Tim Kauffman

Within @shubzilla8's excellent and witty response we find the real problem with Rome's epistemology: her Magisterium is not the Sola Scriptura kill-shot that we were promised. As @shubzilla8 observed, Roman Catholicism would have us believe that Sola Scriptura is the sole cause of all sectarianism. Patrick Madrid, for example, once called Sola Scriptura “A Blueprint for Anarchy," claiming that "All Protestants believe they have embraced the ‘correct’ interpretation of Scripture." Roman Catholicism, however, claims that its three-legged stool of Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium is superior to Sola Scriptura. Ok. Then Roman Catholicism should be able to do what Protestantism cannot: put an end to the division, the sectarianism and the endless doctrinal disputes. But despite her claims, she is ever fragmented by innumerable different and contradictory interpretations of the Magisterium. Doesn't every Catholic believe he has embraced the 'correct' interpretation of the Magisterium? Of course he does. To claim to "submit" to Rome is to claim to submit to the correct interpretation of the Magisterium. @BreeSolstad (bless her heart), is just the latest example of this, as she claims to submit to the old (2024) kind of Roman Catholicism that still uses Co-redemptrix to refer to Mary, refusing to submit to the more recent (2025) kind of Roman Catholicism that does not. @Timotheeology recently claimed that papal minimalism is the only real kind of Roman Catholicism, and anyone who disagrees with him isn't even really Catholic. Archbishop Vigano doesn't think Vatican II was really ecumenical and @ClassicalTheis recently claimed that one of Vatican II's documents, Pope Paul VI's Nostra Ætate (1965), was "darn near close to error." Never fear, though! He discovered (to his relief) an unpublished 1938 draft of Pius XI's Humani Generis Unitas that provided the solid ground Nostra Ætate lacked. @ClassicalTheis, as it turns out, is the unpublished 1968 Humani Generis kind of Roman Catholic, not the published 1965 Vatican II Nostra Ætate kind. No wonder @Timotheeology once exclaimed that nobody really knows what's in the Magisterium, and lamented that "The dumbest part about being Catholic ... is that it takes a dissertation ... to figure out what the metamagisterium is." Gosh, golly, Catholics still can't even figure out if John Paul II's Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was ex cathedra or not. Sounds like a "blueprint for anarchy," @patrickmadrid! All of this fussin' and a-feudin' may be easily understood when Roman Catholics finally accept that the Scripture is our Magisterium. Yes, Protestants argue amongst themselves about the meaning of various Magisterial proclamations like Romans 9 and 2 Thessalonians 2. Just as Catholics argue amongst themselves about various Magisterial (and non-Magisterial) pronouncements like Nostra Ætate and Humani Generis Unitas. (But at least we don't wonder if they're infallible!) Catholics claim that their method of resolving disputes is superior to ours because they can always appeal to the Magisterium to get a new reading on what the old Magisterium taught. But as Timothy Gordon said, that process is so confusing that you can never really know if the Magisterium has resolved anything at all: "We need a Vatican III to explain Vatican I and to explain Vatican II." But wouldn't we then need a Vatican IV after that? What was the point of the Councils in the first place if we always need another Council to interpret the previous Council? This is what I call the @JoshuaTCharles moment, when a convert realizes that he was sold a bill of goods, and the endless doctrinal disputes didn't stop when he crossed the Tiber: "The inter-Catholic squabbles are exhausting," he wrote. Aren't they, though? And so it seems our dear @StNickofMyra is on the verge of his own Joshua Charles moment, verbalizing his frustration at the reality of unending magisterial contradictions: "This is likely why I won't be Catholic very long unless someone can explain this to me." I feel you, St. Nick, but nobody can explain it. They don't know how. Oh, I know we Protestants have our disagreements. But don't worry. When we disagree amongst ourselves we simply appeal to our Magisterium, the Scripture, just like Roman Catholics appeal to theirs. But we do have one tiny benefit that Roman Catholicism lacks: our Magisterium cannot contradict itself, for the Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35). Therefore, we don't spend our days lamenting the unending contradictions of our infallible Magisterium. There aren't any. Roman Catholicism, on the other hand, has over a billion denominations now (one for every Roman Catholic), and apparently grows a new one every time the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith issues another "clarification." But I'm sure the next papal proclamation will finally put an end to all "the inter-Catholic squabbles" once and for all! 😇 whitehorseblog.com/2023/07/1…

As a figurative turkey sandwich for your post-Thanksgiving reading pleasure, here is basically every conversation I've ever had with a Roman Catholic about the Canon of Scripture. Enjoy: I do so love this line of question about canonicity: RC: Protestants don’t have an infallible a way of knowing what’s in the bible! Protestant: What is your way of knowing? C: The Church gave it to us! P: When did the Church give it to you? C: At some 4th century council like Rome, Hippo and Carthage you idiot! P: But none of those 4th century councils was infallible. C: Jesus promised the keys to Peter. P: Where did He promise the keys to Peter. C: In Matthew 16! P: But to know that Matthew is Scripture, you would have to already know the canon of Scripture before the Church “gave” it to you. How is that possible? C: The Holy Spirit promised to guide the Church into all truth. P: If the Holy Spirit did that, would He do it infallibly? C: Of course, He’s God. P: When did He do that? C: At some 4th century council like Rome, Hippo or Carthage. P: But those were fallible, regional councils. They were not infallible. Only ecumenical councils are organs of conciliar infallibility in the Church. C: But the Pope is infallible, and he ratified them. P: But the Pope only exercises infallibility when speaking ex cathedra. Was the pope speaking ex cathedra when he ratified the regional synods of Rome and Carthage? C: It doesn’t matter. The ordinary magisterium can pass on infallible tradition without exercising the charism of extraordinary magisterial infallibility. P: But the Catholic encyclopedia says it is “impossible to prove conclusively” that the teachings of the ordinary magisterium are in fact infallible. C: Well, we just have to trust that Jesus kept His promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against the church. So the canon from those fallible councils cannot be wrong. P: When did Jesus promise that? C: In Matthew 16! P: So, to know the canon of Scripture, we must first know which books are in the Bible, so we can know that Jesus gave Peter the keys and promised magisterial infallibility to the Church, so that we can trust that the canon the Church gave us is the correct canon? C: That’s not how I prefer to put it, but yes. P: But the Church has erred on many things. How do you know the Church has not erred on the canon? C: Because if those early councils erred, then the Church fell into apostasy, and Jesus has not kept his promise. P: Where did He make that promise? C: In the Bible! P: The synod of Laodicæa (363 AD) omitted some apocryphal books as well as Revelation. Was Jesus breaking His promise when the synod of Laodicæa got the canon wrong? C: No. Laodicæa was not infallible. P: Neither were Carthage, Hippo and Rome. C: But they were ratified by the Pope. P: Was the pope speaking ex cathedra when he ratified them? C: No, but the Church kind of miniformalized the canon in the late 4th century. We only had to formally define the canon at Trent because those idiot Protestards were trying to remove books from the Bible. P: But Jerome (391 AD) did not believe the apocrypha were canonical. Was he an idiot protestard? C: No. That was a time when the canon was still being debated and he later changed his mind. P: Why was it being debated if the Pope had already promulgated the canon at Rome the previous decade (382 AD)? C: Canonization is a process, not a point in time. But the fact is, the Church gave us the bible in the 4th century, and everybody agreed on it until you Protestards questioned it in the 16th century. P: But Pope Gregory (6th century) said the Books of Maccabees were not canonical in Moralia in Job. Was he a 16th century Protestard? C: Moralia in Job was written before he was pope. P: He published Moralia in Job after he became pope. C: It doesn’t matter. Morlia in Job was not promugated ex cathedra. P: Neither were the canons of Rome, Hippo and Carthage. C: But those councils obviously gave us the correct Canon, which was unquestioned until you Protestards came along. P: But Hugh of St. Victor was a 12th century Catholic theologian. He said "There are also some other books, such as the Wisdom of Solomon, the book of Jesus the son of Sirach, the book of Judith, the book of Tobias, and the books of the Maccabees, which are indeed read but are not included in the canon.” Was he also a 16th century Protestard? C: No, he was just wrong for not trusting the Church’s definition of the canon. P: Like Pope Gregory? C: Papal infallibility does not mean popes don’t make mistakes. You’re mistaking papal infallibility for papal impeccability. P: So when did the church infallibly determine the canon of Scripture? C: The Council of Trent formally promulgated the canon if Scripture infallibly on April 8, 1546 at the Fourth Session. P: So before that, it was not necessary to know the canon of Scripture infallibly? C: It was necessary to trust the Church and the successors to the apostles. It is through them that the canon is revealed to us. P: But not through the successors to the apostles at Laodicea? C: As I said, Laodicæa was not infallible. P: But neither were Rome, Hippo and Carthage. C: But they promulgated the correct canon. P: So you basically have to know the canon of Scripture in order to know which councils were right. How can you say the Church gave you the Canon if you must first know the canon in order to determine if the Church has given you the right one? C: Doctrine develops. We do not live in the past. We live in the present. The canon was defined infallibly at the Council of Trent. Just because it wasn’t provided infallibly until Trent doesn’t mean we can ignore it now. Now we have it. The Church gave it to us. P: How do you know it was defined infallibly? C: As you yourself observed, an ecumenical council is an organ of magisterial infallibility. P: But how do you know which councils were infallible? C: Councils representing the bishops of the world in communion with the Bishop of Rome are Ecumenical and therefore magisterially infallible. P: But some Catholics think Arles (314 AD), Sardis (343 AD) and Trullo (692 AD) were ecumenical councils, while others think Constance, Basle, Lateran V and Vatican II were not. Before you can determine the canon of Scripture from an ecumenical council, it seems to me that you would need to know infallibly which councils were ecumenical. C: Well, there is no infallible list of councils. But a reasonable person is able to determine from each council which ones were magisterially infallible. D: But different Catholics come up with different lists of Ecumenical Councils. Is it really up to each Roman Catholic to determine for himself which councils are Ecumenical and then, from his own personal list of Ecumenical Councils, determine which books are in the canon? If I deny Trent was ecumenical, but accept Sardica, and Sardica affirms the canon of Athanasius, and Athanasius did not affirm the apocrypha, have I not found a different canon of Scripture using the same method that you are using? The only difference is which councils we think are Ecumenical. C: Well, obviously, if you come up with a different canon of Scripture than the one Catholics currently use, then it’s clear that you didn’t start with the right list of Ecumenical Councils, and thus arrived at the wrong canon of Scripture. That makes you Protestant. P: But I started where you did and arrived at a different list. We both started with the ecumenical councils. The only difference is that we have different councils we consider ecumenical. C: No, you started with the wrong list of Ecumenical councils. You can’t just pick and choose. P: You can’t pick and choose either. So please provide the infallible list of Ecumenical Councils so I can be sure we are both using the same list. C: There is no infallible list, but it’s pretty obvious which councils are ecumenical. P: It’s not obvious to Archbishop Viganó. He thinks Vatican II is a devil’s council. Many modern Roman Catholics wish to deny the title “Ecumenical” to Vatican II, including radical traditionalist Taylor Marshall. C: Well they’re wrong. P: How do you know? Did you have a burning sensation in your heart when you came up with your fallible list of Ecumenical councils? Why doesn’t Archbishop Viganó have that same burning sensation when he reads Vatican II? C: Well, he subscribes to the same canon of Scripture as I do, so that is an irrelevant point. P: So it’s not about receiving the canon from the Church. It’s only about having the right canon to begin with. C: No, we get our canon from the infallible Magisterium as exercised through the Ecumenical councils. P: But you have acknowledged that you can receive the canon from the fallible councils (Rome, Hippo, Carthage), and that you do not even need to know which councils were ecumenical to arrive at the correct canon. In what way have you relied on the infallible Magisterium as exercised through the Ecumenical councils? C: By trusting in Jesus’ promise to Peter and his successors. P: You mean by trusting your personal opinion that Matthew is in the Canon? C: That’s not what I’m saying. You have to first trust Christ’s Church to know the canon of Scripture. P: How do I find Christ’s Church so that I may put my trust in it? C: Read Matthew 16 and it will be obvious to you. P: But how am I to know Matthew is in the Bible? C: Listen, I thought this would be easy because I’ve been told by so many Catholic apologists that the easiest way to break a Protestant is to ask them how they know which books are in the bible. You’re not supposed to ask me the same questions back. That’s not how this works. You obviously don’t understand logic. Catholicism is the true Church and you’re a Protestard.

The claim, "Protestantism ... constituted every man his own judge of the Bible" at the expense of the Magisterium fails on inspection. By its very nature, Rome constitutes every man his own judge of the Magisterium. The only difference is the premise from which each man argues.🧵

INFALLIBILITY 101 If you have ever interacted with a Roman Catholic, you have no doubt run into the "You Don't Understand Infallibility" wall which the Roman Catholic erects to protect himself from the realization that he himself does not—and cannot—understand infallibility.🧵

To learn more about the introduction of clerical vestments, you can start with the Catholic Encyclopedia, not just because it serves as a hostile witness but also for its display of the endemic presumption of continuity, which may be summed up as: "a practice is found in the late 4th century; therefore it must have existed prior to the late 4th century." Pay attention to such language as "probably," "undoubtedly" and "possible, though not demonstrated," etc... The Encyclopedia concedes that in before Constantine, there is no evidence of priestly vestments: "Four main periods may be distinguished in the development of the Christian priestly dress. The first embraces the era before Constantine. In that period the priestly dress did not yet differ from the secular costume in form and ornament. The dress of daily life was worn at the offices of the Church. In times of peace and under normal conditions better garments were probably used, and these were especially reserved for the celebration of the Sacred Mysteries. It would undoubtedly have scandalized the faithful if they had seen the dusty, dirty, or worn garments. The opinion which St. Jerome expresses--'The Divine religion has one dress in the service of sacred things, another in ordinary intercourse and life'--is certainly true also for the pre-Constantinian period, which it is hardly permitted to regard as a period of liturgical barbarism. It is even possible, though not demonstrated, that, as early as the close of the pre-Constantinian period, liturgical insignia came into use among the bishops and deacons, as the orarion, or stole, and the omophorion or pallium." Next, go to the earliest known reference to priestly vestments: not an apostolic tradition but a gift from Constantine to Macarius of Jerusalem, ostensibly for the purpose of performing the rite of baptism: A "holy robe, which the illustrious Constantine the emperor, in his desire to honour the church of Jerusalem, gave to Macarius, the bishop of that city, to be worn when he performed the rite of divine baptism." It ended up being sold to a stage dancer (Theodoret, Church History, 2.23). That is neither "apostolic" nor does it support the purpose later alleged: for the offering of the liturgical sacrifice of the body & blood of Christ. Next, go to the alleged Canons of Hippolytus, ostensibly by the 3rd century bishop of Rome, the disciple of Irenæus. Canon 37 instructs the deacons & priests (and presumably the bishop) to wear garments more beautiful than those of the laypeople: "As often as a bishop takes of the sacred mysteries, let the deacons and priests be gather together, clothed in white robes, more beautiful than those of the rest of the people." But alas, the Canons are not from the 2nd century after all but are a late 4th century forgery in his name: "It cannot be placed with probability earlier than the latter part of the 4th century." (Encyclopedia Britannica, Hippolytus, The Canons of). Next, Cyprian of Carthage was alleged to have been led to his martyrdom wearing the dalmatica (Acta primorum martyrum sincera et selecta, 218), but the dalmatica back then was civil attire, not ecclesiastical, and we find no evidence that Cyprian used such garments in a sacerdotal capacity. Next go to the so-called Apostolic Constitutions, particularly The Constitution of James the Brother of John, the Son of Zebedee. Let's see what the apostles had to say about clerical garments: "Let the high priest, therefore, together with the priests, pray by himself; and let him put on his shining garment, and stand at the altar." But it turns out this too is a forgery, believed to date to the same "pseudo-Ignatius" who crafted the long recension of the real Ignatius' letters. The Catholic Encyclopedia places him in "the latter part of the fourth century." So far, what do we have? The Catholic Encyclopedia's concession that there is no evidence for clerical garments pre-Constantine, two forged documents alleging apostolic and anteNicæan origins of priestly vestments, an account of Cyprian wearing civil garments to his martyrdom, and then a discarded gift from Constantine for the bishop of Jerusalem to perform baptism, but not to offer the Eucharist, ultimate sold to a stage dancer. None offer a compelling argument for apostolicity or for antiquity. Where did clerical vestments originate? Out of nowhere, in the late 4th century (contemporary to the forgeries that alleged apostolic origins), Jerome says clerics don't wear "everyday garments" but "clean garments" to "hold in our hands the Sacrament of the Lord" (Comment. on Ezekiel 44), and "the bishop, priest, or deacon ... at the offering of the sacrifices walk in white" (Against the Pelagians I). But now, the Catholic Encyclopedia tips its hand: "the time from about the fourth to the ninth century ... is the most important epoch in the history of liturgical vestments, the epoch in which not merely a priestly dress in a special sense was created, but one which at the same time determined the chief vestments of the present liturgical dress." What else happened at that same time in the late 4th century? That is also when the offering of the church changed from being a Eucharistic tithe offering of gratitude to being a propitious Eucharistic offering of the body & blood of Christ. Thus, Ambrose would write that the sacrificial offerings of the new priesthood must be performed by celibate priests in especially pure clothing: "But ye know that the ministerial office must be kept pure and unspotted, and must not be defiled by conjugal intercourse; ye know this, I say, who have received the gifts of the sacred ministry, with pure bodies, and unspoiled modesty, and without ever having enjoyed conjugal intercourse. ... However, even the people had to be purified two or three days beforehand, so as to come clean to the sacrifice, as we read in the Old Testament. They even used to wash their clothes. If such regard was paid in what was only the figure, how much ought it to be shown in the reality! Learn then, Priest and Levite, what it means to wash your clothes. You must have a pure body wherewith to offer up the sacraments. If the people were forbidden to approach their victim unless they washed their clothes, do you, while foul in heart and body, dare to make supplication for others? Do you dare to make an offering for them?" (Duties of the Clergy, ch 50). Clerical garments were neither the result of an apostolic precept nor of a gradual development of sacrificial reverence, but a step-wise liturgical novelty introduced late in the 4th century, at the same time many began to believe the real offering of the Church was intended to be the body & blood of Christ rather than the "acceptable" and "well-pleasing" apostolic sacrifices of gratitude (Hebrews 13:15-16) and caring for those in need (Philippians 4:18). As I have said elsewhere, a such a drastic change in the priesthood necessitated a concurrent change in the law. That sudden change in the sacrificial offering led to a sudden change in sacerdotal rites, both in terms of celibacy and vestments. On which change in the sacrificial offering, more here: whitehorseblog.com/2020/06/2…

The fallback Catholic retort to ancient symbolic language falls generally into 4 categories: 1 Redefine "symbol" to mean reality 2 Say Protestants deny the symbol is real 3 Assume symbolic terms are implicitly literal and 4 Say the ancients used figurative terms differently🧵

Here is great illustration of a Roman Catholic finding something "explicitly" in Scripture that just isn't there. Mary is not the Davidic Queen Mother, Matthew does not introduce her as such, Elizabeth did not give her a title, and Mary is not the Woman of Revelation 12. 🧵