...into the ring:
11/27/2010 - James White
I am so thankful for brothers who are digging deep and exposing the new crop of Roman Catholic apologists, providing in-depth and historically accurate rebuttals of the vain attempts to substantiate the mythology of modern Rome's claims. Both John Bugay and Turretinfan are posting a series of blog articles that, if you deal with Rome's apologists regularly, you need to read. John is responding to Scott Windsor, one of the first of Rome's representatives I engaged, more than twenty years ago now.
Is it not a bit contradictory to point out how White is so proud of his brothers going after “the new crop of Roman Catholic apologists” and then singles out a discussion with “one of the first of Rome’s representatives (White) engaged, more than twenty years ago now?” I might add, White was the first Protestant apologist I engaged after I converted to the Catholic Faith in 1988. After 29 years being born and raised a Protestant (Lutheran) and even an anti-Catholic, the last 7 years of my Protestant life I spent debating with Francis Marks (may he rest in peace). I became convinced that the Catholic Faith as established by Jesus Christ Himself, and the Catholic Church which He Himself built, as He promised He would do, was correct and renounced my Protestantism. Well, I wanted to be sure I had made the right decision and it was shortly before my conversion I had run into White on the “Bible Foundation BBS” in Phoenix, AZ. From what I had seen of White I felt if I had made the wrong choice, he would be able to bring me back. Well, as he states, it’s been over 20 years now and White has not been able to ask me a question I cannot answer - while at the same time he has left several questions unanswered. He has been caught in several erroneous statements, even somewhat admitting to one of them leaving most of those statements as is, in error instead of correcting them and humbly admitting he was wrong. Which brings out another irony; while he will attack papal infallibility, White seems unable to admit to error even in the smallest of incidents. To the objective onlooker White (in his own presentation of himself) goes beyond infallibility and into impeccability! Catholics will readily admit that no pope is impeccable and that all popes have made and will make mistakes - but White seems to have put himself above even one of his highest criticisms of the papacy!
TurretinFan is addressing a topic I have commented on many times: to any honest reading of the facts, Rome's Papal claims hang suspended in mid-air, the foundation used to raise the edifice of papal power having been washed away by the facts of history long ago. This is true in so many ways, but in TurretinFan’s article he addresses the myth of "apostolic succession." We constantly hear about the "2,000 year old church," and this is often equated with the Papacy. But there are so many holes in this "succession" that one is truly left wondering exactly what is being traced through history. From the non-monarchical episcopate at Rome for the century to Imperial and political interference in the choice of the bishop of Rome to the anti-popes to the Pornocracy to the Avignon Papacy---how can anyone seriously claim this is a divine succession, given by God to guarantee uninterrupted truth and transmission of tradition? Yet, men and women continue to show their true spiritual pedigree by falling under the sway of false religions, including that of Romanism.
05:47:46 - Link to White’s article
Well, I would point out first off that Roman Catholicism is not “Romanism.” Many anti-Catholic apologists like to use that word “Romanism” as a slur, and it is a slur. “Romanism” would more accurately relate to pagan Rome. Yes, these anti-Catholic apologists may consider Catholicism to be pagan, but that only demonstrates further their bigotry. One will note, when the anti-Catholics get cornered they tend to resort to name-calling. Some get so accustomed to the name-calling that they have begun using slurs (like “Romanism”) without provocation.
Secondly, apostolic succession does not mean that there is a man sitting in the seat of the Bishop of Rome at every moment throughout Church history! As in the case of Judas’ seat, there is always a time of sede vacantism (empty seat) until a valid successor is chosen. There were times when an invalid successor attempted to usurp the seat of Peter, this is a fact we do not deny! The point is that office of St. Peter remains to this day and the current valid successor to St. Peter’s seat is Pope Benedict XVI.