Best sermons on Romanism?

[RamistThomist]

What are the best sermons on Romanism, particularly as it relates to the political and historical dimensions? I've enjoyed Mencarow's sermons on historicism. Greg Price has some good ones, but sometimes verge off into Steelite territory. Ralph Ovadal has some good ones, but I don't know enough about him to say yay or nay.

As a modified historicist, one of the things I like about historicism is that it focuses on the political and historical elements, elements often passed over.

 

[ZackF]

Can these be lectures or do you literally mean sermons as in preaching to the Lord's Day assembly?

 

[M_Scott]

This is not a sermon series rather a lecture series but should be helpful until you find exactly what you're after.

... Christian Resources: Roman Catholic Tradition: It's Roots and Evolution - By: William Webster

Hope this helps a bit to get you started

Mike

 

[RamistThomist]

Can these be lectures or do you literally mean sermons as in preaching to the Lord's Day assembly?

I had both in mind.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

You might also see Gillespie's A Dispute Against English Popish Ceremonies.

 

[Fogetaboutit]

No sure if this is what you are looking for but I found this interesting: (It's not about historicism but it does explain political thought of the Roman Church)

John W. Robbins on The Economic Thought of the Roman Catholic Church State

The Economic Thought of the Roman Catholic Church State | SermonAudio.com

If you want a more detailed version this is his book.

Ecclesiastical Megalomania: John W. Robbins: 9780940931756: Amazon.com: Books

 

[RamistThomist]

No sure if this is what you are looking for but I found this interesting: (It's not about historicism but it does explain political thought of the Roman Church)

John W. Robbins on The Economic Thought of the Roman Catholic Church State

The Economic Thought of the Roman Catholic Church State | SermonAudio.com

If you want a more detailed version this is his book.

Ecclesiastical Megalomania: John W. Robbins: 9780940931756: Amazon.com: Books

Yeah, it's a good talk. Alerted me to the fact that Thomas said I can take my neighbor's property if I really need it (which of course, I do).

 

[Fogetaboutit]

No sure if this is what you are looking for but I found this interesting: (It's not about historicism but it does explain political thought of the Roman Church)

John W. Robbins on The Economic Thought of the Roman Catholic Church State

The Economic Thought of the Roman Catholic Church State | SermonAudio.com

If you want a more detailed version this is his book.

Ecclesiastical Megalomania: John W. Robbins: 9780940931756: Amazon.com: Books

Yeah, it's a good talk. Alerted me to the fact that Thomas said I can take my neighbor's property if I really need it (which of course, I do).

Are you serious? You think it's scriptural to steal somebody's property if you decide you "really" need it?

 

[ZackF]

No sure if this is what you are looking for but I found this interesting: (It's not about historicism but it does explain political thought of the Roman Church)

John W. Robbins on The Economic Thought of the Roman Catholic Church State

The Economic Thought of the Roman Catholic Church State | SermonAudio.com

If you want a more detailed version this is his book.

Ecclesiastical Megalomania: John W. Robbins: 9780940931756: Amazon.com: Books

Yeah, it's a good talk. Alerted me to the fact that Thomas said I can take my neighbor's property if I really need it (which of course, I do).

Are you serious? You think is scriptural to steal somebody's property if you decide you "really" need it?

I don't agree with Aquinas but the teaching is high qualified and nuanced. It would be a straw-man to twist Aquinas' teaching in such a way. It would be like taking his Just War teaching and saying that it taught "if you really felt scared about your neighbor and think that he is a bad man then you could go next door and blast him." I am not a philosophical or theological Thomist but some handling of Aquinas, especially Protestant, is unpardonably bad.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

This may go without saying but Book IV of the Institutes is a treasure trove on the topic.

 

[ZackF]

I'll try to find some links but I've found both Carl Trueman and Robert Godfrey handle the Reformation Era RCC quite well and evenhandedly. Not that I am truly qualified to evaluate them. There is a place for apologetic type handling of the Reformation as it relates to the Gospel but such treatments don't often tell the whole story or at least enough of it. Hopefully Charles will weigh in on this thread.

 

[RamistThomist]

No sure if this is what you are looking for but I found this interesting: (It's not about historicism but it does explain political thought of the Roman Church)

John W. Robbins on The Economic Thought of the Roman Catholic Church State

The Economic Thought of the Roman Catholic Church State | SermonAudio.com

If you want a more detailed version this is his book.

Ecclesiastical Megalomania: John W. Robbins: 9780940931756: Amazon.com: Books

Yeah, it's a good talk. Alerted me to the fact that Thomas said I can take my neighbor's property if I really need it (which of course, I do).

Are you serious? You think it's scriptural to steal somebody's property if you decide you "really" need it?

Sorry. I was speaking tongue-in-cheek. Aquinas does say that if I have to meet my needs--really, really, which of course is the topic under discussion--I can use my neighbor's stuff. I don't think this is unrelated to the fact that most papist countries are socialist countries. Contra Thomas Woods, Pope Francis is very consistent with Catholic teaching on condemning the free market.

 

[RamistThomist]

No sure if this is what you are looking for but I found this interesting: (It's not about historicism but it does explain political thought of the Roman Church)

John W. Robbins on The Economic Thought of the Roman Catholic Church State

The Economic Thought of the Roman Catholic Church State | SermonAudio.com

If you want a more detailed version this is his book.

Ecclesiastical Megalomania: John W. Robbins: 9780940931756: Amazon.com: Books

Yeah, it's a good talk. Alerted me to the fact that Thomas said I can take my neighbor's property if I really need it (which of course, I do).

Are you serious? You think is scriptural to steal somebody's property if you decide you "really" need it?

I don't agree with Aquinas but the teaching is high qualified and nuanced. It would be a straw-man to twist Aquinas' teaching in such a way. It would be like taking his Just War teaching and saying that it taught "if you really felt scared about your neighbor and think that he is a bad man then you could go next door and blast him."

Pre-emptive strike doctrine?

am not a philosophical or theological Thomist but some handling of Aquinas, especially Protestant, is unpardonably bad.

I agree, and I am 70% through the entire Summa.

 

[Fogetaboutit]

No sure if this is what you are looking for but I found this interesting: (It's not about historicism but it does explain political thought of the Roman Church)

John W. Robbins on The Economic Thought of the Roman Catholic Church State

The Economic Thought of the Roman Catholic Church State | SermonAudio.com

If you want a more detailed version this is his book.

Ecclesiastical Megalomania: John W. Robbins: 9780940931756: Amazon.com: Books

Yeah, it's a good talk. Alerted me to the fact that Thomas said I can take my neighbor's property if I really need it (which of course, I do).

Are you serious? You think is scriptural to steal somebody's property if you decide you "really" need it?

I don't agree with Aquinas but the teaching is high qualified and nuanced. It would be a straw-man to twist Aquinas' teaching in such a way. It would be like taking his Just War teaching and saying that it taught "if you really felt scared about your neighbor and think that he is a bad man then you could go next door and blast him."

Pre-emptive strike doctrine?

am not a philosophical or theological Thomist but some handling of Aquinas, especially Protestant, is unpardonably bad.

I agree, and I am 70% through the entire Summa.

Since I have never read Aquinas can you summarize his view on the subject. How can it be scripturally defended to take your neighbors property without his consent to fulfill "your" needs?

Also can somebody explain what most Protestant have handle unpardonably bad about Aquinas view? I'm not trying to be difficult I just like to have explanations when statements like that are made.

 

[RamistThomist]

No sure if this is what you are looking for but I found this interesting: (It's not about historicism but it does explain political thought of the Roman Church)

John W. Robbins on The Economic Thought of the Roman Catholic Church State

The Economic Thought of the Roman Catholic Church State | SermonAudio.com

If you want a more detailed version this is his book.

Ecclesiastical Megalomania: John W. Robbins: 9780940931756: Amazon.com: Books

Yeah, it's a good talk. Alerted me to the fact that Thomas said I can take my neighbor's property if I really need it (which of course, I do).

Are you serious? You think is scriptural to steal somebody's property if you decide you "really" need it?

I don't agree with Aquinas but the teaching is high qualified and nuanced. It would be a straw-man to twist Aquinas' teaching in such a way. It would be like taking his Just War teaching and saying that it taught "if you really felt scared about your neighbor and think that he is a bad man then you could go next door and blast him."

Pre-emptive strike doctrine?

am not a philosophical or theological Thomist but some handling of Aquinas, especially Protestant, is unpardonably bad.

I agree, and I am 70% through the entire Summa.

Since I have never read Aquinas can you summarize his view on the subject. How can it be scripturally defended to take your neighbors property without his consent to fulfill "your" needs?

Also can somebody explain what most Protestant have handle unpardonably bad about Aquinas view? I'm not trying to be difficult I just like to have explanations when statements like that are made.

I have the notes backed up, but I can't copy and paste his comments right now. It can't be biblically justified, is the short answer.

Why are Protestants bad at Aquinas? For one, and this doesn't excuse them, he is n't really easy to read. Shucks, I doubt most lay Catholics could read him. Second, he uses philosophical terminology differently than most people do post-Kant (especially on anthropology).

 

[Fogetaboutit]

I have the notes backed up, but I can't copy and paste his comments right now. It can't be biblically justified, is the short answer.

So do you believe it's OK to take your neighbors property or not. Did I misunderstood when you said.

Yeah, it's a good talk. Alerted me to the fact that Thomas said I can take my neighbor's property if I really need it (which of course, I do).

 

[RamistThomist]

I believe it is wrong to steal other's property, be it Pope or IRS.

 

[Fogetaboutit]

I believe it is wrong to steal other's property, be it Pope or IRS.

OK we agree on this, do you believe there are any circumstances where it would be OK the confiscate others property?

I guess I'm trying to get an explanation of what you meant by this statement.

Yeah, it's a good talk. Alerted me to the fact that Thomas said I can take my neighbor's property if I really need it (which of course, I do).

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I believe it is wrong to steal other's property, be it Pope or IRS.

OK we agree on this, do you believe there are any circumstances where it would be OK the confiscate others property?

I guess I'm trying to get an explanation of what you meant by this statement.

Yeah, it's a good talk. Alerted me to the fact that Thomas said I can take my neighbor's property if I really need it (which of course, I do).

He was joking.

 

[Fogetaboutit]

I believe it is wrong to steal other's property, be it Pope or IRS.

OK we agree on this, do you believe there are any circumstances where it would be OK the confiscate others property?

I guess I'm trying to get an explanation of what you meant by this statement.

Yeah, it's a good talk. Alerted me to the fact that Thomas said I can take my neighbor's property if I really need it (which of course, I do).

He was joking.

I just notice while re-reading he said his comment was "tongue in cheek". Make more sense now, sorry if I derailed the tread.

 

[RamistThomist]

So speaks Aquinas:

“On the contrary, In cases of need all things are common property, so that there would seem to be no sin in taking another’s property, for need has made it common.”

Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Question 66, Article 2,

 

[Fogetaboutit]

So speaks Aquinas:

“On the contrary, In cases of need all things are common property, so that there would seem to be no sin in taking another’s property, for need has made it common.”

Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Question 66, Article 2,

Not sure if you posted that in agreement with Aquinas quote, or if you were just posting it for our information, but as far as I know this is not biblical in any way. God does command his people to be charitable and help the poor, but I do not remember seeing any teaching giving right to anybody to take anything that is not theirs even if they "need" it, as far as I know this is breaking the 8th commandment and I cannot think of any circumstances where it wouldn't be.

"If" you agree with Aquinas, can you give an example of where it would be scripturally mandated (or allowed) to take somebody's possession without their consent in order to fulfill a need. (assuming that this possession is rightfully theirs to begin with).

 

[RamistThomist]

So speaks Aquinas:

“On the contrary, In cases of need all things are common property, so that there would seem to be no sin in taking another’s property, for need has made it common.”

Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Question 66, Article 2,

Not sure if you posted that in agreement with Aquinas quote, or if you were just posting it for our information, but as far as I know this is not biblical in any way. God does command his people to be charitable and help the poor, but I do not remember seeing any teaching giving right to anybody to take anything that is not theirs even if they "need" it, as far as I know this is breaking the 8th commandment and I cannot think of any circumstances where it wouldn't be.

"If" you agree with Aquinas, can you give an example of where it would be scripturally mandated (or allowed) to take somebody's possession without their consent in order to fulfill a need. (assuming that this possession is rightfully theirs to begin with).

As both Rich and I mentioned above: I. Disagree. With. Aquinas. I a good Scots-Irish-Huguenot who believes in the Protestant work ethic. I posted Aquinas's quote because it illustrates Romanist dogma on economics and explains why Romanists often support socialism.

 

[Fogetaboutit]

I posted Aquinas's quote because it illustrates Romanist dogma on economics and explains why Romanists often support socialism.

Aquinas does say that if I have to meet my needs--really, really, which of course is the topic under discussion--I can use my neighbor's stuff. I don't think this is unrelated to the fact that most papist countries are socialist countries.

Actually even many countries who are not recognized as papist countries are either socialist or communist, I guess the questions is if Rome does no longer have the political influences she once had (as many protestants believe today) is it only a coincidence that most countries on earth today are either socialist or communist.

 

[Pilgrim]

There are some elements of "socialism" seen in the OT theocracy. One example would be the provision to let the poor glean from the edge of the field.

Some of Aquinas' thought (or something related to it) worked its way into Roman law, common law and so on long ago. Look up "adverse possession." (I don't know the history of it. For all I know it pre-dates Aquinas.)

Since this thread has gone down this path, I'm hoping Daniel will weigh in. My understanding is that some of his views (influenced by covenanters) will look "socialist" to the Tea Party, libertarians and "conservatives."

 

[RamistThomist]

I agree that the Covenanters weren't TEA Party members. Still, my larger point was that Rome's open socialism (e.g., theft) via Aquinas has to have made a difference when you look at the economic development of southern European countries versus northern PRotestant ones.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I agree that the Covenanters weren't TEA Party members. Still, my larger point was that Rome's open socialism (e.g., theft) via Aquinas has to have made a difference when you look at the economic development of southern European countries versus northern PRotestant ones.

One of the funniest things I came across when teaching 20th century Irish history, was when the Ulster Unionists went round working class Roman Catholic areas in Belfast putting leaflets in their mail boxes to inform them of their Church's condemnation of "socialism". They did this in order to prevent them from voting for the Northern Ireland Labour Party, who, at certain times, were more of a threat to the Unionist monopoly at Stormont than the Irish Nationalists.

Since this thread has gone down this path, I'm hoping Daniel will weigh in. My understanding is that some of his views (influenced by covenanters) will look "socialist" to the Tea Party, libertarians and "conservatives."

to the bit in bold; most people usually hope that I will remain silent. Obviously, I agree with Jacob that theft is wrong. I would, however, wish to dissent from sweeping assertions that "socialism is theft". Certain forms of hyper-socialism (e.g. communism) are guilty of theft, but if "socialist" is defined as anyone who believes that the civil magistrate has the duty to fund care for the poor and needy, then I assert that that is not theft, but payment of legitimate, legal taxation to the civil magistrate. In short, I agree with John Calvin's comments on Isaiah 49:23; however, since I have got my fingers burned in the past with respect to political theology, it is probably unwise for me to say too much more in a public forum such as this one.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Has this discussion not gone way off topic? If anyone has access to them, I would actually like to see more links to sermons/lectures that deal with Romanism post-Vatican II.

 

[Pilgrim]

Has this discussion not gone way off topic? If anyone has access to them, I would actually like to see more links to sermons/lectures that deal with Romanism post-Vatican II.

I think it was the mention of Robbins that got us off track. I haven't listened to them, but I reckon the above linked lectures by William Webster deal with modern Romanism. Resources from James White and Richard Bennett are well worth a look, I'm sure. This is another one: Welcome to Proclaiming the Gospel See here also Roman Catholicism | Monergism