How we Know Roman Catholicism is False: A Primer
According to Roman Catholicism, her de fide dogmas are apostolic in origin.
According to Rome, public revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle. While there is acceptance of "private revelation," such is not infallible, and even approved apparitions (e.g., Lourdes [1858]; Fatima [1917]) are not binding nor the source of doctrine or dogma.
Rome teaches that the deposit of faith ceased being added to with the death of the last apostle. The only allowable development of such doctrines contained therein would be the adoption of terms to describe the teachings (e.g., use of the later term Transubstantiation to describe the change of the substance of the bread and wine when the priest utters the essential form of the sacrament; the appropriation of homoousios to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son). Substantially, however, Rome’s de fide dogmas//primary objects of infallibility are apostolic in origin.
Many of Rome’s de fide dogmas are not apostolic in origin, such as icon veneration and the Immaculate Conception of Mary.
Ergo, Rome is a false religion, even by her standards.
Of course, Rome’s apologists will appeal to “development of doctrine” and put it on steroids (e.g., Irenaeus and other early Christians believing Mary to be the New Eve means the Immaculate Conception; Jesus being said to be the εικων of the Father means what the Second Council of Nicea and the 25th session of Trent means con veneration ), but such is, functionally, the evolution of dogma, something condemned by the Catholic Church, such as Pius X's Pascendi dominici gregis (September 8, 1907).
Well there you have it folks, a religion of 1 billion people disproved by an Irish Mormon living in his mom's basement.
At some point, Mopologists need to step in and let him know he's embarrassing not only himself but Mopologetics as a whole.
Well, it's obviously game over for the Catholics now, thanks to Boylan's complete and thorough takedown. Catholicism had a great run for the last two thousand years, but all good things must end.
Nobody saw Boylan coming. Nobody.
"I'm on paid sabbatical from BYU in exchange for my promise to use this time to finish two books."
Well, it's obviously game over for the Catholics now, thanks to Boylan's complete and thorough takedown. Catholicism had a great run for the last two thousand years, but all good things must end.
How we Know Roman Catholicism is False: A Primer
According to Roman Catholicism, her de fide dogmas are apostolic in origin.
According to Rome, public revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle. While there is acceptance of "private revelation," such is not infallible, and even approved apparitions (e.g., Lourdes [1858]; Fatima [1917]) are not binding nor the source of doctrine or dogma.
Rome teaches that the deposit of faith ceased being added to with the death of the last apostle. The only allowable development of such doctrines contained therein would be the adoption of terms to describe the teachings (e.g., use of the later term Transubstantiation to describe the change of the substance of the bread and wine when the priest utters the essential form of the sacrament; the appropriation of homoousios to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son). Substantially, however, Rome’s de fide dogmas//primary objects of infallibility are apostolic in origin.
Many of Rome’s de fide dogmas are not apostolic in origin, such as icon veneration and the Immaculate Conception of Mary.
Ergo, Rome is a false religion, even by her standards.
Of course, Rome’s apologists will appeal to “development of doctrine” and put it on steroids (e.g., Irenaeus and other early Christians believing Mary to be the New Eve means the Immaculate Conception; Jesus being said to be the εικων of the Father means what the Second Council of Nicea and the 25th session of Trent means con veneration ), but such is, functionally, the evolution of dogma, something condemned by the Catholic Church, such as Pius X's Pascendi dominici gregis (September 8, 1907).
Well there you have it folks, a religion of 1 billion people disproved by an Irish Mormon living in his mom's basement.
At some point, Mopologists need to step in and let him know he's embarrassing not only himself but Mopologetics as a whole.
Bobby B is just posting cope because he is now a coward by his own definition. I think he put up three or four inane posts on his blog today attacking Matt Fradd, Jimmy Akin, and Catholicism as a whole. It’s probably a marketing ploy too. He is trying to start drama with bigger channels in order to increase his exposure.
Also, he just got done melting down about gish gallop but this cope post is the very definition of gish gallop. The other posts in his latest stream of nonsense are also "gish gallop" by his own standard. Boylan has no concept of consistency.
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
I'm no scholar in Catholicism, but I don't think Boylan's argument captures the Catholic position at all.
Catechism of the Catholic Church:
66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ." Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.
67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.
Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations"...
Private Revelation.
Although Public Revelation is closed with the death of the last Apostle, St. John, in the 90s A.D., God continues to reveal Himself to individuals "not indeed for the declaration of any new doctrine of faith, but for the direction of human acts" (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II-II q174 a6 reply 3). Since it occurs after the close of Public Revelation the Church distinguishes the content of such particular revelations to individuals from the deposit of the Faith by calling it private revelation. The test of its authenticity is always its consistency with Public Revelation as guarded faithfully by the Catholic Church. For example, alleged revelations which propose to improve upon, correct or entirely supplant Public Revelation are rejected by the Church as inauthentic, regardless of the claims made for them. Such revelations include those of Mohammed in the Koran, Joseph Smith in the Book of Mormon, the “revelations” of new age mystics, psychics and the like.
It would be one thing for someone like Boylan to post something like, "Here's something I don't get about Catholicism. Can anyone tell me what I'm missing?" To post a confident three-line rebuttal claiming that basic Roman Catholic ecclesiology is obviously not even self-consistent, though—that takes more than just hubris. Even if you think you're a genius, as long as you're not actually dim you're going to recognize that attacking the self-description of the Roman Catholic Church is confronting hundreds of billions of person-years of human thought. They can certainly be wrong, but it's pretty unlikely that they're really self-contradictory in such an obvious way. Even for a genius it would be smart to post cautiously.
That's the doggone thing about attacking ancient ideas. Their long survival means that they're likely to be more subtle than you realize, and yet if you misunderstand them, it looks dumber than misunderstanding a modern subtlety. It's like fighting an old martial artist. That many years of training makes them a lot more dangerous than they look, but then when they beat you, you've been beaten by an old person.
