150,000 converts this year at Easter

[Peter_J]

So, are you saying nothing has ever been “added” to the deposit of faith?

I’m saying that nothing can be added to the deposit of faith.

What do you call defining new doctrines?

The defining of dogmas does not contradict my previous statement. In the words of Cardinal Newman, “the proposition defined will be without any claim to be considered binding on the belief of Catholics, unless it is referable to the Apostolic depositum, through the channel either of Scripture or Tradition.”

The fact of the matter is there was no deposit of faith as you describe it.

How then do you explain Jude 1:3? “Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.”

As I’ve pointed out many times, if there was an apostolic succession/tradition, there would have been no vote on important matters. They would have simply opened a letter and said, “Yup, there it is, Immaculate Conception. Argument over.” But, they never said that. They debated, and they argued, and they voted, and sometimes barely got by with a majority vote.

Even if your argument were correct (which I don’t think it is) it would not disprove the “Deposit of Faith” principle. It would mean rather that the Immaculate Conception wasn’t part of the Deposit of Faith.

 

[Highwayhound]

I certainly agree with this, and was careful to point out in my original response that, though the numbers are open to interpretation, there is indeed rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents. If I have made it seem otherwise with my comments, that’s not my intention.

Yes, I remember reading the post in which you stated this.

Since tomorrow is a big day for many people I pray that many people will be praying for them and helping the converts to celebrate.

Heck tomorrow is a big day period. May you have a holy Easter

 

[ckempston]

I’m saying that nothing can be added to the deposit of faith.

Then we’re in agreement - a good chunk of Catholic doctrine is wrong.

The defining of dogmas does not contradict my previous statement. In the words of Cardinal Newman, “the proposition defined will be without any claim to be considered binding on the belief of Catholics, unless it is referable to the Apostolic depositum, through the channel either of Scripture or Tradition.”

It’s interesting how so many Catholic statements seem like Lawyer talk, when the statements of Jesus were so plain.

How then do you explain Jude 1:3? “Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.”

As I said, deposits grow and change, “the faith” does not. If it was handed down “once for all” then nothing can be added to it. Doesn’t matter if Mary was immaculately conceived, a perpetual virgin, or if she was assumed into heaven. Maybe these are true, maybe they’re not, but they have little to do with one’s salvation. (Just examples)

Even if your argument were correct (which I don’t think it is) it would not disprove the “Deposit of Faith” principle. It would mean rather that the Immaculate Conception wasn’t part of the Deposit of Faith.

There was no deposit. Deposits grow and change. “The Faith,” which is what Jude says, was “handed down once and for all.” Was “the faith” incomplete when it was handed down? The scriptures say otherwise. Irenaeus seems to have agreed that the Apostles had “perfect knowledge” before they preached, and condemned those who made themselves out to be “improvers of the Apostles” which is what your “Cardinal Newman” quote seems to suggest Catholicism does.

How does that help your position? And tell me, which statement do you disagree with:

Jesus saying the Apostles would be led into “all truth” really means they would be led into all truth.
All oral teaching, at some point, becomes written teaching.
Voting on doctrines proves there was no apostolic tradition handed down.

 

[Peter_J]

Then we’re in agreement - a good chunk of Catholic doctrine is wrong.

I assume that by “we” you mean yourself and other Protestants.

It’s interesting how so many Catholic statements seem like Lawyer talk, when the statements of Jesus were so plain.

Perhaps Newman was a big fan of Thomas More.

But seriously, we are all subject to the weaknesses of our human nature, but in different ways. For example, I think Catholics are more prone to “lawyer talk” and legalism than Protestants are, Protestants are more prone to individualism than Catholics are, and so on.

In plainer English, Newman is saying that nobody can take a brand-new teaching and dogmatically define it. (Some Catholics would go further and say that nothing can be dogmatically defined unless it was contained, at least implicitly, in the Sacred Scriptures. But I don’t want to go into that debate.)

As I said, deposits grow and change,

From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deposit …

Deposit may refer to:

Deposit account, the liability owed by the bank to its depositor

Deposit (geology), material added to a landform

Damage deposit taken in relation to rental or an item or property

Deposit (town), New York

Deposit (village), New York

Deposit model, a method of identifying the character and degree of survival of buried archaeological remains

Token amounts intended to promote recycling via container deposit legislation

Deposit (politics) A sum that a candidate must pay in return for the right to stand in a British election. It is refunded provided that he or she gains 5% or more of the vote.

In theology, “deposit of faith” refers to the entirety of Jesus Christ’s revelation, and is passed forward to successive generations in two different forms, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

If it was handed down “once for all” then nothing can be added to it.

That’s what I’ve been saying right along!

“The Faith,” which is what Jude says, was “handed down once and for all.” Was “the faith” incomplete when it was handed down? The scriptures say otherwise. Irenaeus seems to have agreed that the Apostles had “perfect knowledge” before they preached, and condemned those who made themselves out to be “improvers of the Apostles” which is what your “Cardinal Newman” quote seems to suggest Catholicism does.

In other words, you interpreted Newman’s statement to mean exactly the opposite of what it said.

 

[Peter_J]

And tell me, which statement do you disagree with:

Gladly.

Jesus saying the Apostles would be led into “all truth” really means they would be led into all truth.
All oral teaching, at some point, becomes written teaching.
Voting on doctrines proves there was no apostolic tradition handed down.

That one.

 

[ckempston]

I assume that by “we” you mean yourself and other Protestants.

I was being sarcastic, but here is my point:

The Deposit of Faith cannot be added to.
Catholics have added stuff.
The stuff Catholics added cannot be a part of the Deposit of Faith.

There you go, a logical argument in practically its simplest form.

Perhaps Newman was a big fan of Thomas More.

But seriously, we are all subject to the weaknesses of our human nature, but in different ways. For example, I think Catholics are more prone to “lawyer talk” and legalism than Protestants are, Protestants are more prone to individualism than Catholics are, and so on.

Both have their strengths and weaknesses, but too much of either is bad.

In plainer English, Newman is saying that nobody can take a brand-new teaching and dogmatically define it. (Some Catholics would go further and say that nothing can be dogmatically defined unless it was contained, at least implicitly, in the Sacred Scriptures. But I don’t want to go into that debate.)

Honestly, from my point of view, if these Catholics believed that, then they wouldn’t be Catholic.

From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deposit …

That article was obviously written by a Catholic.

That’s what I’ve been saying right along!

So you’re saying that the Catholic church has never added any new doctrines from Nicea to now?

In other words, you interpreted Newman’s statement to mean exactly the opposite of what it said.

I’ll have to go back and look. Maybe I misunderstood.

 

[ckempston]

Gladly.

That one.

You agree that there were votes at all the councils, correct?

 

[ckempston]

In other words, you interpreted Newman’s statement to mean exactly the opposite of what it said.

No, actually, Newman simply uses the falsely presented and sufficiently vague concept of Tradition as if it is something that is set in stone (it is, but not in the Catholic church). When the “Tradition” was handed down from the Apostles, it was complete and unchangeable, and perfect. Irenaeus goes so far as to say that everything that was given orally was later confirmed in writing (Adv.Her. 3.1.1). That means there is no such thing as oral tradition outside the written Word. Nobody received from the Apostles that Mary was immaculately conceived. This was deduced at a later time. Therefore, it’s not part of the “Tradition” that Cardinal Newman refers to. It is something that was added at a later time. I’ve coined myself a new phrase in another thread: Traditions that grow with each telling are fictional and are not the types of Tradition that the Scriptures refer to.

This is what gives the Catholic church the ability to say that it doesn’t change anything and people take it seriously. It employs one big slippery slope down through the ages, so that the changes are barely detectable by those who are experiencing them. Doctrines aren’t just invented out of thin air; they are gradually adopted and practiced by the laity; then people start to define Christians by whether they follow these lay-invented practices; then the “Magesterium” gets together and says, “we’ve got to do something about this”; then something that was never given by the Apostles becomes church dogma, and the majority rules.

 

[Peter_J]

The stuff Catholics added cannot be a part of the Deposit of Faith.

I agree with you 100%. By which I mean, 100% of the dogmas defined by the Catholic Church which can not be found in the Deposit of Faith, are not really dogmas at all. (Just keep in mind that 100% of 0 is 0.)

Both have their strengths and weaknesses, but too much of either is bad.

I agree.

Honestly, from my point of view, if these Catholics believed that, then they wouldn’t be Catholic.

I disagree.

So you’re saying that the Catholic church has never added any new doctrines from Nicea to now?

Yes, technically.

Every dogma that has ever been defined was (technically) always a doctrine.

If something wasn’t a doctrine right along, then it can’t really be dogmatically defined.

 

[Peter_J]

You agree that there were votes at all the councils, correct?

Certainly, but how does voting on doctrines prove there was no apostolic tradition handed down?

 

[Peter_J]

Irenaeus goes so far as to say that everything that was given orally was later confirmed in writing (Adv.Her. 3.1.1). That means there is no such thing as oral tradition outside the written Word.

I’m glad you brought that up, because this is one of the big problems I have with Protestantism.

Let me put it to you this way: suppose I read a passage in the bible, and then I read a second passage which confirms everything that the first one said. Does the first passage thereby cease to exist?

How, then, is it that Tradition ceases to exists once it has been confirmed by Scripture?

 

[ckempston]

I’m glad you brought that up, because this is one of the big problems I have with Protestantism.

Let me put it to you this way: suppose I read a passage in the bible, and then I read a second passage which confirms everything that the first one said. Does the first passage thereby cease to exist?

How, then, is it that Tradition ceases to exists once it has been confirmed by Scripture?

It doesn’t cease to exist. It does indeed exist, but it is not separate, or in addition to; it is another witness to the same exact thing, and therefore can never contradict, change, or be added to. These are, however, what the Catholic church has done.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

There were 60 converts at Holy Cross church in Boston. There were two Methodists and one Presbyterian at my church, there were six at the Vatican.

 

[tracie001]

My husband and I are of those who came into the Church at Easter. :tiphat:
I was raised church of Christ, and was Methodist before I joined the Catholic Church. My husband was raised baptist, and also was Methodist before joining.
I am so thankful God lead us to His Church!! It has been an incredible journey!!
Tracie