re: Ted Cruz Shares Anti-Catholic Conspiracy

That analogy doesn’t really work. No one is saying God “waited for a vote.” The question is how the Church recognized which books were actually inspired.

Early Christians disagreed on several books for centuries. Appealing to “the Spirit already made it clear” doesn’t resolve that, because different Christians claimed the Spirit and still had different canons.

So practically speaking, how was the dispute settled? Historically it was settled through the authority of the Church at councils like Rome, Hippo, and Carthage.

Protestants today accept that same canon, but reject the authority that recognized it. That’s the tension Catholics are pointing out.

So your answer is…?

quote:

---

shared explicitly states “this isn’t about Catholics.” But the Catholics start hyperventilating defending a viewpoint (by default) that they claim doesn't really exist.

---

sounds familiar

Most protestants follow the correct triune God, albeit with many flaws as to how they practice. But some of them who are Israel apologist indirectly follow Baal.

I know they do. I just want to hear how specifc parts of that massive strawman article is explained on here.

quote:

---

They don’t have the priesthood, apostolic succession, or the sacraments

---

Peter said we are all a "royal priesthood". Christ is the head of the church, then you have the elders/pastors/bishops/presbyters of the individual congregations, then the deacons of those congregations. That's the extent of church governance in Scripture.

Apostolic succession is not a thing.

The only "sacrament" in Scripture is the Lord's Supper.

Studying Scripture is great… but the real question is who gave you the authority to decide those interpretations are correct?

For the first 1,500 years of Christianity the overwhelming majority of Christians believed in things like baptismal regeneration (including infant baptism), the real presence in the Eucharist, prayers for the dead, apostolic succession, and the veneration of saints and icons. These weren’t late inventions.

But even looking at Scripture itself, the Catholic positions aren’t coming out of nowhere…

Mariology:
Mary being honored and uniquely chosen isn’t controversial in Scripture. Gabriel calls her “full of grace” (Luke 1:28). You can specifically look at the original Greek from the Septuagint to know what kind of tense the verbiage was. Spoiler alert, it supports my side… Elizabeth says she is “blessed among women” (Luke 1:42). Mary herself says “all generations will call me blessed” (Luke 1:48). At the cross Jesus entrusts her to the beloved disciple (John 19:26-27), which the early Church saw as symbolic of her spiritual motherhood. While you’re at it, why don’t you go ahead and read revelations chapter 12 verses one two and five specifically. Who do you think that is?

Transubstantiation and the Real Presence:
Jesus says plainly, “My flesh is true food and my blood is true drink” (John 6:55). Many disciples left because of this teaching and He did not correct them (John 6:66). At the Last Supper He says “This is my body… this is my blood” (Matthew 26:26-28). Paul warns that receiving unworthily profanes the body and blood of the Lord (1 Corinthians 11:27-29), which makes no sense if it were merely symbolic.

Ecclesiastical hierarchy:
Christ clearly establishes leadership in the Church. Peter is given the keys of the kingdom and authority to bind and loose (Matthew 16:18-19). The apostles receive governing authority (Matthew 18:18). Paul instructs Timothy and Titus to appoint elders and oversee churches (1 Timothy 3, Titus 1). That is the structure of apostolic succession. it goes much deeper than this, as you can imagine, but trying to keep it short for the sake of time.

Icons:
God explicitly commanded sacred images in the Old Testament: cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant (Exodus 25:18-20) and the bronze serpent (Numbers 21:8-9). The prohibition in Exodus is against idols, not all images. Christians don’t worship image…. they honor what they represent.

Praying for the dead:
Scripture shows prayers offered for the dead in 2 Maccabees 12:44-45. Paul also prays for the deceased Onesiphorus (2 Timothy 1:16-18). This reflects the early Christian belief that prayer can benefit those who have died in God’s grace. you would know this and have it in your Bible if you all didn’t adopt the false Jewish canon, which wasn’t settled by them until after Christ by the way. we use the proliferated Jewish canon from the time of Christ, which is referenced tons of times in the New Testament.

Infant baptism:
Baptism replaces circumcision as the covenant sign (Colossians 2:11-12). In the old covenant infants were included. We also see entire households baptized in Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33. Baptism is described as the means by which we are reborn (John 3:5) and saved (1 Peter 3:21). actually, this very first step that was taken by the apostles in the book of acts proves hierarchy, apostolic succession among many other things.

If Scripture alone were meant to settle all of this, we wouldn’t see thousands of denominations reaching contradictory conclusions while all claiming to follow the same Bible.

So the question isn’t whether you studied Scripture. The question is why your private interpretation should outweigh the consistent teaching of the historic Church that preserved the Scriptures in the first place.

You are essentially acting as your own pope.

quote:

---

I haven't seen anyone in here make the distinction as they see it. Do you put Catholics in different buckets?

---

That part seemed fairly clear. The distinction being between Political Catholic Integralism and "regular" Catholics or simply Catholics who don't want to change the foundation of our country..

quote:

---

Catholic integralism is not a fringe movement. Its leading figures include Adrian Vermeule, a Harvard constitutional law professor; Sohrab Ahmari, the former New York Post op-ed editor; Patrick Deneen, a Notre Dame political theorist; and Gladden Pappin, editor of American Affairs. These are among the most credentialed conservatives in America.

Integralism holds that Catholic moral theology should guide government, and it explicitly rejects the Protestant liberal settlement that built American constitutionalism: individual rights, religious liberty, separation of church and state. The founding documents of America are, in the integralist reading, a Protestant error.

...Vermeule has advocated for open immigration of baptized Catholics to overwhelm the Protestant demographic majority.

---

Integralism would explain the desire of the Catholic Church to get as many Central and South Americans into the country as possible.

quote:

---

The article also claims turning the GOP towards Catholicism

---

The article never mentions the GOP turning towards Catholicism but towards Integralism.

quote:

---

Integralism wraps itself in the language of faith, but it is not primarily a theology — it is a political program for the seizure of state power. Christ is not its center. The Church as a governing institution with coercive temporal authority is its center. There is a profound difference between those two things, and serious Christians of every denomination should recognize it immediately.

What integralism ultimately demands is not that more people come to know Jesus. It demands that a specific ecclesiastical hierarchy sit above elected governments, that civil law bend to Church authority, and that the democratic consent of the governed be subordinated to the doctrinal pronouncements of an unelected clerical class. That is not Christianity.

That is theocratic monarchy with a cross on the flag. It is the same basic power structure that the American founders explicitly rejected when they built a constitutional republic — they had seen what state churches did to human freedom in Europe for a thousand years, and they designed this country specifically to prevent it from taking root here.

When integralists attack the Constitution as a Protestant error, they are not defending Christ. They are attacking self-governance. And every conservative — Catholic, Protestant, evangelical, or secular — who believes that human liberty under constitutional law is worth defending should understand that integralism is not their ally. It is their opponent.

---

quote:

---

don't want to change the foundation of our country..

---

Straw man

quote:

---

The article also claims turning the GOP towards Catholicism

---

Just for the record this is an actual example of a straw man.

You create an argument that wasn't made for the author so that you can easily defeat said straw man.

The author pointing out that there are actual people advocating for Catholic Integralism isn't an example of a straw man. It's just a fact.. You can dismiss it as a minor concern or something that is overblown but to call it a straw man is not accurate and quite silly.

quote:

---

Catholic integralism is not a fringe movement.

---

Seems rather belied by the fact that most Catholics don't even know what it is.

Article wants to sort of have it both ways, though. I'd love so see the author take a stab as to what percent of Catholics he (ETA, I guess it's a SHE, though???) believes adhere to the ideas of "Catholic integralism" so as to constitute something more than a fringe movement. I'm pretty sure, I've never met anyone who does.