Recently I had the pleasure of interviewing Dr. Steve Weidenkopf, a very prominent historian of ecclesiastical history on the Reason and Theology channel, to which I recommend all my readers. However, the purpose of this article is to continue my response to Craig Truglia, Eastern Orthodox apologist, friend, and fellow co-host of Reason and Theology, who had written a nice summary of our live debate, which came out to be titled Is Roman Catholicism Schismatic: The Case for Orthodoxy. Some of my readers have already caught attention to my first response. Well, here I am, Lord permitting, giving a second part as following. Continue reading
While I took the opportunity to read some comments on Facebook which were a discussion on the historical veracity of the Catholic Church’s belief on the assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, I thought I would write something about the Marian apologia that Catholics have to offer. But first, let me state some preliminary remarks. Continue reading
I’ve had the chance to look at some of the articles going up on the web, and I have to say that we are seeing far more critical publications by Catholics of the Church than before, which led me to ponder the below.
If we are going around telling people “the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church”, we should have an idea of what it looks like for the gates of hell “to prevail” in order for the former to have any semblance of reliable definition.
Secondly, if, while we insist that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church”, we are at the same time practically allowing maximum capacity in the Church for error and false teaching with this our that explanation, then what does that entail other than a complete reduction to meaninglessness of our first insistence?
One time, in speaking with an ex Eastern Orthodox, now Protestant, he said, “What it means for the gates of hell to prevail is for the Church, whatever that is, to go out of existence completely” (words to that effect). Well, with that conditional, we have more than a wax nose to suit failing or successful circumstances. In fact, pretty much any failing circumstances short of complete obliteration maintains the promise! Any con man would love that criteria! Would work wonders! And if our apologetics has stooped to that level of cheat, then it is worth absolutely nothing.
Just some structure to keep in mind folks.
From time to time, I often hear people refer to the 2nd Vatican Council of the 1960s to point to the first time where the Catholic Church made its break from the tradition extra ecclesiam nulla salus, having no prior precedent whatsoever in the history or magisterium of the Church. However, this would be false. Below, I’ve listed some historical precedent which goes as far back as nearly 100 years before the 2nd Vatican Council. Before that, I have some preliminary remarks.
Also, there are those who will cite Pope Boniface VII’s Unam Sanctam or Pope Eugene IV’s Cantate Domino (yes, still on the Vatican’s website) as proof that the Catholic Church, at least at Vatican II (see, however, below), has contradicted her teaching. To confront such a claim, it would take a whole entire article.
“This approach does serious harm to the stated rationale behind the liturgical reforms of Thomas Cranmer, and the very basis of the “Anglican patrimony” and Prayer Book tradition that the Ordinariates were formed to preserve and foster in union with the Catholic Church. It also represents a serious obstacle to widespread adoption of the office among those not already inclined to it.”