Cringeworthy Debate between James White and Jose Ventilacion

[Perplexity]

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?

You said Cyprian “explicitly says no error can come from Rome.” But, he doesn’t.

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?

Irenaeus told people that they must agree with Rome on doctrine, but all we can fairly read out of this statement is that he considered Rome to be a trustworthy authority on doctrine. Nothing in his words warrants reading infallibility into them.

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.

The link is definitely not obvious in any objective sense. But, if there is such a link, I’d want to see the arguments on its behalf instead of just this or that scholar saying there is such a link.

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.

I haven’t seen any argument yet. In order for Mtt. 16 to even be relevant to papal infallibility, it has to have something to do with the papacy. But, there’s nothing in the words of Mtt. 16 that implies the institution of a sort of papal office. The best you can hope to do is link its words to those of Is. 22. Once you give the reasons for doing so we take a look at that.

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?

Does Jesus’ being born in the past mean everything else in the vision occurred contemporaneously?

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.

I said I don’t think we have any idea where Jesus was buried, not that Jesus wasn’t temporarily placed in a tomb. The author you cite is correct: given the claim that Jesus was executed near enough to the Sabbath, he was likely placed in a temporary location before being buried amongst the criminals.

Since all the disciples fled at Jesus’ arrest and execution, they didn’t know where his body was taken. Over the years as Christians argued with Jews, they were forced to draw conclusions: Jesus couldn’t have been buried dishonorably so whoever buried him must have been a sympathizer; such a person couldn’t have done so openly and got away with it, so he must have been a “secret” disciple, etc.

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.

Acts 13 says those who buried Jesus condemned him. Since you believe Jesus was buried by a “secret” follower, you’re forced to say this disciple condemned Jesus. But, Luke 23:51 says Joseph of Arimathea did not consent (or give vote) to the Sanhedrin’s “plan and action.”

 

[Lenten_ashes]

The link is definitely not obvious in any objective sense. But, if there is such a link, I’d want to see the arguments on its behalf instead of just this or that scholar saying there is such a link.
"

Don’t mean to butt in and I will attempt to refrain from doing it again, but I’m following/enjoying your exchange with Duane and I noticed this statement:

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.
.

Well, he clearly provided that and now you are saying you want the ‘arguments’ for it by a scholar.

Isn’t that moving the goal posts?

logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/129/Moving-the-Goalposts

 

[Fiasco]

Well, he clearly provided that and now you are saying you want the ‘arguments’ for it by a scholar.

Isn’t that moving the goal posts?

The similarity between Isaiah 22:21-22 and Matthew 16:18-19 hits you right between the eyes.
One eminently reliable scholar in the form of Scott Hahn has already been mentioned.

But the deniers get out of that one by casting doubts on the reliability of Matthew’s gospel. Out goes Sola Scriptura when it’s inconvenient.

 

[Perplexity]

Don’t mean to butt in and I will attempt to refrain from doing it again, but I’m following/enjoying your exchange with Duane and I noticed this statement:

Well, he clearly provided that and now you are saying you want the ‘arguments’ for it by a scholar.

Isn’t that moving the goal posts?

logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/129/Moving-the-Goalposts

No please feel free to, it’s an open forum. I have objections to the the Is. 22-//Mtt. 16 parallel argument but caught sight of his statement that I was probably aware that “many” scholars saw the parallel. To my knowledge, that was not true, so I challenged it. Since he’s basically met the challenge we can get into the actual arguments.

 

[Perplexity]

In fact, Lenten_Ashes, I haven’t pressed this point yet but I think Duane has been technically moving the goal posts, at least with respect to some of his arguments. For example, instead of arguing for an early belief in papal infallibility, he argued from Clement for a more undefined infallibility, shifting the goal posts from a papal-specific burden to a general infallibility burden. And instead of arguing for an early belief that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven during the apostolic age, he argued from Rev. 12 for an early belief that Mary was bodily present in heaven at some time or other, shifting the goal posts from an apostolic age-specific burden to a at-some-point-in-time burden. It might sound like I’m being pedantic, but the seeds from which the doctrines of papal infallibility and Mary’s assumption into heaven arose out of make all the difference as to their genuine apostolicity.

 

[Duane1966]

In fact, Lenten_Ashes, I haven’t pressed this point yet but I think Duane has been technically moving the goal posts, at least with respect to some of his arguments. For example, instead of arguing for an early belief in papal infallibility, he argued from Clement for a more undefined infallibility, shifting the goal posts from a papal-specific burden to a general infallibility burden. And instead of arguing for an early belief that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven during the apostolic age, he argued from Rev. 12 for an early belief that Mary was bodily present in heaven at some time or other, shifting the goal posts from an apostolic age-specific burden to a at-some-point-in-time burden. It might sound like I’m being pedantic, but the seeds from which the doctrines of papal infallibility and Mary’s assumption into heaven arose out of make all the difference as to their genuine apostolicity.

Actually, you have stated that the seed had to be believed in, in the Apostolic age, for development of doctrine. This is not true. The doctrine is that only the seed has to be present in the Apostolic age. It may lay dormant for years, before doctrine develops on it.

You said Cyprian “explicitly says no error can come from Rome.” But, he doesn’t.

. Cyprian on the Church and the Papacy

" …they dare even to set sail…to the chair of Peter and the principal Church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source…whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for ***perfidy [errors or perversion of faith] ***to have entrance." (Epistle 54:14)

You also originally asked to see the seeds. In the case of infallibility, I showed you the biblical seed. You then asked to show that Mt.16 is a continuing office. I provided the OT parallel. You now state, prove that it has to do with the papal office. I have showed you the seed. You are the one that says it has nothing to do with the papacy. So it is up to you to prove that it is not the seed, and that it has nothing to do with the papacy. All the ancient Churches recognize the pope as the successor of Peter, as do most of the ECF’s.

 

[Perplexity]

Actually, you have stated that the seed had to be believed in, in the Apostolic age, for development of doctrine. This is not true. The doctrine is that only the seed has to be present in the Apostolic age. It may lay dormant for years, before doctrine develops on it.

I have no idea what it means to talk about a “seed” in this context if it is not a seed that is believed in. Newman’s theory just is a theory about the development of ideas. He says this time and again in his work.

So I looked your Cyprian reference up in the Ante-Nicene Fathers over at CCEL and got this:

“they still dare—a false bishop having been appointed for them by heretics—to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access”

What Cyprian is saying is that these heretics dare to write letters to the ones whose faith Paul praises in Rom. 1:8; to ones among whom faithlessness could have no access. I have no idea who translated Cyprian in your citation, but they were way off!

Interestingly, in the CCEL link above there is a note at the end of the relevant section saying it is to be interpreted in light of Epistle 30. In Epistle 30, the Roman clergy writes to Cyprian and says that it is a very great crime on their part to have become degenerate from the praise and glory given to Rome by Paul the apostle in Rom. 1:8!

You also originally asked to see the seeds. In the case of infallibility, I showed you the biblical seed. You then asked to show that Mt.16 is a continuing office. I provided the OT parallel. You now state, prove that it has to do with the papal office. I have showed you the seed. You are the one that says it has nothing to do with the papacy. So it is up to you to prove that it is not the seed, and that it has nothing to do with the papacy. All the ancient Churches recognize the pope as the successor of Peter, as do most of the ECF’s.

I don’t think you’ve given me much to work with here Duane, we haven’t even gotten into any meaningful exegesis. But, this is getting a bit drawn out for me, maybe it’s time to let this one go…for now

 

[MichaelP3]

Don’t mean to butt in and I will attempt to refrain from doing it again, but I’m following/enjoying your exchange with Duane and I noticed this statement:

I’m also enjoying it

But here I am sitting waiting for answers on assumptions as some are still struggling with that even before it escalated into this.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I’m also enjoying it

But here I am sitting waiting for answers on assumptions as some are still struggling with that even before it escalated into this.

Are you referring to the assumption of the blessed Mother? Assuming you are - lol - see what I did there?

Dr. Sungenis once stated that the patristic evidence for it is scant at best.

And I agree with that. But, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

And fence riders who conclude the Church got everything else correct, can logically surmise she got this right as well. Obviously you aren’t in that camp as you have issues with papal infallibility and even the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

 

[MichaelP3]

Are you referring to the assumption of the blessed Mother? Assuming you are - lol - see what I did there?

Dr. Sungenis once stated that the patristic evidence for it is scant at best.

And I agree with that. But, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

And fence riders who conclude the Church got everything else correct, can logically surmise she got this right as well. Obviously you aren’t in that camp as you have issues with papal infallibility and even the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

LOL. This is actually quite funny that I actually referred to people “Assuming” things as facts in a discussion. And then just go on…

Normally when my wife has to hear my rant regarding people and their assumptions, she actually informs me (Not just once ) that it does sound like I am talking a bout Mary’s assumption.

Regards

 

[MichaelP3]

And even now I am having a Cringworthy debate PRmerger!

She seem to have forgotten this one! I really hope to see her back here afainnn.,

 

[PRmerger]

And even now I am having a Cringworthy debate PRmerger!

She seem to have forgotten this one! I really hope to see her back here afainnn.,

I don’t have any response to you for now.

Your prior admission of an incoherent post notwithstanding, if you have a position to assert that’s contrary to Catholicism, I’d be happy to hear it and will address it.

 

[Duane1966]

I have no idea what it means to talk about a “seed” in this context if it is not a seed that is believed in. Newman’s theory just is a theory about the development of ideas. He says this time and again in his work.

Let me walk you through it. I plant a seed. It lays dormant for years, people not knowing it was there. Fifty years or more after I plant it, it finally breaks ground and grows, and people can finally see it (they have been able to get a seed that was over 2000 years old to germinate).

Now according to you, that seed did not exist, because for fifty years or more, no one saw it.

Now Jesus gave the Church, and specifically Peter and his successors a gift. You are trying to say that since the early Church may not have recognized the gift, ergo the gift did not exist. I find this to be fallacious reasoning. The fact that He gave a gift, no one doubts (if you believe in the Scriptures, and I know you are a pagan).

So I looked your Cyprian reference up in the Ante-Nicene Fathers over at CCEL and got this:

“they still dare—a false bishop having been appointed for them by heretics—to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access”

What Cyprian is saying is that these heretics dare to write letters to the ones whose faith Paul praises in Rom. 1:8; to ones among whom faithlessness could have no access. I have no idea who translated Cyprian in your citation, but they were way off!

I have seen the passage that I posted translated the same way by other sources. The translation stands. Because…your translation, in essence says the same thing.

And what is faithlessness? If is falsehood, or untrustworthy, or error. Cyprian is chiding the heretics for trying to get Rome to approve, and promulgate their error. Why? Is it because he thinks they shouldn’t waste Rome’s time, because Rome has errors of their own to promulgate, they don’t need extra ones from heretics?

From Called to Communion: calledtocommunion.com/2010/09/st-cyprian-on-the-unity-of-the-church/

In this excerpt from St. Cyprian’s letter, he again refers to both aspects of St. Peter’s role. St. Peter’s throne * is located in the chief Church (i.e. Rome) from which priestly unity takes its source. Here St. Cyprian is describing the role of St. Peter and his successors as the Church’s principium unitatis in relation to which schism from the Church is defined.2 The visible source not only in time, but also presently in essence, of the unity enjoyed by the Church’s priests, is St. Peter’s unique authority.** But St. Cyprian also points to the infallibility of St. Peter and his successors, when he says of this See, “to whom faithlessness could have no access.”*** It has to be the case that the magisterial touchstone of orthodoxy is inseparable from the principle of visible unity, otherwise we would potentially be forced to choose between the evil of heresy and the evil of schism. But God would never put us in such a situation. If there is to be a divinely established teaching authority, then it must also be the principle of unity. And if there is to be a principle of unity in the Church, then it must be the locus of divinely established teaching authority.

Interestingly, in the CCEL link above there is a note at the end of the relevant section saying it is to be interpreted in light of Epistle 30. In Epistle 30

, the Roman clergy writes to Cyprian and says that it is a very great crime on their part to have become degenerate from the praise and glory given to Rome by Paul the apostle in Rom. 1:8!Schaff dropped the ball on this one. Nothing new for him. Read carefully paragraph two in light of paragraph three in that epistle of Cyprian’s.

What is the subject of the letter? That is what you need to focus on. It is censure and discipline. ** Cyprian, in a letter that we do not have, must have asked Rome to consider being more severe in the handling of a matter. Paragraph two seems to be replying to where Cyprian must have wrote and asked them to consider a penalty more severe. Rome is saying, we’re not worthy of praise and glory and have become degenerate, if we had not considered it.**

We know this from paragraph three, where Rome defends her opinion, and says look Cyprian, you know we considered it, our former letters show it. And in paragraph four, you have Rome telling Cyprian, you have letters from confessors agreeing with our opinion.
Perplexity;14634813:

I don’t think you’ve given me much to work with here Duane, we haven’t even gotten into any meaningful exegesis. But, this is getting a bit drawn out for me, maybe it’s time to let this one go…for now

Some people see global warming. Others don’t.

You might find this piece that addresses some of your Acts verses interesting. craigaevans.com/Burial_Traditions.pdf

Thanks for the discourse.

 

[MichaelP3]

I don’t have any response to you for now.

Your prior admission of an incoherent post notwithstanding, if you have a position to assert that’s contrary to Catholicism, I’d be happy to hear it and will address it.

Cool.

But it is still out there that it is NOT a common agreement that the Catholic Church is the same as the 1st century Church. I am happy to discuss all historical disputes/contradictions/inaccuracies up until today if you feel strongly about this position.

That may include but not limited to every council, even local, every papal election(confirmation/dove sitting on a shoulder/Western Emperor deciding), all Encyclicals, all previous Catechisms including comparing them to the one today(Yes I extensively studied it and my copy looks like a very “used” textbook), all Apostolic exhortations, changes in the annulment process and even the Papal Veto!

Hope to hear from you

Regards

 

[PRmerger]

Cool.

But it is still out there that it is NOT a common agreement that the Catholic Church is the same as the 1st century Church.

No one has asserted it was a “common agreement”.

Only that there are indeed Protestant folks who acknowledge this.

 

[MichaelP3]

No one has asserted it was a “common agreement”.

Only that there are indeed Protestant folks who acknowledge this.

Fair enough, just glad that is tied up

Anything on my further request?

 

[PRmerger]

Fair enough, just glad that is tied up

Anything on my further request?

Nope.

I’m asking you to tell me what your main objection to Catholicism is, and then we can chat.

 

[MichaelP3]

No one has asserted it was a “common agreement”.

Only that there are indeed Protestant folks who acknowledge this.

And there are Protestant folks who acknowledge weird things. Better to take much of it with a grain of salt. Like I do when I hear weird Catholic things.

 

[MichaelP3]

Nope.

I’m asking you to tell me what your main objection to Catholicism is, and then we can chat.

The main main main one would be historical contradictions, inaccuracies and the prolonged method of trying to make it all fit so nothing would seem contradicting or inaccurate. This will include a very wide range of topics and that would be hard to choose from.

Since I got home I did check that debate and I see your point.

But I am thinking I am doing this again. It is 2 AM here. Talk again sometime.

Cheers

 

[PRmerger]

This will include a very wide range of topics and that would be hard to choose from.

Just choose one, and then we can chat.

I personally think your objection to Catholicism is an emotional one, not an intellectual one.

Someone hurt you in the Church, and that’s why you’ve come to a Catholic forum to talk about Catholicism.