Doc110 Loc: York PA

11/10/2018 Debate w Lutheran: Church Infallibility & Death Penalty. (Part 1)

Dave Armstrong
a. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2018/11/debate-w-lutheran-church-infallibility-death-penalty.html?
b. https://thavmapub.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/fundamentalsofcatholicdogma.pdf


Mark Martinson is a Lutheran (WELS).

He showed up on my Facebook page under my link of a talk I gave on the radio (11-9-18) on sola Scriptura, or the Protestant rule of faith. 
https://www.facebook.com/dave.armstrong.798/posts/2215686298466343

Sola Scriptura entails the denial of papal and Church infallibility.

Presumably, that’s why he challenged those doctrines in this particular thread.

At first I thought he was a Catholic (perhaps a reactionary one: because they think so much like Protestants).

I have edited a bit (the whole thing can be read on Facebook), because Mark wanted to talk about three things at once and I thought two complex topics were quite enough.

His words will be in blue and **(before) symbols (After)**
*****


** The church’s change on the death penalty pretty much torpedoed the claim of Church infallibility for me.**

No need to.

Nothing dogmatic or fundamental has changed.
a. https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2017/11/10/is-there-really-a-definitive-teaching-of-the-church-on-capital-punishment/?

[+ second link with Dr. Robert Fastiggi explaining the issue of the death penalty and Catholics]
b. https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2017/11/10/is-there-really-a-definitive-teaching-of-the-church-on-capital-punishment/?


**It looks like the article came out in 2017 before the change in which the ccc said the dp was “contrary to the gospel” certainly that can’t be reconciled with the council of Trent the Roman catechism and Pius 12.**

**I find it very unpersuasive in arguing that the church has never defined definitively on the DP. **

**No reasonable person would read the previous statements that way.**

**Does Fastiggi think the ccc version number three is not a definitive statement binding on Catholics?**

**To the extent that the change is based on changed circumstances then I would have to ask what expertise the Catholic Church has on crime (other than covering it up)?**


It’s not “circumstance”: it’s a fuller understanding of the gospel, and the “gospel of life” (Evangelium Vitae).
w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/.../hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html

If you are talking about infallibility, something has to be declared infallible in the first place, for it to have supposedly departed from such infallibility.

CP wasn’t; therefore, it is no reason for you to reject the infallibility of the Church. 

I highly suspect that it’s not the only factor in play if your faith in ecclesiastical infallibility is this weak.

Dr. Fastiggi, as the current editor and translator of Denzinger: the premier Catholic source on dogma, and also of the revision of Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma would be in a position to know (far more than you or I)
https://thavmapub.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/fundamentalsofcatholicdogma.pdf

About the status of various dogmas, doctrines and widely-held Catholic beliefs.

I can’t argue the case better than Dr. Fastiggi, so I defer to his two articles above.

Are you a Catholic in good standing now?


**According to Fastiggi;**

**Pius 12 was wrong about the reasons that the dp May be used. Is Francis less infallible then Pius?**


I asked you if you are a Catholic.

What is your affiliation?


That’s also irrelevant if Pius XII in that instance wasn’t speaking infallibly.

He may have simply been wrong on non-infallible points.

You don’t seem to even understand the nature of papal and Church infallibility.


**Maybe Fastiggi is in a better position to know than you are I but what is a Catholic to do when confronted with contrary church teaching?**

**When Abp Barron says that Hans it’s von Balthasar’s teachiing in hell are the official teaching of the church what is a Catholic to do?’’**

**Call up Fastiggi? Call up Francis?**

**Is Fastiggi more infallible than Pius 12?**


Answered already.

Either tell me what your affiliation is, or I will block you as a troll.


**I’m a Lutheran.**


Ah, that explains a lot. And you fancy yourself an expert on Catholic internal dogmatic affairs? 

So how can infallibility be “torpedoed” for you, when, as a Lutheran, you didn’t believe it in the first place?

That’s fascinating.


**No but you are the one who claims the church is infallible.**


Yes I do, and this argument of yours is no disproof of it at all.
It’s also the case that the current Church opposition to CP is not based on the premise that it is inherently evil (as many including Dr. Ed Feser, have misunderstood).

It’s not. It’s on a different basis: The gospel of life.


**So what is your opinion on the proper dogmatic interpretation of the statement on the Roman catechism the council of Trent and Pius 12 on the DP?**


I’ve already appealed to Dr. Fastiggi. I’m not a theologian like he is. 

I’ve written many articles on capital punishment on my Life Issues web page.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2006/11/life-issues-abortion-euthanasia.html?

[I linked four more relevant articles (one / two / three / four)]
a. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/throughcatholiclenses/2018/08/capital-punishment-francis-the-tradition-are-both-right/?
b. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/throughcatholiclenses/2018/08/death-penalty-wrong-but-not-intrinsically-evil/?
c. https://avemariaradio.net/audio-archive/kresta-afternoon-august-7-2018-hour-1/?
d. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/understanding-the-catechism-revision-on-the-death-penalty?


**Dave you said recently that you are “a teacher in the church.” **

**If your children asked you if Hans Balthasar’s teaching is Catholic doctrine as Barron said you’d tell them to call Fastiggi?**


[I have dealt with the Balthasar / hell / “hoping” thing]
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2018/09/dialogue-on-hell-the-possibility-of-universalism.html?

I’m an apologist and thus a type of teacher, but I’m not a systematic theologian with special expertise on the status of dogmas and other teachings.

Dr. Fastiggi is that.

I recognize my limitations. I’m just a lay apologist.

Yes, if someone was asking about fine points of Catholic dogma, I’d refer them to Dr. Fastiggi or someone similar.

I try to get them to the expert who knows the most about it.


**So if your children asked you if the doctrine of the trinity or male priesthood is infallible and not subject to change you’d tell them to call Prof Fastiggi?**


If the question is about fine points of infallibility, I would refer them to Fastiggi or someone similar.

If it is on the biblical basis of the teachings, I can answer quite sufficiently.


**And what makes Fastiggi more of an expert than Feser?**


As regards capital punishment, it’s because he is a systematic theologian, with expertise on dogmatic status of positions, and Feser is merely a philosopher. 

If we want scientific advice, we go to a scientist.

If we want answers on Catholic dogmatic questions, we go to the theologians who have that expertise.


**Fastiggi did a shuck and jive . . . with the dp.**


I’ve never seen Dr. Fastiggi (a good personal friend of mine) do a “shuck and jive” on anything.

I follow the teachings of Holy Mother Church: as does he.

He’s one of the finest and most orthodox Catholics I know.


**Why does a smart theologian trump a smart philosopher?**

**Hans Kung has degrees in both’ shouldn’t two smart Catholics be able to determine what Catholic teaching is?**


Your question was about relative levels of expertise.

One can make arguments and those can be considered, which is a separate matter.

I’m against capital punishment primarily because the last three popes have expressed this as their position, based on the Gospel of Life.

That’s Catholic authority and hierarchy and the expression of the Mind of the Church. It’s not arbitrary reliance on authority.


**Why should the most recent three pope be given priority over all the popes before them?** 

**How is it not a contradiction for Pius 12 to say that the DP is good because it demonstrates the value of human life when Francis said it is “contrary to the gospel’?**


A non-infallible teaching can either develop or even change.

It’s no contradiction. I already said I appealed to Fastiggi and the other articles, as regards CP. It’s a complex debate.

So your thing is to try to find internal inconsistencies in Catholic doctrines, so you can deny infallibility, like a good Lutheran, and as Luther did in the 16th century?

Is that it?

Then you can cling to the massively self-refuting sola Scriptura as your rule of faith? 

That was actually my own biggest objection to Catholicism, before I converted, as I have written about:

Ecclesiology (the Church), the “Protestant Myth” of Church History, and My Vehement Opposition to Catholic Infallibility (1990)
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2017/10/conversion-apathy-occult-evangelicalism-catholicism-pt-7.html?

(End Part 1)

Doc110 Loc: York PA

11/10/2018 Debate w Lutheran: Church Infallibility & Death Penalty. (Part 2)

Dave Armstrong
a. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2018/11/debate-w-lutheran-church-infallibility-death-penalty.html?
b. https://thavmapub.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/fundamentalsofcatholicdogma.pdf


Bombshell and Paradigm Shift: Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman’s Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (1990)
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2017/10/conversion-apathy-occult-evangelicalism-catholicism-pt-8.html?

[more deflection from Mark]

Please answer my question about your goals in having this discussion.


**Dave but you are in no better position and in fact I’d argue worse. **

**You can’t point to any teaching that isn’t subject to change including seemingly unambiguous teachings like what Pius 12 said about the DP.**


All teachings develop. Development is not essential change.

What you refer to is evolution of dogma, which the Church condemns. If a teaching isn’t infallible, of course it can change, by that fact.

Will you answer my questions about your motivations to have this discussion or not?

You’re being very obnoxious.

Still waiting for that reply. 

I just wanna know why you’re so fired-up about this stuff.

It seems to be the same spirit and outlook that I had in 1990 when I was ferociously opposing infallibility, as a good zealous evangelical whose hero was Martin Luther.


**You seem to enjoy debate so I’m not sure what the problem is.**


. . . for the sake of honesty and full disclosure, or I will ban you as a troll, since I have to repeatedly ask you simple questions to get any sort of answer.


**According to you the Catholic Church has been around for 2000 years and still it can’t make up its mind about hell. **

**What else hasn’t it made up its mind about?**


I’ve now asked you the same question three times and you have ignored it. It’s no big deal (simply full disclosure), but you refuse to answer.

Meanwhile, you repeat over and over things I have already written about and provided links for, and also referred you to Dr. Fastiggi.

That’s rude and boorish behavior, and a sort of sophistry, as well as trolling.

All are bannable offenses on this page, based on my posted guidelines for discussion.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2015/08/my-comments-policy-thoughts-on-amiable-and-constructive-dialogue.html

So you’re outta here.

I’ve given you several hours of my time today and you continue to act like a pompous ass:

Ignoring whatever you want to ignore and going on with your boorish preaching (while I have given some sort of reply to everything you have inquired about).

I have only so much patience.

This thread will remain, and a “de-helled” version of it will be posted on my blog shortly, because, as I explained there:

“Mark wanted to talk about three things at once and I thought two complex topics were quite enough.”

The topics themselves are fine and fair game (apart from you wanting to talk about too many things at once).

It’s your boorish, trolling manner that is the problem.


(End Part 2)

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

SATAN'S COUNTERFEIT
CHURCH

Roman Catholicism
Founder: Emperor Constantine

Overview:
The Roman Catholic church, headquartered in Rome, Italy, has its own powerful City-State, the Vatican. The Roman Catholic church unofficially came into being in 312 A.D., at the time of the so-called "miraculous conversion" to Christianity of the Roman Emperor Constantine but he still worshipped the sun god. Although Christianity was not made the official religion of the Roman Empire until the edicts of Theodosius I in 380 and 381 A.D., Constantine, from 312 A.D. until his death in 337, was engaged in the process of simultaneously building pagan temples and Christian churches, and was slowly turning over the reins of his pagan priesthood to the Bishop of Rome. However, the family of Constantine did not give up the last vestige of his priesthood until after the disintegration of the Roman Empire – that being the title the emperors bore as heads of the pagan priesthood – Pontifex Maximus – a title which the popes would inherit. The popes also inherited Constantine's titles as the self-appointed civil head of the church – Summus Pontifex (Vicar of Christ and Bishop of Bishops).

Prior to the time of Constantine's "conversion," Christians were persecuted not so much for their profession of faith in Christ, but because they would not include pagan deities in their faith as well. Then, with Constantine's emphasis on making his new-found Christianity palatable to the heathen in the Empire, the "Christianization" of these pagan deities was facilitated. For example, pagan rituals and idols gradually took on Christian meanings and names and were incorporated into "Christian" worship (e.g., "saints" replaced the cult of pagan gods in both worship and as patrons of cities; mother/son statues were renamed Mary and Jesus; etc.), and pagan holidays were reclassified as Christian holy days (e.g., the Roman Lupercalia and the feast of purification of Isis became the Feast of the Nativity; the Saturnalia celebrations were replaced by Christmas celebrations; an ancient festival of the dead was replaced by All Souls Day, rededicated to Christian heroes [now Halloween]; etc.). A transition had occurred – instead of being persecuted for failure to worship pagan deities, Christians who did not agree with the particular orthodoxy backed by the Emperor were now persecuted in the name of Christ! "Christianized" Rome had become the legitimate successor of pagan Rome! This is the sad origin of the Roman Catholic Church as it compromised from the very beginning with paganism and in doing so became a cult serving the creature (Mary) more than the creator (Jesus).

When Rome went from being pagan to Christian under Constantine, they had to find a replacement for the great mother of paganism. It was not until the time of Constantine that anyone began to look at Mary as a goddess. Since Mary was the mother of Jesus Christ, she was the most logical person to replace the pagan mother goddess. The pagans could continue their prayers and devotion to the mother goddess, only they would call her Mary. The pagans worshipped the mother as much or more than her son and this is exactly what the Roman Catholicism does. True Christianity teaches that Jesus Christ is to be worshipped – not his mother. The fact remains that Jesus never hinted at the idea of Mary worship nor did any of the apostles. Worshipping the mother goddess along with her child took place centuries before Jesus Christ was ever born in many different parts of the world. In 431 A.D. Mary worship became an official doctrine of the church in at the Council of Ephesus.

Since the formation of the Roman Empire, the Roman emperors (including Constantine) held the office of Pontifex Maximus (Supreme Priest) and were worshipped by the pagans as gods. Emperor Gratian in 376 A.D. refused the title of Pontifex Maximus, and from then on it was bestowed upon the bishop of Rome. From hereon, the bishop of Rome was to be the Supreme Priest to the pagans and the head of the Christian church; the streams of paganism and Christianity flowed together under the leadership of Pontifex Maximus, ultimately to be called the Pope. The question remains, how can a man at the same time be the Pontifex Maximus which was the head of the pagan mysteries and the head of the church? Although the Roman Catholic church claims that Peter was the first Pope, it is strange that we never read any such claim by Peter. The fact that Jesus never instituted the office of Pope in his church during his earthly ministry plainly shows that the Pope is neither Bishop of bishops nor the successor of the apostle Peter.

One issue that is very damaging to idea of a Pope is the fact that some of the popes were so depraved, even people who professed no religion at all were ashamed of them. Looking into the history of the papacy, it is easy to see that not all popes were holy men. Accusations against them included but were not limited to blasphemy, simony (the buying and selling of the papal office), perjury, murder, adultery, intercourse with virgins and nuns, incest, sodomy, bestiality, robbery, idolatry, magic, infidelity, and gross and unnatural immorality. Historians, even Roman Catholic historians will even attest to the fact there have been many sinful popes. Therefore, if popes are supposed to be the "representatives of Christ" here on earth and they are living an immoral lifestyle, should their commands still be obeyed if they are living in sin? No, it would be hypocritical for them to make rulings and decrees, and yet this is exactly what has been done by the popes. Jesus never said, "do as I say, not as I do". On the contrary, Jesus Christ led a holy life and we should follow His example. Here are a few examples:

Pope Sergius III obtained the papal office by murder. He lived openly with a woman who bore him several illegitimate children. His reign began a period known as "the rule of the harlots".

Pope John XII was an immoral man and whose palace was likened to a brothel. The bishop of Cremona, Luitprand said, "No honest lady dared to show herself in public, for Pope John had no respect either for single girls, married women, or widows – they were sure to be defiled by him, even on the tombs of the holy apostles, Peter and Paul."

Pope Boniface VIII maintained his position through lavish distribution of stolen money. He was quoted saying, "to enjoy oneself and lie carnally with women or with boys is no more a sin than rubbing one's hands together."

Pope John XXII was said to have seduced and violated three hundred nuns. He must have had a strong and insatiable libido for he kept a harem of no less than two hundred girls. He was called "the most depraved criminal who ever sat on the papal throne." A Vatican record says this about him, "His lordship, Pope John, committed perversity with the wife of his brother, incest with holy nuns, intercourse with virgins, adultery with the married, and all sorts of sex crimes... wholly given to sleep and other carnal desires, totally adverse to the life and teaching of Christ... he was publicly called the Devil incarnate."

Pope Pius II was said to have been the father of many illegitimate children. He spoke openly of the methods he used to seduce women and he encouraged young men to also seduce women and even offered to instruct them in methods of self-indulgence.

Pope Sixtus IV financed his wars by selling church offices to the highest bidders. He used the papacy to enrich himself and his family, for no less than eight cardinals were his nephews, some being given the position of cardinal even as a boy.

Pope Alexander VI won the election of the papacy by bribery. He lived with a woman with whom he had a daughter; whom afterward he committed incest with and produced five children. He also lived in public incest with his two sisters. He conducted a sex orgy in the Vatican in which he had a banquet featuring fifty nude girls who danced and serviced the guests – and even offered prizes to the man who could engage in sexual intercourse the most times.

Martin Luther himself also witnessed that Rome with its popes was anything but a holy city. He was quoted as saying, "No one can imagine what sins and infamous actions are committed in Rome, they must be seen and heard to be believed." It has been said, "If there be a hell, Rome is built over it." Having shown just a few examples of the corruption and wickedness that has existed in the lives of the popes; this evidence seriously undermines the belief of "apostolic succession," the claim that the Roman Catholic church is the one "true" church supposedly claiming to trace a line of pope back to Peter, since Peter himself stressed the importance of holiness. It is important to note that pagan popes can be traced back to Babylon but no Christian popes existed until Constantine in 312 A.D. declared himself to be Pope.

The popes were not the only ones that struggled with sexual misconduct; the clergy were just as guilty. When the doctrine of celibacy began to be taught, many clergy were married men. An edict was established in 315 A.D. that forbade a priest to remarry if his wife were to die. In 386 A.D. another edict came into being, allowing priests to be married but forbidding them to have sexual intercourse with their wives. Although this edict was in effect, a large number of clergy openly took wives and fathered children. Some monasteries and nunneries were known in history to be so bad that they actually had a worse reputation than the brothels. The violations by priests were so bad at one point that even female animals were not allowed on monastery property! Priests were urged to be chaste, and if they failed, at least be careful. With this man-made tradition imposed upon them, it made an already difficult job of the confessional even more difficult. The confessional was where sins had to be confessed specifically and in detail so that the priest could render judgment and offer forgiveness of sins. It is not hard to see that the outcome of girls and women and even boys confessing their moral weaknesses and desires to unmarried priests could readily result in widespread abuse. The Roman Catholic church has been lately rocked by one scandal after another of sexual abuse by priests.

The doctrine of a celibate priesthood that has done more damage than good since its inception. At the beginning of creation, God did not want Adam to be alone and created Eve for him. According to the Bible, it was God's design for a husband and wife to become one flesh and to cleave to each other, and yet the Roman Catholic church says otherwise. They have another man-made doctrine condemning priests to celibacy, something which God never intended. Bishops (i.e. pastors, priests) according the Bible are supposed the husband of one wife (I Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:6), Roman Catholicism adds to the Bible by placing an undue burden upon the clergy by forbidding them to marry (I Timothy 4:1-3), the Bible calls this a "doctrine of devils!" It is important to note that the priests of pagan Rome were also required to be celibate, and this tradition dates back all the way to Babylon and Semiramis several thousand years before. Even the idea of confessing to a priest came from Babylon. It is from recorded Babylonian confessions that historians have been able to come up with conclusions about the Babylonian concepts of right and wrong. The priests of pagan Rome were called "fathers," but Jesus said to call no man "father." (Matthew 23:9-12) From what source did the Roman Catholic custom of calling a priest by this title come from, Jesus or the pagans? Jesus spoke against flattering titles to his disciples, he wanted them to treat each other equally. Jesus meant for God the Father to receive all glory, not men. It is plain to see that the majority of the traditions of the Roman Catholic church are man-made and of pagan origins. An intellectually honest search will show the pagan roots of the Roman Catholic church.

The cardinals were the chief clergy in pagan Rome and the word in Latin means "hinge," hence they were pivotal serving as the priests of Janus who was the pagan god of doors and hinges. He was known as the "opener and shutter," and we can understand that better by the words of Jesus in Revelation 3:7-8. Jesus was the true opener, Janus was a counterfeit. These pagan priests wore the color red because it symbolized fire, they were the keepers of the sacred fire and accordingly were known as the "Flamens." All throughout the Bible, the color red is associated with sin. (Isaiah 1:18; Ezekiel 23:14-15; Revelation 17:4) With some knowledge of history, it is easy to see the merge of Babylonian paganism and Christianity and how they became one.

Roman Catholics who read the Bible will soon discover that many Catholic teachings and practices are specifically forbidden by Jesus Christ Himself. Worship is vain when it is based upon the commandments of men rather than the Word of God. Valid tradition is based upon Scripture and confirms it. Vain tradition is based upon man's teachings and violates it. In Roman Catholicism, tradition is consistently elevated above the Scripture. The result is vain worship, and no matter how sincere, it makes the commandment of God of no effect – a very serious matter.

The last few popes have expanded the ecumenical (worldwide) emphasis in the Roman Catholic Church to unprecedented heights. All unity purchased at the expense of doctrinal purity is satanic and deceptive. II Corinthians 6:14-18; Ephesians 5:11; II Timothy 3:1-17, 4:1-8. All who join hands in ecumenical fellowship with those who preach a false Gospel are under God's curse. (Galatians 1:6-10)

People do not realize that counterfeit religions, like counterfeit money, must resemble the genuine in order to deceive those who lack spiritual discernment or those who have not had the opportunity or taken the time to carefully compare all the major tenets of Roman Catholicism with the truth of God's Word. Only when one compares men's words with Scripture will it become obvious that Roman Catholicism is a carefully crafted counterfeit, not the pure, genuine, Biblical faith.

Jesus Christ plainly taught that Mary was on the same plane with all other Christians who would do the will of God. In Mark 3:31-35 we read:
"There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy

Partial text, use link for full text

http://eaec.org/cults/romancatholic.htm