|
Note: Please see the
background information provided on our debate page at www.aomin.org/disqualified.html for information concerning this debate.
The following response is
written in view of the following: Responses are limited to 2500
words, not 2500 words plus numerous hyper-links so as to provide
citations without those citations counting against the word
total.
[Begin Word Count Here]
If professional debate judges were involved
in this adventure, the debate would have ended. John Mary has
violated every canon of decorum and behavior in debate. If this
was a public debate, the judges would have stopped it, and
assigned the victory to me already, merely on the basis of
flagrant disregard for the rules. But we have no debate judges.
Instead, those who love the truth and are concerned about
representing it will disregard the numerous ad-hominem
attacks, irrelevant comments, and off-topic presentations, and
will press onward with a positive defense of the thesis. That is
my intention.
The vast majority of my opponent's first
rebuttal is beyond the bounds of response. I will attempt to find
enough to interact with within the realm of what is proper to
provide an edifying experience for those who are following the
debate.
Most importantly, I wish to deal with the
complete misrepresentation of Athanasius that marks the majority
of John Mary's comments. I have presented a great deal of
information regarding the fact that at the Council of Nicea the
bishop of Rome was not viewed as the head of the universal
Church, the pastor of all Christians. Indeed, I refuted my
opponent's use of Sylvester, his anachronistic appeal to a
tradition that did not develop until the seventh century, and the
like, in my earlier installments. I stand with many historians in
recognizing the process of development in papal authority.
Indeed, Dr. Jackson rightly commented:
In truth the supremacy of
the Roman see, as it has been understood in later times,
was hardly [at the time of Basil] on the horizon. No
bishop of Rome had even been present at Nicea, or at Sardica, where a certain right of appeal to his see was
conceded. A bishop of Rome signed the Sirmian blasphemy.
No bishop of Rome was present to save `the world’
from the lapse of Ariminum....The great intellectual
Arian war was fought out without any claim of Rome to
speak. Half a century after Basil’s death great
orientals were quite unconscious of this supremacy
[referring here to Theodoret]. (NPNF, Series II, vol. 8, xxx.)
My opponent attempts to push
Athanasius into a Roman Catholic mold by citing the Council of Sardica. The reader should note a couple of things. First,
Sardica was a completely Western council, the Eastern delegates
refusing to attend due to the presence of Athanasius and other
non-Arians. The rights granted to Julius, the orthodox (i.e.,
non-Arian) bishop of Rome, were apellate in nature only,
and, one would think, would be unnecessary to even be stated if
my opponent's theory is correct, that being that years earlier,
at Nicea, the gathered bishops viewed the bishop of Rome as the
universal head of the Church, the pastor of all Christians. Why
grant to the bishop of Rome a lesser authority at
Sardica than what my opponent claims was already his by universal
acclamation two decades earlier? My opponent speaks of Athanasius
appealing to the "Holy Father," though, of course, one
will search in vain for such terminology. Athanasius did appeal
to the bishop of Rome. . . and many other bishops, in his fight
against Arianism. Let us not forget that one of those bishops of
Rome, Liberius, caved in under pressure and condemned Athanasius.
One would think that if Athanasius viewed the bishop of Rome as
the universal leader of all Christians, he would have acquiesed
to Liberius' condemnation. But he did not.
The fact of the matter is plain:
Rome was the only apostolic see in the West. As such, it had a
great position of prestige and power. But prestige and power do
not equate to primacy over the universal church. It is
interesting to note that the very canons my opponent cites from
Sardica were never accepted by the Eastern churches, and
ironically, a hundred years later Zosimus, bishop of Rome,
mistakenly cited them as if they had come from the Council of
Nicea rather than the local council of Sardica.
Let the reader consider well the
lengths to which the defender of Rome must go to turn Athanasius
into something he wasn't. Hundreds of pages of his writings are
available to us, and yet my opponent cannot come up with anything
more substantive than what he has? Can you imagine a modern Roman
theologian addressing the deity of Christ and related subjects
without repeatedly mentioning the authority of the "Holy
Father" on the matter? And yet, any person who reads
Athanasius seriously and fairly will understand why it can be
safely concluded that Athanasius did not see any one man, or any
one position, as the "head of the Church" on earth.
Later on in his rebuttal my
opponent again returns to Athanasius, even providing us with some
actual citations. But these not only do not help him, they prove
his unfamiliarity with the writings of the early Fathers in their
original contexts. He reads into the phrase "apostolic
tradition" his own modern understanding, failing to
recognize that Athanasius used the term to refer to the writings
of the Apostles themselves, not to some extra-biblical
source of revelation (see Letter LX, Ad Adelphium,
6). But more seriously is his use of sources out-of-context.
While accusing me of citing Athanasius out of context, he does
this himself. Note his citation:
"But you are blessed, who by faith are in the
Church, dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and have full
satisfaction, even the highest degree of faith which remains
among you unshaken. For it has come down to you from APOSTOLIC
TRADITION, and frequently accursed envy has wished to unsettle
it, but has not been able" (Festal
Letters, 29).
But if you follow the hyper-link,
or look up the passage yourself, you find the following:
On the contrary, they have rather been
cut off by their attempts to do so. For this is it that is
written, ‘Thou art the Son of the Living God,’
Peter confessing it by revelation of the Father, and being
told, ‘Blessed art thou Simon Barjona, for flesh and
blood did not reveal it to thee, but ‘My Father Who is
in heaven,’ and the rest. No one therefore will ever
prevail against your Faith most beloved brethren. For if ever
God shall give back the churches (for we think He will) yet
without such restoration of the churches the Faith is
sufficient for us. And lest, speaking without the Scriptures,
I should [seem to] speak too strongly, it is well to bring
you to the testimony of Scriptures, for recollect that the
Temple indeed was at Jerusalem; the Temple was not deserted,
aliens had invaded it, whence also the Temple being at
Jerusalem, those exiles went down to Babylon by the judgment
of God, who was proving, or rather correcting them; while
manifesting to them in their ignorance punishment [by means]
of blood-thirsty enemies. And aliens indeed had held the
Place, but knew not the Lord of the Place while in that He
neither gave answer nor spoke they were deserted by the
truth. What profit then is the Place to them?
Note that this letter is written
at the height of the Arian ascendancy and during the reign of Liberius.
Athanasius' whole point is that while the Church itself
is inhabited with unbelievers (Arians), the truth remains strong,
even though the majority of the professing Church denied it,
including at this point the Roman bishop! Yet, as Athanasius
says, "yet without such restoration of the churches the
Faith is sufficient for us." Can you imagine a Roman
Catholic saying this? And after saying all of this, including
making reference to apostolic tradition, how does Athanasius
clinch his point? By reference to the Scriptures, of course, not
by reference to an infallible Pope. Such would have been
impossible at the moment, of course, since this is the exact
same year in which Liberius caved in and acquiesed to the demands
of the Emperor and entered into fellowship with the Arian bishops
against Athanasius! John Mary could not have picked a worse
example to cite, for it proves my case for me with brilliant
colors. It is almost humorous, then, that immediately upon citing
this passage, my opponent says, "These,
and the above quotes from Athanasius should settle the issue of
that Father's Catholicity." Catholicity, yes; Roman
Catholicity, no.
Regarding purgatory, my opponent
provided a list of names of early Fathers he said confirmed the
"truth of Purgatory." However, as he did not provide a
single citation from any of them, his assertion is not allowable
in a debate, due to lack of support. After a long and pointless
tirade on the Luther's 95 Theses, my opponent claims the Nicene
Fathers believed in the treasury of merit because he today
interprets certain verses to refer to merit. Not only is his
exegesis flawed and without merit itself, but it hardly follows
that because John Mary misunderstands certain Bible passages
today that the bishops at Nicea had to suffer from the same
problem. Again we find his claims to have nothing more than the
force of his own word.
Regarding extra-scriptural
tradition, my opponent does not demonstrate that the Nicene
Church interpreted the passages he presents in the same way he
does. Aside from this problem, he assumes that 2 Thessalonians
2:15 presents some separate, different "oral tradition"
that fits his definition. As I have pointed out many times in the
past, this is untrue. The passage does not bear the weight placed
upon it by Roman apologists. For the passage to be relevant, it
would have to be proven that the tradition to which Paul refers differs
in substance from the message he had delivered to the
Thessalonians in writing. And, since the context of the passage
identifies the topic to be the gospel itself, Paul is simply
exhorting the Thessalonian believers to fidelity to the gospel
message that was delivered to them orally (i.e., by preaching)
and by letter (1 Thessalonians). Since it is the Roman Catholic
who is making the positive claim that this passage refers to more
than the context demands, the weight is upon him to prove his
case.
The self-refuting nature of the
Roman claims to authority is further illustrated by the following
statement of my opponent: "Where
in the New Testament can we find all the words spoken by Our Lord
during the forty days after his Resurrection?" This is
offered as a rebuttal to the sufficiency of Scripture. Many Roman
apologists use this kind of argument, yet, we have to ask in
response, "Where does Roman Catholic tradition provide us
with all the words spoken by our Lord during the forty days after
His resurrection?" Of course, Rome doesn't claim to know, so
why offer the argument? The argument also errs in assuming we have
to know. We don't. The Word does not have to be exhaustive
to be sufficient.
My opponent asks for one Roman
dogma that cannot be traced to the early Church. Since I offered
a whole host in my opening statement (indeed, isn't that what
this debate is about in the first place?), I can't imagine what
he's thinking. But, to be simple, the Bodily Assumption of Mary
is one such doctrine. It first appears around A.D. 495, and then
as a doctrine found only in heretical books anathematized by Gelasius, bishop of Rome!
Finally, my opponent completely ignores the
point I have raised on a historical basis regarding the concept
of transubstantiation and the worship of reserved hosts. He
writes:
James has approached the brink of dementia at this point.
The belief in the doctrine of Jesus' Real Presence in the
Eucharist - a doctrine James admits is historically provable,
but one he rejects as a Protestant - finds its devotional
expression in reserving the Sacrament in our tabernacles for
private adoration. (We hope this fact gives the reader some
insight into the "logic" of James White.) The fact
that this particular devotion was not practiced in the time
or region of the Council of Nicæa is a moot point. (If James
wants to know why it wasn't practiced, I'd be happy to let
him know in the Q&A section).
Aside from the blatant ad-hominem argumentation,
what is this supposed to mean? I have pointed out that "real
presence" does not mean "transubstantiation." If
he says the two are the same, the burden lies upon him to prove
his point. Saying he will provide such documentation in the
Q&A section is cop-out and should not be accepted. The simple
fact is that tabernacles were not a part of the experience of the
early Church----not just in Nicea, but anywhere, for that point.
It is not a moot point. It is a historical confirmation of the
evolution of the doctrine of Christ's spiritual presence
with His people in the Supper into the Aristotelian dogma of
transubstantiation. I can understand why John Mary does not wish
to engage this topic. I wouldn't want to if I were in his
position, either. However, I hope he does not intend to relegate
this topic to a position in the debate where length limitations
will preclude any meaningful counter-documentation.
In conclusion, I note that my opponent,
aside from violating every rule of debate, has also failed to
make any kind of meaningful case against the presentation I have
submitted. I have shown his attempted use of historical sources
to be very faulty, and his exegesis to be surface level at best.
I submit to the impartial reader that my opponent is so locked
into his system that he cannot see how it developed and evolved
over time. Since Rome's authority is his highest authority, it
becomes the presupposition that gives form to everything else,
including his use and understanding of scriptural and historical
data. The vast majority of Roman apologetic material suffers from
this same problem, though not to the depth seen in John Mary.
[End Word Count]
[Total Word Count: 2327]
Leave
James White e-mail
Leave
Brother John Mary e-mail
|
