Tuesday, May 10, 2005

Help Wanted: Roman Catholic Troll

Looking for Roman Catholic Apologetical Troll/Contributor

The ideal candidate should be demonstrably skilled in the following:

(1) The ability to make sweeping claims about the epistemically privileged position that Roman Catholics enjoy over classical evidentialist Protestants. Frequent use of the words "Infallible Arbiter" a plus.

(2) The ability to wave off liberal scholarly claims in books containing the imprimatur and/or nihil obstat and/or imprimi potest while stating "Those scholars are not real Catholics!" and "They don't speak for Catholics!"

(3) Cliches and canards are a real bonus. We here at Pedantic Protestant especially value claims such as
(a) "Our Church goes back more than 500 years"
(b) "You owe your Bible to the Roman Catholic Church"
(c) "Sola Scriptura is nowhere in the Bible"
--and--
(d) "Protestants have [insert large number here] of denominations while we have unity"

(4) Also valued is the ability to fluidly move from original intent to the "development of dogma" in discussing encyclicals and synodical writings.

(5) Highly prized is the ability to make a priori philosophical assumptions about what the Church must be and then to read these back into scriptural texts. If Matthew 16 doesn't contain the papacy in seed form for you, you're not the person for the job. If hearing "the church is the/a pillar and foundation of [the] truth" doesn't get you hot for Rome, please don't apply.

(6) Take every synod and reference to "church" in any writing and think "The Roman Catholic Church of Today."

(7) Finally, scattershot references to the Early Church Fathers make a candidate more attractive. Self-selecting which Fathers to report and then claiming that Rome has always believed thus will be handsomely rewarded.

Salary negotiable; full benefits including health care, child care, and 401(k) plan.

Send resume and samples of previous Roman Catholic trolling to:

Pedantic Protestant
P.O. Box 1618
Dallas, TX 75201

[Written with a big tongue-in-cheek to Diane and a few other real life RC's I know.]

13 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Before I make any comments as to why I should become your Roman Catholic troll, I'd like to know more about the benefits. Do I pay for this out of the salary that you give me or do you pay the entire cost? Is there matching available for the 401K or do I have to put it all in myself out of the salary? What kind of salary range are we talking about?

Diane

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 2:35:00 PM  
Anonymous Diane said...

I'm not exactly sure why you are so upset with people who say that your Bible came from the Church. It is a fact that an early Council did determine which books were canonical and which were not. A Roman Catholic would say that Council is a part of the magisterium.

Since one of your earlier rants was about all of the different Bibles that people seem to want today, I would think that you would want an authority to determine what is and isn't in the Bible.

Or, do you want to have every person sift through the various texts that the Council did and determine which books are canonical and which are not?

It would seem that the latter would be more reconciliable with the Protestant view. But, based on your earlier rant (where people do seem to be creating their own Bibles based on their view of canonical), I don't think that you really believe this. But, Sola Scriptura would seem to demand this (if followed fully).

I look forward to your reply,
Diane

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 2:46:00 PM  
Anonymous Cardinal Neuman said...

There's a whole gaggle of the kind of people you're looking for in the comments section over at Dave Armstrong's blog.

And Diane--please quote an official statement from ANY church council prior to Trent that agreed with Trent about the canon of Scripture.

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 7:01:00 PM  
Blogger Pedantic Protestant said...

Cardinal Neuman:

None of those people speak for Roman Catholicism in general, only a little Victorian clique of Roman Catholicism [language borrowed from Steve Hays at triablogue.blogspot.com] that those with official positions in the magisterium would very well be at odds with. I assume they're all lay RC's [correct me if I'm wrong].

I'll take the seminary priests at my university who are Catholics, as well as those who are official scholars and teachers with official standing in the Church. If the group you mention has any official standing besides making comments on an internet site, I'll still take those who are the real official scholars, who must have even more standing.
The problem is that some of those who have the official standing say some rather embarrassing things to the Victorians.

Also, it isn't RCism that gets under the PP's skin, and it sure isn't Diane, but rather these cutesy "silver bullet" sort of arguments that either prove nothing or can be turned back on Rome Herself.

In 12 years or so of on-and-off paying attention to these issues, I see the same lazy arguments and incredibly strong claims that are lacking the requisite spadework for justification. For example, did you know that Sola Scriptura isn't a doctrine found in the Bible? Yawn. Did you know that Sola Scriptura has bred thousands of denominations while Rome is an essential unity? Yawn.

PP

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 11:27:00 PM  
Blogger Pedantic Protestant said...

Diane ----

You can be my RC troll anytime you'd like. There's a song title in that.

You'll also notice that my rant about translations was not about making up one's own Bible relative to which writings would be included, but in how one would translate the already-given 66 writings of the OT and NT. I wasn't poking fun at you p.c. study Bibles because they picked-n-choosed extra-canonical writings or, say, left out Romans because Rom 1 offends homosexuals. I was making fun of their translations and emphasis in the study notes.

By not reading my post just a bit more carefully, you've really impressed the Board of Directors here at PP as regards your qualifications. That's some fine RC troll work there. Impressive!

PP

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 11:34:00 PM  
Blogger Pedantic Protestant said...

Note --- Diane's a real life friend, so, if she is to be picked on, do it nicely. =D =D

PP

Wednesday, May 11, 2005 1:35:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, I haven't been doing it for 12 years although I have been reading your blog for about 12 min and I am already starting to yawn.

However, you are pedantic and a Protestant ;)

Wednesday, May 11, 2005 7:33:00 AM  
Blogger Pedantic Protestant said...

Alas, this is as exciting as it gets here at PP. I suppose you'll have to have some Mountain Dew to keep the eyes open. There's a vending machine down the hall. =D

PP

Wednesday, May 11, 2005 12:17:00 PM  
Anonymous Diane said...

cardinal neuman:

As for Councils that agreed with Trent as regards to the canon, have you looked at Florence (1442) or the Synod of Hippo (393)?

The Synod of Carthage (397) also enumerated the OT books that Roman Catholics use (even the ones that Protestants consider Apocrypha). Just as an aside, it appears that there was a strange line in their enumeration about Rome ("But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon"). Now, they could have meant some other church beyond the sea, but it still seems strange that even at this early stage, some churches were seen as more authoritative than others.

I have also seen references to the Council of Rome (382) describing the canon as currently taught by Roman Catholics.
Now, I do understand that there was a disagreement between St. Jerome and St. Augustine on these books, however it is my understanding that Jerome did acquiese and include the "Apocrypha" in his Vulgate (although he did not retranslate them as he did the Hebrew).

Of course, I could be wrong in my findings, but this is just what I've been able to glean through catechism and reading. There may have been earlier Councils which also gave the same books as canonical, but I'm not really a Bible scholar so I haven't researched it more.

So, in my opinion, the canon was not determined at Trent, but just reaffirmed.

Wednesday, May 11, 2005 3:03:00 PM  
Blogger steve said...

http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT4.HTM

"The Tridentine list or decree was the first infallible and effectually promulgated declaration on the Canon of the Holy Scriptures."

Saturday, May 14, 2005 2:55:00 PM  
Blogger Pedantic Protestant said...

Diane says:

"So, in my opinion, the canon was not determined at Trent, but just reaffirmed."

Steve says:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT4.HTM

"The Tridentine list or decree was the first infallible and effectually promulgated declaration on the Canon of the Holy Scriptures."
[See footnote 4]

This is juicy.

PP

Saturday, May 14, 2005 3:51:00 PM  
Anonymous Diane said...

Steve & PP,

While footnote 4 may state that it was the first effectually promulgated declaration, that does not mean that it didn't just reaffirm earlier decrees. I notice that neither of you reject the claims that the earlier synods & councils did list the same books. You just say that in those synods & councils it wasn't infallibly and effectually promulgated.

But, since cardinal neuman's original question was for me to supply any previous council's official statement about the canon, it doesn't matter if the others were not effectually promulgated. They just needed to make a statement that those books were canonical.

I suppose that some could argue that we may not be able to view the original documents (war and pillage can make old documents difficult to find).

So, how can we know what the early Church determined what books to read? As an RC, I can certainly say that tradition plays a big part in it (see these documents on the EWTN site for more information: http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/2CANONS.HTM and http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/2CANONS.HTM). However, these arguments may not be rigorous enough for you.

So, then I went searching for information about the Vulgate since I knew that St. Jerome had written it before the Council of Trent. I was curious as to what books would be included (especially since I knew through Tradition that Jerome had argued about the canonicity of the books we are discussing). Online, I found a ftp site that gives the Vulgate books in a compressed format (http://www.ewtn.com and go to Document Library and search for Vulgate). Now, the version they have includes all of the books that you have stated were not effectually promulgated. So, it appears to me that that was the canon if it appears in the Vulgate.

I also did some searching through Orthodox sites to see what some of their pastors & theologians stated about the history of the Bible (I figured that if anyone would be concerned about the RCs monkeying around with the sacred texts, they would know and be glad to shout it from the rooftops). However, I only found articles such as this one: http://www.antiochian.org/Orthodox_Church_Who_What_Where_Why/Who_Gave_Us_The_New_Testament.htm?keywords=bible.

So, I would still maintain that the Council of Trent just reaffirmed the canon. It had to state it more forcefully because there were those who had taken it upon themselves to determine which books belonged in the Bible and which did not.

Monday, May 16, 2005 2:20:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Diane:

You are to be complimented for your patience and generosity.

Tom

Saturday, October 22, 2005 2:58:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home