[Apologetics] Re: Jim Murphy Returns for Apologetics Meeting 7:30 PM Saturday 24 June

[jmurf80 at bellsouth.net]

Guys,

I don't want to engage in any e-mail discussion on the topic, but I do hope to provide you with some sort of outline so that you can get ready for the discussion.  I'm going to be very busy between now and the 22nd, but I will do my best to get you guys something to use in your preparations.  I will try to not surprise you guys with anything since I really do want you to set me straight in any areas where I'm just plain wrong.

I also want you to remember that I accept all teachings of the Church and all Church Councils.  I love all of the documents released by the Council of Trent.  In no way am I experiencing a crisis of faith.  I have considered many of the objections from the Protestant side and I believe they have some very solid points.  I also  think the topic will provide us with a very spirited discussion.  In some areas I will come at the topic from the Protestant point of view.  

I don't know how many Protestants show up for the discussion, but I ask that they not take the approach I'll be taking.  I don't want them to not give an inch.  Their goal should be to defend the Protestant position from start to finish.

Jim
> 
> From: Art Kelly <arthurkelly at yahoo.com>
> Date: 2006/06/05 Mon AM 12:21:55 EDT
> To: Apologetics Group <apologetics at gathman.org>, 
>   Jim Murphy <jmurf80 at bellsouth.net>
> Subject: Jim Murphy Returns for Apologetics Meeting 7:30 PM Saturday 24 June
> 
> Dear Friends,
> 
> Please put on your calendar our next Apologetics Group
> meeting: 7:30 PM on Saturday, 24 June.
> 
> The place is still being determined, but we'll let you
> know just as soon as that has been finally decided.
> 
> The big news is that our friend, Jim Murphy, will be
> back from Georgia for a brief visit and will be at the
> meeting.
> 
> I hope you will be able to be there.
> 
> Here's a message I received from Jim about what he'd
> like to talk about:
> 
> "At our June meeting, I will propose the following 
> proposition for heated discussion.  Keep in mind 
> that I am never really happy unless I am causing 
> trouble.
> 
> "The Council of Trent was an abysmal failure.  
> 
> "Although I agree with all that it teaches, the 
> Council fathers missed the point in nearly every 
> conceivable way.  The Reformers posed questions the 
> Council Fathers were not ready for and on subject 
> they had probably never even considered.  Although 
> the Council documents do not contain error, they 
> answered the questions raised by the Reformers 
> from the wrong point of view and the answers have 
> left Protestants scratching their heads in 
> bewilderment ever since.
> 
> "I respectfully request that we have no dialogue 
> on this topic until the meeting.  Please do not 
> send me email condemnations.  I always prefer to be 
> condemned face-to-face.  It should also be noted 
> that I am not facing a crisis of faith and I love 
> the Catholic Church more with each passing day.  
> As I have always maintained, the Catholic Church 
> is the most radical institution in human history.  
> If it is not constantly rocking your boat you are 
> missing the whole point."
> 
> In a follow-up message, Jim wrote:
> 
> "My suggested topic has nothing to do with my 
> weird political views, just my weird theological 
> study.  I love the Council of Trent.  I have studied 
> most of the important sections.  I have no 
> problem at all with the Church.  It is the body of 
> Christ present on this earth and I am happily subject 
> to every single thing it teaches.
> 
> "If historic Protestants are truly Christians 
> (Vatican II dogmatically states that they are) one 
> must wonder, I think, how a document specifically 
> addressed to their concerns could have passed into 
> total obscurity, from their point of view.  
> 
> "I have spent a considerable amount of time 
> studying the Reformation.  While I am far from an 
> expert, much of what I have discovered bothers me.  
> It’s not the sinfulness of some of the members 
> since that has always been present in the visible 
> Church, but more the tone of the document and the 
> sense I have that the Council Fathers failed to 
> grasp some of the points raised by the Reformers.
> 
> "I look at the time period leading up the 
> Reformation as a very important part of the whole
> debate.  
> 
> "I am particularly interested in the ideas known 
> as nominalism and how that influence created real 
> problems in dialogue.  If you look at the 
> situation like a big dysfunctional family, which the 
> Church was at the time, I think it helps see where 
> I’m coming from.
> 
> "The institutional Church can be thought of a mom 
> and dad.  The Reformers are the kids.  Mom and 
> Dad have created a home life that includes lots of 
> do’s and don’t.  Let’s say all of the rules 
> (doctrines of the Church) are sensible and well 
> thought out.  Let’s take it one step further and
> assume they are infallible.  There are problems in
> this household and the kids have real issues with the 
> rules.  They see the rules listed in the great 
> books of the household, but they see inconsistencies
> in practice.  One day all seven children present the
> parents with a list of 95 objections.  They 
> do this in a way that pisses off Mom and Dad by 
> nailing them to the door of the master bedroom.  
> Many of the objections and questions are worded in 
> such a way that Mom and Dad are confused as to 
> the intentions of the children and the real 
> concerns the kids have that underline the whole 
> situation.
> 
> "The parents tell the children that they will get 
> back to them on the objections.  At times of the 
> next few weeks arguments breaks out concerning 
> the 95 objections and the parents lose it 
> completely.  All five children leave the house in
> total disgust.  As they are walking down the front
> walk, the parents yell to the kids that they will 
> answer each and every objection.  Never mind that at 
> this point they don’t fully understand most of the 
> issues, but they have a wealth of knowledge in 
> related matters.  After all they created the very 
> rules that are under question.  The children 
> officially placed the objections on the door in 2000. 
> 
> 
> "The parents begin deliberation in 2028.  Sure 
> some time has passed, but hey it’s not like they 
> won’t get to it.  The parents have been studying the 
> issues over this 28 year period and occasionally 
> they have spoken to the children so some 
> clarification has come through.  The parents inform
> the children that they will formally respond to the 
> objections in writing.  On 2046 the parents issue 
> the written document.  By this time five of the 
> children have died.  The remaining five can only 
> laugh at this absurd situation.  At total of 46 
> years have passed and all the surviving children can 
> say is, 'thanks for nothing.'  
> 
> "It should be remembers that approximately 46 
> years passed from the time of Martin Luther’s big 95 
> and the close of the Council of Trent.  That 
> little thought of fact is enough to call into 
> question the whole mess.  Can you imagine any
> household operating in this fashion?  I can’t and yet
> it happened just this way.
> 
> "Please keep in mind that the doctrine of 
> infallibility does not mean that an official document 
> correctly addresses the issue at hand.  All it 
> ensures is that the document is free from all 
> doctrinal error.  I am not for a nanosecond suggesting
> the Council erred.  It produced what I believe was an
> exceptional document written by Catholics and for
> Catholics.  The problem is that those to whom it was
> addressed were no longer Catholic and had long
> forgotten Catholic ways. Hence the massive problems
> that persist to this day.
> 
> "This is about all I’m ready to tell you at this 
> point.   I hope it makes sense.  I suggest you 
> guys gird you loins and prepare for battle."
> 
> Needless to say, I strongly disagree with almost
> everything Jim wrote--not just his conclusions but
> also all of his premises.
> 
> Jim didn't cite any sources, so I'll provide a very
> strong recommendation:  CREDIBLE historical sources
> MUST be utilized for any assertion to be taken
> seriously.
> 
> In the meantime, please put 7:30 PM, Saturday, 24
> June, on your calendar. (Place still up in the air.)
>    
> Cordially,
> Art
> 
>                            
>   ART KELLY, ATM-S
>   13524 Brightfield Lane
>   Herndon, Virginia 20171-3360
>   (703) 904-3763 home
>   (703) 396-6956 work
>   arthurkelly at yahoo.com
>   art.kelly at cox.net
>   ArtK135 at Netscape.net
>    
>    
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com 
>