The Two Faces of Rome

It's a predicament. I love me some Roman Catholic lay people. And I hate me some whacky Gospel denying Popery.

For citations of these teachings of the RCC, and a bit of commentary, check out my blog post: http://thehighmidlife.blogspot.com/2011/07/two-faces-of-rome-directors-commen...

Category:

Film & Animation

Tags:

• Lutheran
• Satire
• church
• Roman Catholic
• Catholic
• pope
• evolution
• justification
• vatican
• council
• of
• trent

[mattkennel]

I definitely enjoy your videos (the one on baptism was classic), but - as a Roman Catholic layman and a theologian - I was waiting to hear you talk about Roman Catholicism. All in all, not a terrible critique, but it's just so hard to take this argument so seriously when so much of the historical-critical method has come from Lutheran scholars (e.g. Wellhausen) in the first place. As scholarship it definitely has its uses, but its bad points are a pox on all our houses.

[TheLutheranSatire]

@mattkennel "but its bad points are a pox on all our houses." This is most certainly true. And I know that the current Bishop of Rome is much more skeptical of it than his predecessor. But a greater purge would do us all some good.

[TheLutheranSatire]

And yes, you're also right that some bad Lutherans have contributed much to higher criticism.

[wyclifdotnet]

Hey, man. Love your videos. But it's spelled "wacky" and "Popery" should be capitalised. Thanks.

[TheLutheranSatire]

@wyclifdotnet I object! "Whacky" is an accepted alternate spelling of "wacky." I shall, however, meet you half way and capitalize "Popery."

[coleridgeboy]

Some evangelical hipster with purple horn-rimmed glasses and eighteen seconds of seminary training. Muwahahahah!~

[TheLutheranSatire]

@npmccallum Textual criticism and the historical critical method are not the same. I'm talking about Rome's acceptance of all the Q, JEDP stuff that denies the prophetic and apostolic authorship of the books of Scripture and presupposes the impossibility and absence of inspiration.

[Ken1Lutheran]

Roman exegetes were forbidden by Pius X to use the historical-critical method--then Pius XII reopened the door and most of the Roman exegetes ran through it.

[CatholicAmerican]

@mpalenik

That's some great apologetic work.

How about this. In the book of acts. What book did the disciples read which told them that they had to get together and pray about a way to replace the position that Judas once held?

The answer is that they didn't have a book. This is the first instance of apostolic succession. Mathias replaced Judas by an act of sacred tradition. A tradition that thankfully continued until the bible was compiled in 393 at the council of Hippo.

[mpalenik]

(continued) was modified several times, including the removal of books from the old testament. It's rather interesting that until Luther all the bibles were wrong, until he finally turned them into the inerrant, sole sources of divine inspiration that they are today, 1,100 years after they first began circulating.

[mpalenik]

@CatholicAmerican Exactly. It's rather interesting to think that the only possible source of divinely inspired revelation would be a book that didn't even exist until approximately 350 years after Christ, when that very same book contains statements to the contrary (such as in Timothy where it says something along the lines of "remember to keep the traditions both oral and written", or at the end of John where it refers to the Many things Jesus did that are not contained in the book) and which

[CatholicAmerican]

@bobwaters

Christ started a Church, not a bible.

And with the keys to the kingdom that Jesus gave Peter in Mt 16, Christ's Church decided to gather all of the stories about Christ into one volume. They had to make pronouncements on which stories were True and which stories were false. Christ started a Church and gave that Church authority on matters of faith and morals. No Church, no bible. The reverse would not be a true statement.

[CatholicAmerican]

@bobwaters

Let's take a second and think about that.

Christ ascends into heaven. There's no St. Paul yet, what now?

You gather around the disciples and start doing what Christ taught. Christ never commanded people to scribe a bible. The bible is idea of the successors of the successors of the first disciples.

There is no bible until the only Church that God started, decides to scribe and compile one under the guidence of the Holy Spirit.

[bobwaters]

@CatholicAmerican It would be great, too, if Catholics recognized- with Augustine- that the Bible is the place where sacred tradition has its definitive form. If the Church created the Bible, the content of the Bible created the Church.

[bobwaters]

Actually what's pathetic is that anybody could be ill-informed enough to claim that Jesus- who is better attested historically than, say, Socrates- never existed. Hard to take people seriously who make claims like that.

[USAsoldier1955]

@TheLutheranSatire "Pseudo-Lutherans" would be better than "bad Lutherans", don't you agree, Brother,

when impugning heresy & apostasy? :)

[Sapphonouveau]

@Quinntonia Exactly. I'm a trad-ish Anglo-Catholic and just waiting for the vid that takes the mickey out of Anglicanism.

Suffice to say, we have high expectations...