Sunday, March 26, 2023

Catholic Answers Claimed to Give THE Catholic Response


Karl Keating and "Catholic Answers" · Catholic Answers Claimed to Give THE Catholic Response

I think I give a better one.

“The Anabaptists Were the FIRST Christians” | The Catholic Response
Catholic Answers, 2 Nov. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9lBoXwcRqg


Elf-lord's Friar of the Meadowlands
For every claim that "We were the original church before the Catholics did X" this must be recorded in history which they can cite clearly, otherwise they are taking advantage of the vagueness of history to make a very bold assumption. So because there were ~100-200 years since Christ ascended that an early Church Father wrote something condemning people which believed some of their beliefs, they assume that all of their beliefs comprised "The Church" and that this church was like them.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Very good point, "Elf-lord's Friar" but here we were dealing with no specific claim of doctrinal superiority, but with a spurious claim of apostolic succession.


0:57 Actually that's only part of the rationale for Ruckmanism.

We'll see if you come to adress their real claim.

1:20 St. Peter wasn't Pope yet when he denied our Lord. The status then was the chief disciple, while Our Lord Himself was the actual leader of His Church - and after His arrest, it dispersed.

In Mt 16:18-19 he was promised papacy by "verba de futuro" and he only got the papacy by "verba de praesenti" - the order "feed my lambs" etc - after repenting. John 21.

3:01 There may be Ruckmanites who claim Anabaptist pastors have succession from Novatian. You know, the rival of Pope St. Cornelius.

3:15 You are obviously ready for the fact that Ruckmanites will state that Justin and Irenaeus and Clement still were part of the original Anabaptist Church?

They might imagine that they got some things wrong, or overdid the importance of sth which was tactically true, but they will say that what we refer to as the Catholic Church prior to the clement approach of St. Cornelius was "their" Church. How do you refute that?

4:08 "within the Anabaptist Tradition, the answer would be no"

That would be the true answer, but is not exactly how Ruckmanites would see it.

How would you refute the Ruckmanites? I know how I do that.

5:58 No, you did not answer Ruckmanites.

I happen to know more about them.

1) they would certainly claim St. Peter's pre-eminence was just temporary for his own lifetime, not for all generations
2) they would claim monarchic episcopacy were against the NT specifications of the leadership
3) most importantly for the caller's actual query, what she wanted to answer her friend, they would claim that the Anabaptists have always been around.

This is where the answer is to be found. They haven't. They will point to Novatians, Donatists, Circumcellions even perhaps, and later on Waldensians and even Albigensians, as the continued presence of the original Church. They will therefore deny that Menno or Smyth and Helwys founded Baptism / Mennonite Anabaptism as Luther founded Lutheranism, they will pretend Menno on the one hand, Smyth and Helwys on the other, simply joined a Church that already existed since Jesus.

BUT they will fail to identify documented doctrines and behaviours, most notably of Circumcellions and Albigensians, with their own tenets.

There is a reason that the appeal to Apostolic Succession was important at Trent - Anabaptists were a tiny trickle when it came to the sects of the Reformation.

There is also a reason why it was less of an issue than "two principles" with Albigensians - the Albigensians, like the Ruckmanites, made a spurious claim to Apostolic succession. AND the way they motivated that claim and its supposed priority over the Catholic one was their view of doctrine.

Now, the original reason given - you would be better off answering it by stating that Our Lord, during the last years of the Old Testament, told His disciples to actually obey what the Pharisees said, but not imitate what they do. Why? Because this shows that even sinful men can make doctrinally sound rulings.

No comments: