An Anti-Papist Argument I Never Heard Before

[Sam Jer]

For the first time in probably over a year, I watched a video by Redeemed Zoomer. Now generally I would not recommend him - he is often inconsistent, holds positions we'd rightly disagree with, is confusing, and so on; and these problems do show up in this video so viewer discretion is advised.

He took a month to study Romanism. He mentions early in the video thay he came with an open mind, and with the understanding that joining Rome would be a positive for him temporally speaking. However, he became more fortified in his disagreement with Rome. His main argument can be summarized as following:

1. If Rome has infallibility, it won't infallibly contradict itself
2. But Rome does infallibly contradict itself
3. Therefore it does not have infallibility

His main example was on the possibility of salvation outside the Roman church, where he contrasted Florence with Vatican II. He did speak however about a more formal video in the future where he'd go through more examples.

Unlike RZ, I have not read the statements of Florence or of Vatican II, so if someone that understands these things can confirm the validity of the argument it will be appreciated.


The video - I studied Catholicism for a month... will I convert?
A follow-up video reacting to a response by the Papist apologist Trent Horn - Response to Trent Horn's critique on my video (on why I'm not becoming Catholic)
In these videos, RZ does claim Romanists can be saved, denies inerrancy, endorses Karl Barth, slanders non-denominational Christians as non-Protestant, ext. Viewer discretion is adviced.

 

[mpb]

Yes, Pre-Vatican II and Post-Vatican II Roman Catholicism are drastically different, and their exclusivity is probably where this comes through the clearest.

Pre-Vatican II:

“Now, therefore, we declare, say, determine and pronounce that for every human creature it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff.”
—Unam Sanctam, papal bull by Pope Boniface VIII, 1302

The RCC “firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives.”
—Cantate Domino, bull from Council of Florence (17th council), 1431-1449


Post-Vatican II:

“Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic… Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation”
—Catechism of the Catholic Church, 819

"The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day.”
—Catechism of the Catholic Church, 841

 

[Edward]

Basic hole in this argument is that the Pope only claims infallibility when speaking ex cathedra. So comparisons of pronouncements by the pope, given ex cathedra, are the only places that this analysis is going to work.

Now generally I would not recommend him

You probably need to consider removing the 'generally' from that statement.

 

[Sam Jer]

Basic hole in this argument is that the Pope only claims infallibility when speaking ex cathedra. So comparisons of pronouncements by the pope, given ex cathedra, are the only places that this analysis is going to work.

They also claim councils though, don't they? RZ's main example was on the councils of Florence and Vatican II

 

[ZackF]

Compare the “Syllabus of Errors” from the 19th century to *anything* coming from Rome now.

 

[jwright82]

They also made a big deal about "development of doctrine" which basically gives them carte blanche when changing things. That's a whole mess of stuff to get into.

 

[Ploutos]

The problem with all of these anti-Roman arguments is that they assume doctrinal consistency and systemization as a shared goal, when in reality it's more of a Protestant thing. Roman Catholicism as a system is not organized around a set of clearly defined doctrinal tenets; it is organized around the Church and its authoritative right of interpretation. That's not to say that Rome has never had a clearly defined system of doctrine; but because it has a prior commitment to its own authority over all else, even to objective truth and logical consistency, some sort of internal contradiction was bound to come up eventually. And that doesn't really matter from the Roman viewpoint. When you have already sacrificed a prior commitment to objective truth in favor of loyalty to man-made authority, these sort of "gotcha" moments tend to fizzle upon impact. Add to that the reality that modern secularism, postmodern relativism, and religious nominalism have all made just as much headway in the Roman Church as they have in Protestantism. Most Catholics know little and care less about Tridentine Catholicism, so quoting from the Council of Florence is likely to be as effective as crashing a Super Bowl party at your neighborhood Southern Baptist church with printed copies of WCF 21.

At the end of the day, Romanism is a syncretistic fusion of Christianity and paganism. The idea of an internal contradiction, so common to some Eastern religions, really isn't that big of a deal. Vatican 2 vastly increased the internal ambiguity and tension, but it did so on the basis of a premise that was already well established hundreds of years earlier - "we are the church, we can say whatever we want, we can say it is internally consistent, and you just accept that it is or else".

 

[Deleted member 12431]

So much can be said as to why Rome now teaches something so apparently contradictory to its prior statements, but here's some topics for you to do some research on that may help in understanding: John Henry Newman's teaching on the development of doctrine, Henri de Lubac's innovations in the nature/grace debate, Karl Rahner's notion of an anonymous Christian, and Hans Urs Von Balthasar's belief of a possibly (though in his mind probably) empty hell. In researching these you can come to an understanding of the theological/intellectual maneuvers that made the claims of Vatican 2's Lumen Gentium possible and acceptable in the eyes of the Roman faithful, despite what appears to be a blatant contradictory element when compared with prior teaching.

 

[pianoviolin]

Add to that the reality that modern secularism, postmodern relativism, and religious nominalism have all made just as much headway in the Roman Church as they have in Protestantism. Most Catholics know little and care less about Tridentine Catholicism, so quoting from the Council of Florence is likely to be as effective as crashing a Super Bowl party at your neighborhood Southern Baptist church with printed copies of WCF 21.

The reality is many (not all) Roman Catholics (esp. cradle Catholics) don't care to discuss justification by faith alone vs. justification by faith and works. Many Catholics do not regularly attend mass (in Italy, I believe only ~5% attend mass weekly) and their voting habits and social views are almost (but not quite) as liberal as mainline Protestants (Catholics: 59% R, Mainlines: ~50% R, White evangelicals: 82% R), with the caveat that the Catholic shifted sharply to the right in 2024 mainly b/c of Hispanic voters.

The ones you see on YouTube/social media are really a subset of theologically-minded Catholics.
[automerge]1746300198[/automerge]

The reality is many (not all) Roman Catholics (esp. cradle Catholics) don't care to discuss justification by faith alone vs. justification by faith and works. Many Catholics do not regularly attend mass (in Italy, I believe only ~5% attend mass weekly) and their voting habits and social views are almost (but not quite) as liberal as mainline Protestants (Catholics: 59% R, Mainlines: ~50% R, White evangelicals: 82% R), with the caveat that the Catholic shifted sharply to the right in 2024 mainly b/c of Hispanic voters.

The ones you see on YouTube/social media are really a subset of theologically-minded Catholics.

For all the faults with broad evangelicalism, antinomianism, Arminianism, etc., broad evangelicals are generally very solid on faith alone, and this is something to be extremely grateful for.

It has never and will never be the case that the majority of Christians - even those truly born-again - are super deep theologically, as important as it is. Most people have "vibe-based" theology, culture, politics, etc., even before modern times. Humans - though rational and endowed with God-gifted intelligence - are quite simple creatures. Thank the Lord that childlike faith (even faith the size of a mustard seed) can move mountains, and that it's not the strength, but the object of our faith Jesus Christ who justifies.

 

[Ploutos]

So much can be said as to why Rome now teaches something so apparently contradictory to its prior statements, but here's some topics for you to do some research on that may help in understanding: John Henry Newman's teaching on the development of doctrine, Henri de Lubac's innovations in the nature/grace debate, Karl Rahner's notion of an anonymous Christian, and Hans Urs Von Balthasar's belief of a possibly (though in his mind probably) empty hell. In researching these you can come to an understanding of the theological/intellectual maneuvers that made the claims of Vatican 2's Lumen Gentium possible and acceptable in the eyes of the Roman faithful, despite what appears to be a blatant contradictory element when compared with prior teaching.

This was a really helpful post. Thank you! If time allows... Haha... I will see if I can get to some of the reading you've mentioned.

 

[Edward]

They also claim councils though, don't they?

Some supporters of Vatican II say yes, some detractors say no. Pros and cons here:

SSPX Asia newsletter: April - December 2008

I go with AI on this one:

Vatican II was a pastoral council, meaning it did not make any dogmatic definitions that would be considered infallible in the strict sense. While the Council's teachings are authoritative and binding, they are not infallible. Infallibility is a specific charism granted to the Pope when he speaks ex cathedra and to the Church when it is teaching a doctrine of faith or morals in an ecumenical council. (Links and highlighting came with the copy and paste)

 

[Ploutos]

You can see the Roman ambiguity at play even when trying to talk about Vatican II. Put me in a room with three Roman Catholics and I'll give you five different opinions about just how binding that council was.

 

[jwright82]

You can see the Roman ambiguity at play even when trying to talk about Vatican II. Put me in a room with three Roman Catholics and I'll give you five different opinions about just how binding that council was.

My grandparents are Catholic. My grandfather, may he rest in peace, reluctantly adopted Vatican 2 but my grandma wholeheartedly embraced it, for what it's worth.