Skip to comments.Dispelling the Myths in James White's Legends: A Response
Posted on 02/13/2007 11:57:37 AM PST by Titanites
The large gap that exists between Roman Catholic historical scholarship and Roman Catholic apologists is a large one indeed. One often finds the historians admitting what the apologists will not regarding the truths of history that are so often utterly contradictory to later Roman dogmatic claims. This is especially true regarding such modern doctrinal developments as the Marian dogmas and the infallible Papacy.
Over the past few years Roman Catholic apologists have been producing a great deal of written material of varying levels of quality. Books and magazines of this nature gain a wide audience. As in so much of our modern culture, many readers are willing to simply accept at face value whatever is said without performing any first-hand testing of the quality of the data being presented, let alone the conclusions that follow. The result has been a growing body of "Catholic legends," claims or concepts that are being presented as absolute fact by large numbers of Catholics who simply do not know better.
|James begins by impuning the integrity of not only Catholic apologists, but also most, if not all, Catholics who read and accept what these apologists have written. The gauntlet has been laid out. Let us just see who is promoting "legend" and who is presenting the Truth regarding history and the Catholic Church.|
A glowing example of how these "urban legends" get started can be seen in the way in which Karl Keatings Catholicism and Fundamentalism is treated by Catholic readers starved for some kind of an answer to the Evangelical position. If it appears in the pages of C&F, it must be true! And so highly questionable statements of dubious historic integrity (easily challenged by anyone familiar with the historic sources) end up being repeated as pure fact by those who implicitly trust their sources.
On page 217 of Catholicism and Fundamentalism we find a paragraph that has given rise to two of these "Catholic legends," ideas that are utterly without merit, historically speaking, but are now a part of the "lore" that makes up the majority of Catholic apologetics. Just as the medieval Church built its power on the back of spurious documents and forged decretals, modern Roman Catholics find a means of propping up their faith in supposedly historical dogmas through this kind of writing:
We have often seen amateur Catholic apologists confidently asserting that Cyprian believed in the infallibility of the bishop of Rome, or that Augustine took the word of Rome as the final authority. Surely that is Keatings intention, given the context, in citing both patristic sources. But, as all students of church history know (and as Roman Catholic historians have admitted for a very long time), neither early father would have agreed with the use of their words by Keating. In fact, Keating could never defend the veracity of his research against a meaningful criticism. Lets look briefly at Cyprian and Augustine and see how this Catholic legend is just that: legendary.
Cyprian did indeed speak of the "seat of Peter," in Latin, the "cathedra Petri." It was also very central to his view of church unity and authority. No one who broke unity with the cathedra Petri was truly in the Church. All of this is quite true. And beyond this, Cyprian spoke highly of the Roman see when defending Cornelius as a result of the Novationist schism in Rome. He rebuked those who rejected Cornelius position as the bishop of Rome. Despite this, Cyprian sent a sharp rebuke to Cornelius when he gave audience to men who had been deposed in North Africa.
But it is just here that we learn how important it is to study church history as a discipline, not as a mere tool to be used in polemic debate. We can assume out of generosity that when Mr. Keating wrote his book he actually believed that when Cyprian spoke of the "cathedra Petri" that Cyprian understood this phrase as a modern Roman Catholic would. That is, he may well have assumed that the "seat of Peter" was understood by everyone back then to refer to the bishop of Rome. However, all students of church history know differently. Cyprian (and the North African church as a whole for the span of centuries) believed the "chair of Peter" referred to all bishops in all churches across the world. Cyprian, for example, claimed to sit upon the "cathedra Petri" as did all bishops. For example, he wrote in Epistle XXVI:
This fact is recognized by Roman Catholic historians. Johannes Quasten, Catholic patristic scholar, commented, (Patrology, vol. 2, p. 375), "Thus he understands Matth. 16, 18 of the whole episcopate, the various members of which, attached to one another by the laws of charity and concord, thus render the Church universal a single body." And a little later Quasten cites the words of an African Synod, led by Cyprian, which said:
"Just as the medieval Church built its power on the back of spurious documents and forged decretals..." I have already answered James on this point, and he ignores the Truth on this issue. Please see my page entitled: The Papacy and the Early Fathers wherein the "False Decretals" are dealt with and James is answered. James is aware of this page, so he is either deliberately not reading it so as to avoid dealing with it, or he is being deliberately deceptive in his continued allusion to "forged decretals."
James does not refute Keating's use of Cyprian in the least, and in fact further down admits the importance of the cathedra Petri! He attempts to downplay the role of Peter's seat by emphasizing that the Church is run by all the bishops but in doing so he fails to recognize what he just said!
The fact that Cyprian offers strong criticism to the Bishop of Rome does not downplay the signifigance of the role the Bishop of Rome plays. Many popes were criticized, as was even St. Peter!
Perhaps the most damaging fact to James' position here, that he seems to overlook, is that the argument James is using here against Keating demands that one be in communion with one of the bishops in succession (from the Apostles). So, let us ask James, to which bishop in valid succession from the Apostles, does the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church belong? I, for one, would be very interested to see this line of succession acknowledged and documented - for if it cannot be shown, then truly James is the one being disingenuous in using THIS citation from St. Cyprian.
Then Dr. White brings up the often quoted: "Roma locuta est, causa finita est" which is, at least in part, what spurred this webpage from Dr White. Well, this too has been answered, likely on the page that sent you here: http://www.a2z.org/acts/aug131.htm
Y'all are really exercised about James White, aren't you?
Haven't had this much fun since throwing pebbles at old man Murphy's bull over in Chauvin Pasture.
Why do you keep posting new threads? Why don't you just go back to the original thread with White's article and try, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, to refute it?
There is no reason to refute a pack of distortions and lis a second time if someone has already ably done it a first time.
Well, no. I'm not any more "exercised" about White than those who post White's hit pieces are "exercised" about the Catholic Church. I don't see you on the other threads accusing the posters of White's material of being "exercised" about the Catholic apologists discussed in his article. Do I smell hypocrisy, again?
My reason for posting these rebuttals of White are first, because someone requested I post them (instead of only leaving the links to these articles on the thread about White's article), and second, it can't hurt to expose White's errors for what they are. If it "exercises" you so much that I've posted these, maybe you should avoid these threads.
Before those with thin skins start whining about invectiveness, please read the articles by both authors.
If it bothers you so much, stay away.
Why don't you just go back to the original thread with White's article and try, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, to refute it?
Because I don't have the time. White's article is very lengthy and two apologists have already refuted it. There's no need for me to do it again.
That bull in Chauvin Pasture is a lot of fun, but this could prove to be even funner.
At the same website, you can also you can find a photographic tour (all 4 photos) of the seminary (Dr.) White attended.
Photo of Columbia Evangelical Seminary
"This article" is found at a website promoting the LDS church, underneath a section with articles about "The Worst Of The Anti-Mormons". Are you a Mormon, Titanites? Do you regularly go to Mormon resources in a search for truth? And here I thought you were a Catholic. Confusion abounds!
Welcome to SHIELDS, a site for responses to issues raised by critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (The Church of Jesus Christ, LDS, Mormons). This information is presented with the hope that you will not be deceived by those who would not tell you the truth about The Church of Jesus Christ.
So are you claiming that what is posted about Columbia Evangelical Seminary is untrue simply because it is posted on a Mormon website?
As is evident in the hit pieces you post.
"This probably explains why White is so confused."
Please explain how a Christian Seminary or any religious seminary can be accredited by the state? In order for that to happen the state would have to pass on the theology, bible courses and faculty as well as the admission policy of the seminary and that would violate the First Amendment.
Accreditation would also mean that the seminary has submitted to the authority of the state. That is why the State of Washington has an exemption for seminaries. Lack of state accreditation is meaningless as it applies to seminaries. Look at the faculty on the web site. They are more than qualified to teach and mentor grafuate students.
"They are more than qualified to teach and mentor grafuate students."
And graduate students too!
Not by the state:
In general terms, the national accreditators may be divided into those that accredit academic programs leading to a degree, those that accredit vocational programs leading to preparation for a career, and those that offer specialized and professional accreditation as an add-on to other accreditation.
You are right, it's one view. Let me give you another view, Acts 4:13, "Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus." That's what accreditation means.
How can a secular institution evaluate the course of study and the faculty of a religious institution? Would a Roman Catholic institution allow a Fundamentalist Baptist or a Calvinist Presbyterian to evaluate it's theology department or it's bible courses or it's faculty or it's library or facilities? Would it allow an atheist or Orthodox Jew to have the final say on whether it is teaching it's students properly?
Could you please delete my post #18, as it can be taken as a personal attack. Thanks. I will post a slightly revised version.