of God, but it does not explicitly support the idea of her being without sin or possessing a unique status of sinlessness.
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.
These passages, particularly Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56, present a challenge to the Catholic doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity. In these verses, Jesus is referred to as having brothers named James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas, as well as sisters. Catholics often argue that the terms “brothers” and “sisters” here could refer to close relatives or cousins rather than biological siblings of Jesus. Another argument is that Joseph might have had a second wife and these siblings were from that marriage.
This interpretation has been debated extensively, with scholars and theologians offering various viewpoints. Some have critiqued this view, pointing out that the plain reading of the text suggests siblings in the literal sense. Critics also argue that the absence of explicit mention of another wife for Joseph or additional children in the Bible weakens the case for these alternative interpretations.
During a debate between Gerry Matatics and Eric Svendsen, Matatics defended the Catholic position using this argument, but scholars have noted the limitations and challenges of such interpretations, highlighting the need for a more comprehensive understanding of the cultural and linguistic context of biblical passages regarding Jesus’ family.
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 on tradition can be likened to the concept of punctuated equilibrium in evolutionary theory. When confronted with gaps in biblical and historical evidence for a doctrine, Catholics often rely on tradition to bridge those gaps. However, defining what exactly is meant by “tradition” can be a nuanced endeavor. The understanding of tradition varies even within the Catholic community, with lay Catholics possibly offering a different perspective compared to Catholic scholars.
Many lay Catholics may perceive tradition as verbal doctrines directly taught by the Apostles, passed down through generations, and preserved by the Church. However, this perspective doesn’t align with the Catholic theological understanding of tradition. Another notion of tradition is the Sensus Fidelium, which suggests that the correct tradition is determined by what the majority of early Christians agreed upon. Yet, this too doesn’t fully capture the Catholic view of tradition.
The prevailing view within the Roman Catholic Church, as articulated by Cardinal John Henry Newman, provides a more nuanced understanding of tradition. Newman’s concept involves a development of doctrine over time, where the Church gradually unfolds and clarifies its teachings in response to various challenges and insights. This dynamic view of tradition acknowledges both continuity and growth within the Church’s understanding of its beliefs and practices.
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 over time. One prominent example often cited is the shift 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:
The Council 
One thought on “Challenging Catholicism: Unveiling Inconsistencies”