• Thursday, July 09th, 2009
I am encouraging the contributors of Boar’s Head Tavern to engage in the discussion in this post at Called to Communion to refute Bryan’s arguments and answer the questions he poses rather than cavalierly dismissing them.
Category: Faith and Reason
|
I’ve gone through Bryan’s argument on his blog. It is a very powerful presentation because he is absolutely right he has caught Mohler in a contradiction. Ultimately the apologetic is that the church wasn’t doing anything all that different in 1520 than it was doing 1208 against that Cathars or even earlier. So you are left with one of three positions:
1) One of the minor details is really really important and makes the 16th century version entirely different
2) Both rebellions were legitimate
3) Both rebellions were illegitimate.
Now the how Catholic apologetic is to argue that only cases 1 and 3 are possible But there is case 2.