Cringeworthy Debate between James White and Jose Ventilacion

[MichaelP3]

I have no need to read a non-Catholic’s apologia of the Trinity when he has based all of his arguments on something my Church gave him.

AND that is the exact thing! Although you will argue me giving proofs now you will see this isnt as easy from either whay if that is the case. POINT IS. YOU NEED SOME MORE THAN JUST KNOWING???

{ That is without me being banned as you previously hoped so it seemed}

 

[PRmerger]

AND that is the exact thing! Although you will argue me giving proofs now you will see this isnt as easy from either whay if that is the case. POINT IS. YOU NEED SOME MORE THAN JUST KNOWING???

Sorry, but the above is indecipherable to me.

{ That is without me being banned as you previously hoped so it seemed}

Oh, I never hoped for you to be banned. I think it’s very important for you to be here in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics.

 

[MichaelP3]

Sorry, but the above is indecipherable to me.

Actually I think it was clearly way beyond my bedtime (3 in the morning if I recall). Looking back at that I have no idea what I meant

The above is a nonsequitur, Michael.

Please try to follow the segue.

The original post to which I was responding was this:

Perplexity is clearly mistaken.

Emm…no. That’s not true at all. Scroll through this forum and you’ll find a whole lot o’ folks who agree that the CC existed in the 1st century. They just feel that it strayed and then their church reformed it.

I think we skipped over this important thing you said. You are making an assumption here (fact for you maybe) but in terms of a forum discussion a point you can’t just assume and think to go on. You say scroll down and see many people will agree with you, were I say scroll down and an equal amount will not.

This is rather my favourite type of discussion as history is my exact reason for not being Catholic. Or rather the original, the other reasons came later.

I see many times here that posters just go at it as if all has been concluded. If you argue the assumption of Mary, you can’t use the fact that she was free from any sin as a “proof”. That will first need to be concluded.

So nobody is clearly mistaken!

Regards

 

[Perplexity]

MicaelP3: You’re right, it’s begging the question. Trying to justify the historical claims of Catholicism without begging the question was a major cause of my deconversion. I thought Cardinal Newman was really on to something for a time, but found that his development of doctrine either really got stretched with certain doctrines or simply couldn’t honestly apply.

 

[Duane1966]

MicaelP3: You’re right, it’s begging the question. Trying to justify the historical claims of Catholicism without begging the question was a major cause of my deconversion. I thought Cardinal Newman was really on to something for a time, but found that his development of doctrine either really got stretched with certain doctrines or simply couldn’t honestly apply.

Such as?

 

[MichaelP3]

MicaelP3: You’re right, it’s begging the question. Trying to justify the historical claims of Catholicism without begging the question was a major cause of my deconversion. I thought Cardinal Newman was really on to something for a time, but found that his development of doctrine either really got stretched with certain doctrines or simply couldn’t honestly apply.

Yea! The famous Cardinal Newman quote. Sadly I never actually read his works.

A poster here on CAF who I truly repsect once talked about reading church history and then the “uhm, oh” moments start. Well from my side, my “uhm, oh” moments where quite the opposite. And with history I don’t just mean I like to read about it, I married my wife with a PhD in history. So talking history and going pretty deep, evaluating sources, checking place, setting whatever is pretty much part of my daily conversations. (Not to mention she was raised pretty Catholic in a very Conservative Polish Tradition kind of way)

 

[Perplexity]

Such as?

A little background first. So, Cardinal Newman’s theory is meant to help explain how a seed-like idea (simple, perhaps vague) developed into a tree-like idea (fleshed out, clarified). Catholic apologists use it to argue that what are now tree-like dogmas were once seed-like beliefs in apostolic times. But, in cases such as papal infallibility, it’s quite a stretch to say there were any historical “seeds” in apostolic times, and in cases like Mary’s bodily assumption, there’s no historical reason at all to think there were any seeds.

From a disinterested and objective perspective, when Catholic apologists argue otherwise, it looks more like they drew their conclusions before considering the evidence than like they drew their conclusions because they considered the evidence.

 

[MichaelP3]

A little background first. So, Cardinal Newman’s theory is meant to help explain how a seed-like idea (simple, perhaps vague) developed into a tree-like idea (fleshed out, clarified). Catholic apologists use it to argue that what are now tree-like dogmas were once seed-like beliefs in apostolic times. But, in cases such as papal infallibility, it’s quite a stretch to say there were any historical “seeds” in apostolic times, and in cases like Mary’s bodily assumption, there’s no historical reason at all to think there were any seeds.

From a disinterested and objective perspective, when Catholic apologists argue otherwise, it looks more like they drew their conclusions before considering the evidence than like they drew their conclusions because they considered the evidence.

Papal infallibility was officially declared during a VERY interesting time in Papal States HISTORY.One moment there was a Papal States(Which started of pretty interesting at the time of Peppins gift) in 1870, next moment there was none. And then in 1870 we have a clearly defined DOGMA of Papal infallibility.

 

[MichaelP3]

A little background first. So, Cardinal Newman’s theory is meant to help explain how a seed-like idea (simple, perhaps vague) developed into a tree-like idea (fleshed out, clarified). Catholic apologists use it to argue that what are now tree-like dogmas were once seed-like beliefs in apostolic times. But, in cases such as papal infallibility, it’s quite a stretch to say there were any historical “seeds” in apostolic times, and in cases like Mary’s bodily assumption, there’s no historical reason at all to think there were any seeds.

From a disinterested and objective perspective, when Catholic apologists argue otherwise, it looks more like they drew their conclusions before considering the evidence than like they drew their conclusions because they considered the evidence.

Mary’s assumption has no historical indication whatsoever. The immaculate conception was maybe an inevitable source of this. All these still form part of history’s “uhm oh” moments. That aren’t all that “clear(ly)”.

 

[Duane1966]

A little background first. So, Cardinal Newman’s theory is meant to help explain how a seed-like idea (simple, perhaps vague) developed into a tree-like idea (fleshed out, clarified). Catholic apologists use it to argue that what are now tree-like dogmas were once seed-like beliefs in apostolic times. But, in cases such as papal infallibility, it’s quite a stretch to say there were any historical “seeds” in apostolic times, and in cases like Mary’s bodily assumption, there’s no historical reason at all to think there were any seeds.

From a disinterested and objective perspective, when Catholic apologists argue otherwise, it looks more like they drew their conclusions before considering the evidence than like they drew their conclusions because they considered the evidence.

I’ve read Newman. Here is where you are wrong. The idea of papal infallibility seed is derived directly from Mt. 16. Christ’s promise to Peter is that whatever he binds on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven. There can be no error in Heaven. Ergo, what the pope binds, will contain no error. So the seed is right there in the bible. Newman recognized it. Aquinas. Bellarmine. Before his argument with Stephen, Cyprian writes about it. What further hurts your argument is what a Protestant historian of the twentieth century said about 1 Clement. He stated something along the lines that both the monstrous doctrines of universal jurisdiction and papal infallibility are evident in 1 Clement. Clement is definitely Apostolic age, he is mentioned in Scripture, and many believe Peter ordained him. **Notice Clement says it is the words of God through him that is speaking to the Corinthians. **When Clement says they are God’s words, does he believe they contain error?

As for the Assumption, again from Scripture, the seed is there. You may say it is a stretch, but ,I in all honesty, say you must have your head in the sand to not see what is evident in Revelation.

Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of His covenant was seen within His temple, and there were flashes of lightening, voices, peals of thunder, an earthquake and heavy hail. And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child. … he brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron.

I think you accept the Trinity, because you can see it in Scripture. Millions do not! St. Athanasius stated that the Arians at Nicaea I could quote many more verses in their favor than the Trinitarians could for their argument. And the Arian bishops outnumbered the Trinitarians. He said what won the day was an appeal to the tradition that had been handed down from the early fathers.

I find it somewhat amusing that you would accept the Trinity, when we know there was arguments about it in the early Church, but you cannot accept the Assumption, because there were no arguments about it. We have the relics of Peter, Paul, many of the early martyrs, but not Mary. Her grave site would have been one of the greatest pilgrimage sites for 2000 years. We know where Jesus was buried. But you would have us believe that the early Church has no clue where Mary is buried. East and West, they all knew that she had been assumed.

 

[Duane1966]

I’ve read Newman. Here is where you are wrong. The idea of papal infallibility seed is derived directly from Mt. 16. Christ’s promise to Peter is that whatever he binds on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven. There can be no error in Heaven. Ergo, what the pope binds, will contain no error. So the seed is right there in the bible. Newman recognized it. Aquinas. Bellarmine. Before his argument with Stephen, Cyprian writes about it. What further hurts your argument is what a Protestant historian of the twentieth century said about 1 Clement. He stated something along the lines that both the monstrous doctrines of universal jurisdiction and papal infallibility are evident in 1 Clement. Clement is definitely Apostolic age, he is mentioned in Scripture, and many believe Peter ordained him. **Notice Clement says it is the words of God through him that is speaking to the Corinthians. **When Clement says they are God’s words, does he believe they contain error?

As for the Assumption, again from Scripture, the seed is there. You may say it is a stretch, but ,I in all honesty, say you must have your head in the sand to not see what is evident in Revelation.

I think you accept the Trinity, because you can see it in Scripture. Millions do not! St. Athanasius stated that the Arians at Nicaea I could quote many more verses in their favor than the Trinitarians could for their argument. And the Arian bishops outnumbered the Trinitarians. He said what won the day was an appeal to the tradition that had been handed down from the early fathers.

I find it somewhat amusing that you would accept the Trinity, when we know there was arguments about it in the early Church, but you cannot accept the Assumption, because there were no arguments about it. We have the relics of Peter, Paul, many of the early martyrs, but not Mary. Her grave site would have been one of the greatest pilgrimage sites for 2000 years. We know where Jesus was buried. But you would have us believe that the early Church has no clue where Mary is buried. East and West, they all knew that she had been assumed.

It should also read, if there had been no arguments about the Trinity, would it have been dogmatized? Probably not. Non-argumentation of the Assumption in the early post-Apostolic age, does not mean the seed was not there.

 

[Fiasco]

I’ve read Newman. Here is where you are wrong. The idea of papal infallibility seed is derived directly from Mt. 16. Christ’s promise to Peter is that whatever he binds on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven. There can be no error in Heaven. Ergo, what the pope binds, will contain no error. So the seed is right there in the bible. Newman recognized it.

Poking my nose in here but, further evidence.
At the Last Supper, Luke 22:31,32:

“Simon, Simon, behold Satan demanded to have you (plural: ie all of the Apostles), that he might sift you (plural) like wheat, but I have prayed for you (singular) that your faith may not fail; and when you (singular) have turned again, strengthen your brethen.” RSV-CE

Scott Hahn has a good say about that one!
…

I find it somewhat amusing that you would accept the Trinity, when we know there was arguments about it in the early Church, but you cannot accept the Assumption…

Mary’s EMPTY tomb in Jerusalem, looked after by the Greek Orthodox and Armenian Apostolic Churches.

Hope this link works:

youtube.com/watch?v=nkGDCnrMnRU

Anyway, there’s a lot of evidence for the Assumption, but some of those other videos are more than a bit off, including the late Ron Wyatt’s outrageous claims!

 

[Perplexity]

Duane1966:

Why should we think the doctrine of papal infallibility was believed in seed-like form in apostolic times? Because, you say, Jesus told Peter in Matt. 16 that whatever he shall bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and heaven cannot lie. (Nod to Robert Sungenis).

Suppose that Jesus really did say this, even though we don’t know where the author of Matthew got this information, and it’s not independently attested by anyone including other Gospel writers who gave parallel accounts of this very event.

What would this have to do with the papacy? No Church Father interpreted this story to mean that whatever the bishops of Rome bind on earth will have been bound in heaven. In fact, the earliest interpretation of this text we have, coming from Tertullian, explicitly has it that this prerogative (whatever it would have been) was given personally to Peter, and died with him.

Unless you can show from the text itself that Jesus’ words concern the bishops of Rome, I’m afraid the text just isn’t relevant.

You then suggest that 1 Clement provides a seed-like belief in papal infallibility because its author claims God is speaking through him. But, God can speak through anyone in any number of ways without making them infallible. Moreover, nothing in 1 Clement meets Vatican 1’s criteria for an ex cathedra statement, so the example doesn’t work.

As far as the doctrine of the bodily assumption of Mary goes, you suggest it was believed in seed-like form in apostolic times because Revelation 12 talks about Mary. Suppose it does. It says nothing about an assumption into heaven.

You then suggest that if Mary was not assumed into heaven, people would have talked about and visited her burial site. Indeed, they would have…if they thought of Mary in as high of terms as you do. But, there’s no reason to think they did. In fact, their silence about her burial site just confirms that she was not thought of so highly as she is now.

Finally, two points that are tangential to our discussion. First, I do not accept the Trinity: I am a Pagan, and deny the monotheism undergirding the doctrine of the Trinity. Second, I don’t think we have any idea where Jesus was buried. Acts 13:27-29 preserves the earliest testimony regarding Jesus’ burial, and it explicitly says that Jesus was buried by those who condemned him. But, those who condemned Jesus thought he was a blasphemer and would have buried him dishonorably, not in some well-known family tomb.

 

[Duane1966]

:

Why …

The doctrine of development does not say there had to be belief in the seed in Apostolic times, it just says the seed had to be there.

Suppose …

What of it? The Church believes Matthew is inspired. If we accept it as inspired, why would we need verification for this doctrine in other books? It is you that says that this should be the criteria. This is well and fine as criteria for you. To prove that the Church is wrong to read infallibility into this passage, you have to disprove it using her criteria. This some non-Catholic theologians admit cannot be done. The parallel passages are in Matthew and Luke. Many do not see a parallel passage in John. Many accept that Matthew was written by an actual eye witness, whereas we know Mark and Luke were not eye witnesses. By the way, the parallel passage in Mark, says Jesus did something that is not recorded in the other Gospels.

What…

There are plenty of Church fathers whose writings have something that the Church does not agree with. Tertullian believed that. So what? It does not prove that the seed is not there. No church father though? Really? Cyprian explicitly says no error can come from Rome ( I realize he later changed his tune, but he undoubtedly held the view at one point). Why? Because it is the capital? Iranaeus, writing before Terullian, say you must agree with Rome. Why, if Rome can teach error? Why would they believe Rome could teach no error? It is because who occupied the Roman seat. Cyprian specifically ties no error coming from Rome, because that is where the chair of Peter sits. I can give you more church fathers, if you want.

Unless…

Actually, it is you that made the claims that the seed is not there, so it is you that has to prove it isn’t. Which is why the Orthodox scholar Meyerdof in the twentieth century said there is not enough evidence to refute this Roman claim. Many scholars, and I’m sure you know this, acknowledge that the Mt. 1618 is derived from Is. 22. The prime ministers had successors, who could exercise the keys, correct? Yet in this one case, you are expecting us to believe that Jesus gave this charism to Peter, and the charism would die with him, even though Jesus said the Church would last into perpetuity. Why would this charism be needed just so long as Peter lived, but not afterward? There are theologians who admit gifts that were given the other Apostles are passed on through Apostolic succession, but you would have us believe that this is one gift that was not passed on. Now that is, what did you call it? Oh yes, a real stretch.

You …

This point has nothing to do with what I stated. The point is, did Clement believe what he was writing, was infallible, and that he had the jurisdiction? Quite clearly, yes. But why did he feel he had the jurisdiction? Because he sat in the chair of Peter. Whether it fits into the criteria laid out in Vatican I, has no bearing. I never stated that he understood the full blown doctrine, nor that he knew he had this gift. But it is there in seed form. The minute he said these were God’s words, he believed his statement was infallible. I did state that a theologian of the twentieth century said you can see two monstrous doctrines in the letter.

As…

When St. John views the temple in heaven, he is not viewing the Old Testament temple. He is viewing the true temple, which is Christ’s body. In the same way, St. John is not seeing the Old Covenant ark. He sees the new and true Ark of the Covenant. And remember: this would not just be talking about Mary but Mary’s body! It was Mary’s body that housed the Son of God, the fulfillment of the various types of Christ that were contained in the Old Covenant ark.

The conclusion is inescapable. Where is Mary’s body? In heaven, according to the Book of Revelation! - Tim Staples

You then suggest that if Mary was not assumed into heaven, people would have talked about and visited her burial site. Indeed, they would have…if they thought of Mary in as high of terms as you do. But, there’s no reason to think they did. In fact, their silence about her burial site just confirms that she was not thought of so highly as she is now.

Non-sequitur. Their silence could also mean what I posited. We know that just a few centuries later it was already viewed as a well known fact that she had been assumed because we did not have her relics.

Finally, … Second, I don’t think we have any idea where …

Christians revered the site from the beginning, and we built a Church there when Christianity was legalized. This is where your mind has become so closed that you cannot see what is obvious to a child. You see what you want to see, but there is an explanation that allows for Jesus to have been buried in the tomb by those that condemned him. All that passage says is that Pharisees condemned Jesus, and Pharisees buried Jesus in a tomb. Now you say the Pharisees would never bury Jesus in a tomb. But those that did bury Jesus in said tomb, Scripture tells us their exact names, were secretly followers of Jesus, and we know they were also Pharisees. So there is a gap in your logic, that you did not account for. Would those particular Pharisees, the ones that are secretly followers of Him, bury Jesus in a tomb?

P.s. If you read On the Care for the Dead, Augustine says even if something cannot be found in Scripture, the witness of the Church is enough to make a doctrine.

 

[Duane1966]

The doctrine of development does not say there had to be belief in the seed in Apostolic times, it just says the seed had to be there.

What of it? The Church believes Matthew is inspired. If we accept it as inspired, why would we need verification for this doctrine in other books? It is you that says that this should be the criteria. This is well and fine as criteria for you. To prove that the Church is wrong to read infallibility into this passage, you have to disprove it using her criteria. This some non-Catholic theologians admit cannot be done. The parallel passages are in Matthew and Luke. Many do not see a parallel passage in John. Many accept that Matthew was written by an actual eye witness, whereas we know Mark and Luke were not eye witnesses. By the way, the parallel passage in Mark, says Jesus did something that is not recorded in the other Gospels.

There are plenty of Church fathers whose writings have something that the Church does not agree with. Tertullian believed that. So what? It does not prove that the seed is not there. No church father though? Really? Cyprian explicitly says no error can come from Rome ( I realize he later changed his tune, but he undoubtedly held the view at one point). Why? Because it is the capital? Iranaeus, writing before Terullian, say you must agree with Rome. Why, if Rome can teach error? Why would they believe Rome could teach no error? It is because who occupied the Roman seat. Cyprian specifically ties no error coming from Rome, because that is where the chair of Peter sits. I can give you more church fathers, if you want.
Actually, it is you that made the claims that the seed is not there, so it is you that has to prove it isn’t. Which is why the Orthodox scholar Meyerdof in the twentieth century said there is not enough evidence to refute this Roman claim. Many scholars, and I’m sure you know this, acknowledge that the Mt. 1618 is derived from Is. 22. The prime ministers had successors, who could exercise the keys, correct? Yet in this one case, you are expecting us to believe that Jesus gave this charism to Peter, and the charism would die with him, even though Jesus said the Church would last into perpetuity. Why would this charism be needed just so long as Peter lived, but not afterward? There are theologians who admit gifts that were given the other Apostles are passed on through Apostolic succession, but you would have us believe that this is one gift that was not passed on. Now that is, what did you call it? Oh yes, a real stretch.

This point has nothing to do with what I stated. The point is, did Clement believe what he was writing, was infallible, and that he had the jurisdiction? Quite clearly, yes. But why did he feel he had the jurisdiction? Because he sat in the chair of Peter. Whether it fits into the criteria laid out in Vatican I, has no bearing. I never stated that he understood the full blown doctrine, nor that he knew he had this gift. But it is there in seed form. The minute he said these were God’s words, he believed his statement was infallible. I did state that a theologian of the twentieth century said you can see two monstrous doctrines in the letter.

When St. John views the temple in heaven, he is not viewing the Old Testament temple. He is viewing the true temple, which is Christ’s body. In the same way, St. John is not seeing the Old Covenant ark. He sees the new and true Ark of the Covenant. And remember: this would not just be talking about Mary but Mary’s body! It was Mary’s body that housed the Son of God, the fulfillment of the various types of Christ that were contained in the Old Covenant ark.

The conclusion is inescapable. Where is Mary’s body? In heaven, according to the Book of Revelation! - Tim Staples

Non-sequitur. Their silence could also mean what I posited. We know that just a few centuries later it was already viewed as a well known fact that she had been assumed because we did not have her relics.

Christians revered the site from the beginning, and we built a Church there when Christianity was legalized. This is where your mind has become so closed that you cannot see what is obvious to a child. You see what you want to see, but there is an explanation that allows for Jesus to have been buried in the tomb by those that condemned him. Does the passage say the they is the Pharisees, or the inhabitants of Jerusalem? And was it it Pharisees, or inhabitants of Jerusalem, that laid Jesus in the tomb? Or is it both? Would those particular Pharisees, the ones that are secretly followers of Him, bury Jesus in a tomb?

P.s. If you read On the Care for the Dead, Augustine says even if something cannot be found in Scripture, the witness of the Church is enough to make a doctrine.

 

[Duane1966]

Does the passage say the they is the Pharisees, or the inhabitants of Jerusalem? And was it it Pharisees, or inhabitants of Jerusalem, that laid Jesus in the tomb? Or is it both? Would those particular Pharisees, the ones that are secretly followers of Him, bury Jesus in a tomb?

This writer, who does not believe in the resurrection, explains why Jesus would have been placed in a tomb.

letters_icon.jpg
Firstly, the claim that after Jesus was convicted of the crime of blasphemy by the Jews and treason by the Romans and then given a burial fit for a king is totally at odds with commonsense. Indeed, it is an insult to the Jews to think that they would have so honourably buried Jesus after convicting him of the worse crime any Jew could commit. What’s even more insulting is that the man who helped to convict Jesus of the crime, one Joseph of the council, is the same man who gave Jesus that very expensive tomb.

However, there does exists the possibility that Jesus, after his crucifixion was placed in that tomb, and on this Joseph’s orders too – but not for the reasons that Christians celebrate. This is how early Christianity got lucky.

As the bible itself confirms, Jesus was put to death very near the Sabbath. Jewish customs at the time demanded that convicted blasphemers like Jesus were to be buried in the criminals’ graveyard. The problem with Jesus, however, was that he died right on the start of the Sabbath. The Sabbath was a sacred day to the Jews, so absolutely no work was allowed – including burying convicted criminals.

Not being able to leave Jesus’ body on the cross after death and at the same time not being able to bury him, the council was in a quandary. To solve the dilemma, it decided to put Jesus’ corpse in a temporary tomb – an ancient morgue, if you will, until the Sabbath had passed. This is the much celebrated tomb from which Jesus supposedly came back to life. It is clear that this tomb was meant to be a place of temporary burial – and not a permanent one, as Christians would want us to believe.

caribbeannewsnow.com/headline-Letter%3A-Christianity-was-triggered-by-luck-and-not-facts-34078.html

 

[Perplexity]

To prove that the Church is wrong to read infallibility into this passage, you have to disprove it using her criteria.

What a strange suggestion.

Cyprian explicitly says no error can come from Rome

You don’t really think this is true, do you?

Iranaeus, writing before Terullian, say you must agree with Rome. Why, if Rome can teach error?

we don’t have to agree with anyone unless they’re infallible?

Many scholars, and I’m sure you know this, acknowledge that the Mt. 1618 is derived from Is. 22. The prime ministers had successors, who could exercise the keys, correct? Yet in this one case, you are expecting us to believe that Jesus gave this charism to Peter, and the charism would die with him, even though Jesus said the Church would last into perpetuity.

Name me a single Biblical scholar who thinks Matt. 16:18 derives from Is. 22. To my knowledge, only Robert Sungenis makes this suggestion, and he’s hardly a Biblical scholar.

But why did he feel he had the jurisdiction? Because he sat in the chair of Peter. Whether it fits into the criteria laid out in Vatican I, has no bearing. I never stated that he understood the full blown doctrine

On the one hand, you’ve shifted from infallibility to jurisdiction. On the other, you’re making up things as you go along, as the bolded section shows. In order to be an instance of papal infallibility, 1 Clement has to meet Vatican I’s criteria, whether or not its author understood that he was doing so.

The conclusion is inescapable. Where is Mary’s body? In heaven, according to the Book of Revelation! - Tim Staples

Suppose John did have a vision of Mary in heaven. That doesn’t mean John saw where Mary was at the time of writing: it’s an apocalyptic vision.

All that passage says is that Pharisees condemned Jesus, and Pharisees buried Jesus in a tomb.

All the text says is that the ones who buried Jesus are the ones who condemned him. But, you disagree: you believe Jesus was buried by “secret” disciples.

 

[Duane1966]

What a strange suggestion.

Well, usually when refuting an argument, people usually address the points their opponent is making. You have done nothing to refute the Church’s reading of Mt. 16.

You don’t really think this is true, do you?

If I believe in Christ, and believe in His promises, why would I believe this to not be true?

we don’t have to agree with anyone unless they’re infallible?

In this case? Of course. For St. Iranaeus to tell his flock that they must agree with Rome, even if Rome is wrong, would put the souls of his flock in danger, and would be an unconscionable thing to do. This might be fine for you as a pagan, but for a Catholic would be reprehensible.

Name me a single Biblical scholar who thinks Matt. 16:18 derives from Is. 22. To my knowledge, only Robert Sungenis makes this suggestion, and he’s hardly a Biblical scholar.

Shows you are not very well read. Since you only ask for one, I will only give you one. I can give you Protestant scholars, and I believe I can even produce a Jewish one, as I seem to recall reading one who made the same statement (may take me awhile to find it):

William F. Albright and C.S. Mann are quite certain when they comment on Matthew 16:19 –

"Isaiah 22:15ff undoubtedly lies behind this saying. The keys are the symbol of authority, and Roland de Vaux [Ancient Israel, tr. by John McHugh, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1961] rightly sees here the same authority as that vested in the vizier, the master of the house, the chamberlain, of the royal household in ancient Israel. Eliakim is described as having the same authority in Isaiah; it was Hilkiah's position until he was ousted, and Jotham as regent is also described as 'over the household' [2 Kings 15:5]....It is of considerable importance that in other contexts, when the disciplinary affairs of the community are being discussed [cf. Matt 18:18; John 20:23] the symbol of the keys is absent, since the sayings apply in those instances to a wider circle....The role of Peter as steward of the Kingdom is further explained as being the exercise of administrative authority, as was the case of the OT chamberlain who held the 'keys.' The clauses 'on earth,' 'in heaven', have reference to the permanent character of the steward's work." (Albright/Mann, The Anchor Bible: Matthew, page 196-197)

On the one hand, you’ve shifted from infallibility to jurisdiction. On the other, you’re making up things as you go along, as the bolded section shows. In order to be an instance of papal infallibility, 1 Clement has to meet Vatican I’s criteria, whether or not its author understood that he was doing so.

For us to view it as infallible, it has to meet Vatican I’s criteria. But that is not what I stated. I did state that clearly Clement believed he was making an infallible statement, as he said it was God’s word. Now did he view his statement, and his ability to make such a statement, as a function of his office? We do not know. We do know that the Corinthians accepted it as an infallible statement, as it was read as Scripture at their liturgies.

Suppose John did have a vision of Mary in heaven. That doesn’t mean John saw where Mary was at the time of writing: it’s an apocalyptic vision.

Some may concede Mary to be the woman of Revelation 12, but the next logical question is: “How does this mean she is in heaven bodily? There are lots of souls in heaven, but they don’t have their bodies."

It seems clear that “the woman” is depicted as having “the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown” (vs. 1). Elsewhere in Rev. and in other parts of Scripture, saints in heaven are referred to as the “souls of those who had been slain” (Rev. 6:9) or “the spirits of just men made perfect” (Heb. 12:23). Why? Because they do not have bodies! They are disembodied “souls” or “spirits.” But the “woman” of Rev. 12 is portrayed as having a body with a head and feet.

But perhaps even more important than this is the fact that “the Ark of the Covenant” is revealed as being in heaven in Rev. 11:19. This is just one verse prior to the unveiling of “the woman” of Rev. 12:1. -Tim Staples

All the text says is that the ones who buried Jesus are the ones who condemned him. But, you disagree: you believe Jesus was buried by “secret” disciples.

Actually, the bible itself identifies them as being Pharisees, and that they were also secret followers of Jesus.

 

[Perplexity]

If I believe in Christ, and believe in His promises, why would I believe this to not be true?

Because that has nothing to do with whether or not Cyprian actually said what you attributed to him.

For St. Iranaeus to tell his flock that they must agree with Rome, even if Rome is wrong, would put the souls of his flock in danger, and would be an unconscionable thing to do. This might be fine for you as a pagan, but for a Catholic would be reprehensible.

Or, ya know, he could’ve just thought that Rome was an authority on the matter. That’s usually why we admonish others to agree with a source. Catholics say the darndest things.

Shows you are not very well read.

Indeed. Knowledge of biblical scholarship on Matthew 16 in relation to Is. 22 (especially as it is regurgitated by online Catholic apologetics sources) is a time weathered standard for how well read one is.

As it stands, you did provide a citation. Unfortunately, it contains more assertions and obscure references than arguments.

I did state that clearly Clement believed he was making an infallible statement, as he said it was God’s word. Now did he view his statement, and his ability to make such a statement, as a function of his office? We do not know. We do know that the Corinthians accepted it as an infallible statement, as it was read as Scripture at their liturgies.

Clement’s statement is anything but an example of a clear belief in infallibility. However, suppose that somehow it is: if you don’t know whether Clement thought his infallibility was a function of his office, then you don’t know this is a seed-like belief in papal infallibility, and the example is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

For some reason you cite Staples on whether or not Mary had a body in heaven. But, that’s not the issue: I’ve already granted that for the sake of argument to show that your logic still wouldn’t work. The issue is when Mary’s body is in heaven. You need it to be in heaven in the apostolic age. But, John’s vision gives no such indication, and could easily suggest a vision of the future (it is Revelation, after all).

Actually, the bible itself identifies them as being Pharisees, and that they were also secret followers of Jesus.

We’re talking about Acts 13:27-29, not some harmonized construct called “the bible.” According to Acts 13 the people who bury Jesus are the people who condemn him. There’s just no getting around the text.

 

[Duane1966]

Because that has nothing to do with whether or not Cyprian actually said what you attributed to him.

I thought you were asking if I really believed no error could come from Rome. As to St. Cyprian, yes he really did say that. Would you like the citation?

Or, ya know, he could’ve just thought that Rome was an authority on the matter. That’s usually why we admonish others to agree with a source. Catholics say the darndest things.

So you tell others to agree with a source, even when you know that source is wrong, just because they are an authority on the matter? Even if you believed their very soul was at stake?

Indeed. Knowledge of biblical scholarship on Matthew 16 in relation to Is. 22 (especially as it is regurgitated by online Catholic apologetics sources) is a time weathered standard for how well read one is.

As it stands, you did provide a citation. Unfortunately, it contains more assertions and obscure references than arguments.

You asked me to name you one, and you acted like you were well versed on the subject, saying to your knowledge only one person had made the link, and that person was not a biblical scholar in your opinion. Obscure is subjective. Others see it as clear, I gave you one. I can give you more biblical scholars who say the link is obvious. Scott Hahn is another.

Clement’s statement is anything but an example of a clear belief in infallibility. However, suppose that somehow it is: if you don’t know whether Clement thought his infallibility was a function of his office, then you don’t know this is a seed-like belief in papal infallibility, and the example is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Again, belief in the seed, or a recognition of the seed in ancient times is not a prerequisite. The only prerequisite is, was the seed there? Catholics see the seed right in Mt.16. You have done nothing to prove that Mt.16 is not a seed. The Catholic argument stands.

For some reason you cite Staples on whether or not Mary had a body in heaven. But, that’s not the issue: I’ve already granted that for the sake of argument to show that your logic still wouldn’t work. The issue is when Mary’s body is in heaven. You need it to be in heaven in the apostolic age. But, John’s vision gives no such indication, and could easily suggest a vision of the future (it is Revelation, after all).

Revelation contains many references to things that had already occurred in the Old Testament. This particular passage, with the woman giving birth to a baby, most scholars view the baby as Jesus. Does this mean that Jesus being born is a future event?

We’re talking about Acts 13:27-29, not some harmonized construct called “the bible.” According to Acts 13 the people who bury Jesus are the people who condemn him. There’s just no getting around the text.

But you are not addressing two points that have been made.

One, is the passage I posted as to why He would have been buried in a tomb, written by a person who does not believe in the resurrection. You have done nothing to refute what that person wrote.

Two, I have showed that those that buried him, were Pharisees. So this does fit the criteria set forth in Acts. And one of those people who buried him, condemned him as a member of the Sanhedrin. We are also told this member was a secret follower of Jesus. So once again, the criteria set forth in Acts, is in no way contradicted by what I have stated.