Sample Chapter

Debate Charts on Roman Catholicism

Introduction

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The charts on the following pages were prepared for debates between myself and Robert Sungenis, President of Catholic Apologetics International. The debates were held January 14-15, 2000, in Fresno, California and May 2 and 4 at Tennessee Bible College in Cookeville, Tennessee. The resolutions for the debate were as follows:







Gospel preachers have debated Roman Catholics before and have rendered a valuable service in so doing. Usually these debates have centered on the question of religious authority, the doctrine of the papacy, or the nature of the true New Testament church. These discussions are vital in combating Catholicism. However, there are two issues that are more fundamental than these, and unless we strike at Catholic doctrine on these very foundational or root levels, the Catholic defender will have room to get out of any logical corner we try to trap him in. For instance, we can quote the Bible to a Catholic all day, but how will this refute his doctrine as long as he says, "Yes, the Bible is Godís Word, but you must understand that God also preserved the oral teaching of the apostles through the Catholic church"? The Catholic believes that the Bible must be understood in light of this teaching, which they call "Sacred Tradition." If you argue, for example, that the New Testament says nothing about infant baptism, the Catholic will readily admit this. He will add, however, that Sacred Tradition does speak of itóand this Tradition is to him just as much the Word of God as the Bible is. In fact, when you cite any passage about the Word of God (e.g., Matt. 24:35; John 12:48; I Thess. 2:13), the Catholic will immediately think not just of the written words of the Bible but also of the spoken words of the apostles handed down through the ages by the Catholic church ("Tradition"). Tradition, you see, is his trump card over any verse you quote. But the game doesnít stop here. Catholicism also holds, as Mr. Sungenis affirmed, that the Holy Spirit continues to guide the Catholic church into truth. This doctrine is the belief that the pope and the bishops (who are together called the "magisterium") are guided by the Holy Spirit in defining dogma for the Catholic church. This doctrine is thus another trump card over Scripture. Still, however, the Catholic has another trump card. Even if you show him that his tradition or the magisterium contradicts the Scriptures, he will use that other card: the idea that only the Catholic church can give the "authentic" interpretation of the Bible.

In light of these tactics, how do you "pin down" a Catholic on anything? I believe the way to do so is to challenge the very foundation of his doctrine by pressing two fundamental issues:

1. How does God reveal His will to man? Does He speak to us through the Bible alone or through the Bible plus some other means? How can we know when a message that claims to be from God actually is from God?

2. Can we understand revelation from God? Do individuals have the ability to understand Scripture, or must they rely on the judgment of the Catholic church?

We may spend a lot of useful time discussing points of Scripture with Catholics, but if we are to undermine and expose their doctrine fully, we must take the trump cards out of their hands. The essence of our disagreement with Catholics is our differences over the topics of (1) revelation and (2) interpretation. These charts address these issues. Particular false doctrines of Catholicism are addressed only as they serve to illustrate these fundamental differences. Thus, many false doctrines of Catholicism are not covered in these charts because the purpose of this debate was specific.

This debate is available on audiocassette ($15.00) and videocassette ($20.00). You may order a these from Tennessee Bible College, P.O. Box 865, Cookeville, TN 38503-0865.

Kerry Duke

CATHOLIC DOCTRINE

Finding the right words to describe Catholic doctrine is difficult. It is confusing and contradictory. It is manipulative and hypocritical. It is circular in its reasoning and empty in its claims. It rewrites history and redefines terms at will. It either ignores its inconsistencies or tries to alleviate them with excuses more absurd than the inconsistencies themselves. It is a centuries-old system of doctrine that is more complex than the IRS tax code.

It is no wonder that much of the "laity" of the Catholic church is unconcerned about the endless disputes within the "clergy" over doctrine. By the time they even begin to see the real nature of Catholic doctrine, many wonder: "Who really knows and who cares? Iíll just believe what they tell me and live as I see best." Catholic doctrine is by nature divisive and creates apathy in its members. The aim of Catholic doctrine is control, and what better way is there to keep members in control than to make the doctrine so complex that they have neither the patience nor the desire to understand it?

Because of obvious contradictions between Catholic doctrine and the Bible and between Catholic doctrine and itself, Catholic officials must constantly invent escape mechanisms. When pressed with these contradictions, a Catholic will immediately try to so qualify his terms or constantly shift the discussion to another category that an objector becomes disinterested in the discussion. I call these maneuvers "Catholic wildcards" in one chart, and some explanation of the tactics will be helpful:

1. "Official" church teaching. This escape device is a favorite among defenders of the Catholic religion. When Catholics are caught with a doctrine so ridiculous that they cannot deny its falsity, they just claim that this was not "official" church teaching. This is usually their excuse for the Catholic church's condemnation of Galileo. The New Catholic Encyclopedia makes this absurd defense about the Galileo case: "The actions of the Holy Office and the congregation of the Index in no way represented a commitment of the infallible teaching authority of the church against the new astronomy. The decree of the Index received papal authority only in forma communi and therefore was only the fallible decision of a Roman congregation" (Vol. 6, "Galileo," pp. 253-254). So the holy "office" condemned Galileo, but this condemnation was not official! And how would anyone be able to tell whether a teaching was official or unofficial? This "official" distinction is a Catholic way of restating the doctrine of infallibility. The doctrine of the popeís infallibility was made "official" church doctrine in 1870 against protests from high-ranking Catholic "officials." But this doctrine does not claim that the pope is infallible in his actions, his personal decisions, or even his teaching on all spiritual matters. It holds that he is infallible only when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, from his official chair or position, and then only in harmony with the bishops. Thus the pope and the bishops can teach false doctrine and practice immorality and a Catholic can just say, "Well, the pope and bishops are infallible only in official church teaching." What a convenient and absurd excuse!

2. Similar to the "official" distinction is a claimed distinction between dogmas of the Catholic church and other doctrines and matters of discipline in the Catholic religion. Mr. Sungenis explained this distinction in personal correspondence before the debate:

Dogma refers to what has been officially deemed as infallible teaching in the Catholic Church. The two natures of Christ, the Immaculate Conception, the denial of faith alone for justification, are examples of dogma. In order to be a Catholic one must believe in all the dogmas of the Catholic Church. This is in contrast to (a) "canon law" which a Catholic must obey but not necessarily believe in, e.g., a celibate priesthood, and (b) "theological opinion" in which a Catholic has the choice to believe one thing or another, e.g., how predestination and free will work together, or whether Jonah was really swallowed by a big fish.

Thus, if you ask, "If Catholic teaching is infallible, then why has the church changed its teachings on some matters such as eating meats on Friday?", a Catholic will respond that this requirement was not a dogma of the church.

3. Also connected to this last distinction is the Catholic doctrine of development. Catholic doctrine is ever evolving. When a contradiction between present Catholicism and past Catholicism is noted, a Catholic defender quickly lays hold of the horns of this altar. For instance, if you point out that key Catholic figures centuries ago opposed the idea of a universal bishop (pope) or the adoration of Mary, the Catholic apologist will appeal to this doctrine. He uses historical development to try to redefine the meaning of contradiction (this doctrine is much like G. F. W. Hegelís dialectic philosophy). He may try to liken this doctrine to the transition from the Patriarchal age to the Gospel dispensation, which took hundreds of years and involved the changing of many positive requirements of religion. But God Himself changed the law of the Old Testament, and when He did so, He confirmed the change by miracles--something Catholics cannot do.

4. The Catholic distinction between material and formal sufficiency enables Catholic defenders to confuse and stall opponents unfamiliar with this tactic. When asked whether the Bible is all-sufficient, that is, whether it contains all that we need, Catholics may answer yes and no. They explain that the Bible is materially sufficient, that is, the Bible contains the implicit material needed for the Christian. However, they will argue that it is not formally sufficient, that is, it does not give us the explicit formal details we need. Those formal, explicit details, they contend, can only come through the magisterium. Thus, the Catholic church is said to make explicit what is only implicit in the Bible. Of course, they argue that only the Catholic church can provide this interpretation.

5. Allegorical interpretation. Used commonly by the famous fifth-century Catholic Augustine and by his predecessor Origen, this method of Bible interpretation makes the Scriptures into a ball of clay that Catholics can mold and shape as they please. Remember that there is a difference between the interpretation or use of an allegory and the arbitrary method called allegorical interpretation. Augustine, for instance, said that the "light" in Genesis 1:3 is the good angels. He has no contextual proof of his claim; his basis is his own imagination. This twisting of Scripture allows the Catholics to escape tight spots in debate. For instance, when Mr. Sungenis said that the Bible gives no clear verdict on the issue of capital punishment, I cited Paulís reference to the "sword" of Romans 13:4. Mr. Sungenis replied that we cannot know from this passage whether this was a literal sword or some figurative reference to something else! I wonder what Paul in the same context is telling evildoers to fear!

6. If all else fails, the Catholic can always fall back on the doctrine of sacred tradition. If he cannot justify his belief by twisting Scripture, he will resort to tradition, quoting the "church fathers" as his proof. Of course, this appeal takes us back to the initial root question: what is your proof that these traditions are inspired of God and constitute divine revelation? If he will not address this question, he may then appeal to the magisterium, claiming that the Holy Spirit guides the church through the popes and bishops. Of course, the same essential question is waiting for him when he makes this move, and he will usually go back to another wildcard and begin the whole vicious cycle again.

Arguing with a trained Catholic is like playing chess with a strange rule for the chessboard. If you corner a Catholic and proclaim checkmate, he will say, "Not so! I will place another board next to this one and move my king onto it!" The Catholic has many such imaginary chessboards given to him by the Catholic church. This is why some brethren have said that it is hard to pin down a Catholic.

Catholic doctrine also reminds me of the ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus. He believed life was in such a constant process of change that he said "You cannot step into the same river twice," because if you step into a river one day and come back the next day to step into it again, the river is not the same river because the waters are completely different. His successor, Cratylus, took this doctrine even farther. He said that you cannot even step into the same river once, because from the time you decide to step in the river to the time you actually step into it, the river has already changed. Arguing with Catholics reminds you of this thinking. Catholic apologists constantly redefine words, qualify statements, and revise positions in an effort to sustain their assertions in defense of Catholicism.

Catholics and Jehovah's Witnesses

". . .Thus the Bible is an organizational book and belongs to the Christian congregation as an organization, not to individuals, regardless of how sincerely they may believe that they can interpret the Bible. For this reason the Bible cannot be properly understood without Jehovahís visible organization in mind."

- The Watchtower, 10-1-67, p. 587

"Rome claims that the Bible is her book; that she has preserved it and perpetuated it and that she alone knows what it means; that nobody else has any right to it whatsoever, or any authority to declare what the true meaning of it is."

- Henry G. Graham, Where We Got The Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church, p. 11.

Mormons and Catholics on Church Authority

Mormons--"No one in this Church will ever go astray who ties himself securely to the Church Authorities whom the Lord has placed in his Church. This Church will never go astray. . .There could be individuals who would falter; there will never be a majority of the Council of the Twelve on the wrong side at any time" - In Conference Report, April, 1951, p. 104

Catholics

"The Church teaches that "the bishops have by divine institution taken the place of the apostles as pastors of the Church, in such wise that whoever listens to them is listening to Christ and whoever despises them despises Christ and him who sent Christ"

- Catechism of the Catholic Church, sec. 862.

MORMONS AND CATHOLICS ON THE KEYS OF THE KINGDOM

MORMONS

"The Keys of the Kingdom are the power, right, and authority to preside over the kingdom of God on earth (which is the Church) and to direct all of its affairs"

- Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine (Salt Lake City, 1966), p. 411.

CATHOLICS

"The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the ërockí of his Church. He gave him the keys of the church. . .The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head"

- Catholic Catechism, sec. 881.


Private Judgment


Infallibility of the Church    Private Judgment

 
YET:





CATHOLIC ABUSE OF I TIMOTHY







Islam and Catholicism on Proof

Islam


- Al Quran: The Miracle of Miracles, by Ahmed Deedat, p. 67.

He claims as proof:






Catholicism

"The Church, in herself, is a moral miracle"

- Rene Latourelle, The Theology of Revelation, p. 417.

"Just as Christ was a sign to the men of his time by the radiation of his whole person (doctrine, witness, holiness, miracles), even so the church, by its radiation of her whole being (spreading, unity, stability, holiness, fecundity), is a sign. . ." - Ibid.