I recommend the essay Just Trust us on this one...wink, wink, on a blog called Beggars All (which I have not seen before this week). In it a writer named John Bugay says:
"One of the reasons why people misunderstand Roman Catholicism is because, for centuries, the Roman Catholic apologetic has not been one of honesty and clarity, but it’s one of deflection. It’s a classic bait-and switch, which I would argue, is fundamentally dishonest, on a regular basis...
"Roman apologetics that came out of the Reformation had a certain character that asked (maybe in disbelief) 'Where was your religion before the year 1517?'...By 1688, this appeal to authority and antiquity was so etched into the public mind that bishop Jacques-Benigne Bossuet (1627-1704) had produced a work, Histoire des Variations des Églises Protestantes (1688) in which he asserted: '...There is no difficulty about recognizing false doctrine: there is no argument about it: it is recognized at once, whenever it appears, merely because it is new…'...But as it turns out, Rome cannot hold itself to that standard. Less than 200 years later, Newman was crafting a 'theory of Development' that was necessary to explain away all of the many changes that Rome HAD incorporated. ..
"It’s really a classic bait-and-switch. I have two thoughts on this: First, there is very much in 'Catholic Sacred Tradition” that is quite 'anti-biblical'. Beginning with an apologetic that says, 'you can’t understand what the Bible is or says without an infallible interpreter.'"
5 comments:
The hullabaloo over Fr. Addison Hart's reversion is similar to the hullabaloo over Professor Francis Beckwith's reversion to the Roman Catholic Church.
FWIW, here's a snippet from Francis Beckwith: Still a Protestant at Heart:
"Here's some Choice questions for this super-convert:
When the Roman Catholic apologist asks, “how can you be certain that you are in the truth since all you have to go on is your own fallible private judgment that your church is right?,” we should counter with a similar question: “How can you be certain that you are in the truth since all you have to go on is your own fallible private judgment that Rome is right?”
When the Roman Catholic apologist asks, “How do you know you’ve picked the right denomination?, we should respond by asking, “How do you know you’ve picked the right infallible interpreter?”
From the blog: "Why do we spend our time blogging about these things? It is but one poor and humble outreach to practitioners of Romanism, whom we believe in general to be lost, apart from Christ, without the Gospel of grace." (My emphasis.)
How long before this is the position of The Continuum as well, I wonder? Surely not long. The rhetoric is clearly going in that direction. Perhaps a year or so from now, we'll see posts identifying the pope as the Antichrist and Rome as the Whore of Revelation, etc.
Joe:
As usual, it is a pleasure to disagree with someone who can disagree agreeably, as a gentleman.
You should know I do not agree with the little portion you quoted from someone's comment on that blog, and I doubt that anyone in the ACC would make such a comment. If you ever catch us teaching that the pope is antichrist, then you will be right to object. As long as the Church of Rome teaches the Incarnation, it can't be antichrist (I John 4). Far from it, the pope is the Bishop of Rome, an important pastor in the Universal Church.
From our standpoint, defending our own validity and existence against aggressive (however well intentioned) missionary efforts, the problem rests in OneTrueChurchism, a defect we don't suffer from at present, and by God's grace may permanently avoid.
Dear Mr.Oliveri
You needn't fret about something like that happening at The Continuum or something like that coming out the major Continuing Churches.This blog and Continuing Churchmen should not be lumped in with the 'hot-prots' or Chick Publications.I'd be more concerned about, and praying for,the cessation of the claims of the two 'one true' Churches; Rome and the Orthodox both claiming that they're the only 'one true Church'.My hope and expectation is that with good will, patience, generosity,faith and erudition blogs such as The Continuum will advance the cause of real reunion in the Church,GOD being their helper of course!
Those denominations which claim to be the "one true church" seem to forget that Christians are to be clothed with humility. Is not every believer a member of Christ's body? 1 Cor 12:13 says that "by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit." A note in my Bible states that "the true church (the church of the firstborn) is composed of the whole number of regenerate persons from Pentecost to the first resurrection, united together and to Christ by the baptism with the Holy Spirit. It is the body of Christ of which He is the Head. It is a holy temple for the habitation of God through the Spirit and is "one flesh" with Christ and espoused to Him as a chaste virgin to one husband."
Susan
Post a Comment