In the article linked above, Porvaznik argued that no Protestant can really know truth because all he has is his own version of the truth.
Exactly. And the existence of a multiplicity of doctrinces in Protestantism, even those of the most important nature, such as how one obtains salvation and eternal life, proves that Porvazniks's contention is right on the money.
Given that Porvaznik claims to be a Christian, and that therefore, his own position in Roman Catholicism is just as exposed to the arguments of modern unbelieving skepticism as is the Protestant's, such a tactic is quite strange. How odd to defend an absolute truth claim with the tools of relativism!
Nonsense. The Catholic Church does not have a multiplicity of doctrines and teachings. There is a set doctrinal and moral standard which is the same whether one is a Copt, an Armenian, a Ruthenian, or a Latin Catholic. Enloe's contention is devoid of serious merit.
First, the argument can be reversed by noting that the Roman Catholic Church is itself just one voice among many, no more convincing than any of the others.
Not what Jesus said. He promised. The Church is THE voice on earth which men ignore to their own peril.
Mt 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
From the words of Christ Himself, anyone, even the profoundly brilliant Mr. Enloe, who does not listen to the Church is a heathen.
Any philosophical relativist could make mincemeat of every "objective" proof Porvaznik could dream up in defense of his Church by simply pointing out that the whole construct is merely Porvaznik's personal opinion, no different in quality or force than any Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Mormon, or Atheist's case for his own truth claims.
This is an absurd claim. None of these pagan religions has the words of Christ as their foundation as does the Church. The entire construct of the Church is based upon the teachings of the Lord. Those teachings were handed down faithfully from generation to generation and were unchanged until the Protestants and Anabaptists rebelled against the Church and put their own private construct upon them
Why should anyone believe Rome's exclusive truth claims, since there is so much disagreement from other sectors of the religious world?
Because Jesus said so, that's why. Why should anyone believe Protestant claims against the Church when they have neither apostolic succession nor authority to rebel against the Church which our Lord established upon St. Peter?
Second, the argument can be reversed by noting the enormous diversity that exists within Roman Catholicism itself.
There is no diversity. This is a large red herring of the smelly kind. There is one standard for doctrine and morals as found in the teachings of the Catholic Catechism. Mr. Enloe thinks he makes an inassailable argument. What he shows is his utter ignorance.
The failure of Roman Catholics to agree on many issues that the Church has supposedly "clearly" defined is legendary. Was Vatican II an infallible council?
Again, this has NOTHING to do with DOCTRINE OR MORALS. The issues of divergence have to do with how to run (i.e. administer) the Church. The issue of Vatican II is easily answerable. Vatican II was a pastoral council and not an eccumenical council. It was therefore not binding nor infallible.
Did the Pope approve "evolution"?
Doesn't matter. He did not make this as a "de fide" dogmatic teaching. Therefore, I am free to believe what I wish. Mr. Enloe, not being Catholic, does not understand that not every word that issues from the mouth of a pope is considered infallible.
If Protestants evaluated these internal Roman Catholic disputes by the criterion of absolute agreement, we would conclude that no one knows the truth in Roman Catholicism because it doesn't exist. After all, outside of a few items on which all Roman Catholics do agree, the only thing any Roman Catholic can give us is his personal interpretation of Roman Catholic teachings. How do we know that he is right?
This man is so full of ....... ahhhhhh, hot air that he ought to up and float away. He is building a nice convenient straw man and then bravely demolishing it.
EVERYONE in Catholicism KNOWS what the truth is because it is published in a statement called the Catholic Catechism. The problem in Catholicism is not one of diversity of belief, it is that of ill catechized, disobedient, and lazy Catholics who do not know their faith, do not care to practice their faith, or are outright rebels against the Faith and ought to leave it and go join Mr. Enloe' scurvy band of brigands.
I could continue ripping his pathetic and lying arguments to shreds, but why waste the bandwidth (which I have been asked by the administrators not to do) and besides I have to go pick up my kid at school.
Bluntly put, Mr. Enloe creates ex nihlo a Catholic Church which does not exist. Then he attacks it with gusto and pats himself on the back for being such a hero. What he is is an absurb, prejudiced, and wrongheaded attack dog for the bigoted who will not listen.
