Debating with protestants who just won't listen

[sainteriksrose]

That’s because the Catholic Church was founded in the first century, by Jesus Christ.

And He even said so in the legit Holy Bible He had HIS Church put together. Both are here to serve HIM, and guide souls CORRECTLY in His ways. Which of course includes ministering to us, and encouraging ALL men to receive our Lord’s Body and Blood WORTHILY. Just like He commanded. (John 6; 1 Corinthians 11; Matthew 28; etc.)

 

[bettercallpaul]

Protestants think differently to Catholics. That’s my conclusion. Its a different paradigm. They can be quite dogmatic and narrowly focussed but sola scriptura will do that to you. Catholics seem to come from a more lateral thinking paradigm. Less literal?
Also I think there is a kind of big brother/little brother relationship. The older brother being the Catholic Church. The younger brother with an inferiority complex. There is probably a better analogy than that though.

 

[guanophore]

Then let Martin Luther produce just one specific oral decree coming from the Apostle Paul. Let any 1st. or 2nd. or 3rd. Century Christian produce just one oral decree coming directly from the Apostle Paul.

Probably the most common is Sunday worship. The New Testament nowhere commands us to observe “the Lord’s Day” on Sunday, but Christians everywhere do this, except for a small percentage of Sabbatarians. Like other Sacred Traditions, we see this practiced in the NT, but never described specifically.

Luther would also support the Liturgy, which is drawn from the Latin Mass. It has changed very little since the first century. In fact, if one attends a Jewish Synagogue, one will see the exact same order and wording in areas that were adopted by the Christian Church.

Luther, along with the other reformers, would support the perpetual virginity of Mary. Most Christians that have departed from the Apostolic succession and have become “bible only” Christians believe that Jesus had siblings borne by HIs mother, Mary.

 

[guanophore]

But you see the Church as an entity of organization. I see the Church as living souls out in the public all over the world.

Actually, Catholics see both of these and more. The Church Jesus founded is visible, hierarchical, organized, and is also made up of living souls. Where we differ may be that the Apostles taught ekklesia meant called OUT of the world where you interpret this as called "into’ the world. We also recognize that members of the Church live forever in Christ, so it includes also those who have gone before us in the faith.

There are members who are visible, and those who are invisible. All who are saved by grace, through faith, are members of His One Body, the Church, but not all of them are publicly identifiable as such.

It is mystical (non-corporeal) as well as tangible. It is incarnational, as Christ is, with both human and divine natures.

Let any 1st. or 2nd. or 3rd. Century Christian produce just one oral decree coming directly from the Apostle Paul.

The best examples are the living liturgy, although this comes from all the Apostles, Paul writes about it in the NT. Justin Martyr gives a detailed and very early description of this Sacred Tradition that has been preserved from the Apostles.

The Trinity is also a good example, a word found nowhere in Scripture, but clearly taught by the Apostles, and defined by Council. Baptism of infants is another.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Who is reading into this one, you or I?

Agreed, disobedient believers will suff

Well, you did it again, De_Maria,. You read Matthew’s narrative into Paul’s, as if they are talking about the same thing. They are not.

They are. Scripture doesn’t contradict itself. Nor were St. Paul’s epistles written in a vacuum. He knew what Jesus Christ taught. Jesus taught St. Matthew and St. Paul the same thing.

But no worries De_Maria, it is a common mistake for a first year Seminary Student. If you let Matthew define Matthew’s terms, and let Paul define his, you will learn they are not talking about the same thing. You have a typical knee jerk on this subject. But God’s Mercy is greater than what you believe. I don’t blame you, you are a product of your own theological environment.

Your problem is that you read to discover doctrine. Whereas, we read to understand and substantiate doctrine. We understand that Jesus Christ taught the Church and then the Church preached and wrote.

Doctrine did not begin with Scripture. Scripture confirms the Doctrines that already existed.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

You’re not even sure

Yeah, that’s an old argument and I’ve never bought in. I believe that what we have today concerning not just Paul but all of the N.T. writers is accurate It was Paul who wrote it and I believe it.

Because you were told so by the authority of the Catholic Church

tgGodsway:

Please do not project your doubts onto me.

That’s my line to you.

I don’t doubt that it is the Catholic Church that Jesus established. You’re the one who rejects that.

tgGodsway:

You can always come on over to the believing side. (smiley face.)

The believing side is the Catholic side.

 

[tgGodsway]

That’s because the Catholic Church was founded in the first century, by Jesus Christ.

Well, if you mean that the Catholic church was founded by Jesus Christ in Rome, … uhh… no.

It is true however that Jesus founded HIS Church from Jerusalem, where most of the converts were converted Jews who had nothing to do with Rome. But HIS Church spread beyond those boarders and eventually include Rome and beyond, if that is what you meant?.. If so, I agree.

 

[guanophore]

Well, if you mean that the Catholic church was founded by Jesus Christ in Rome

No, tgG, only an uniformed Catholic would assert such a thing. On the contrary, Jesus founded His Church upon Peter in Cesarea Phillipii. Paul was converted on the road to Damascus (in Syria), and later, Peter and Paul travelled to Rome as witnesses to the faith, where they were martyred for that same faith.

 

[guanophore]

Well, if you mean that the Catholic church was founded by Jesus Christ in Rome, … uhh… no.

You really seem to have some deep seated animosity toward “Rome”. It seems to be an inheritance from your Reformed theology. Have you considered forgiving “Rome” and the Catholics who lived there?

Are you suggesting that Peter and Paul were not in Rome? Do you deny that the Holy Spirit sent these Apostles to Rome so that the Gospel could be preached?

Are you denying that the two of them labored to build up the Church in Rome?

It is true however that Jesus founded HIS Church from Jerusalem, where most of the converts were converted Jews who had nothing to do with Rome. But HIS Church spread beyond those boarders and eventually include Rome and beyond, if that is what you meant?.. If so, I agree.

It is likely that the first converts from Rome were present at Pentecost, and were among the 3000 converts. To say that converted Jews had “nothing to do with Rome” would entail denial of the Scriptures, specifically references in the Letter of Paul to the Romans that makes it clear there was a thriving Christian community there. How did this happen?

What would you do, if you discovered that the Catholic Church was the one founded by Christ?

 

[anon65111186]

You have added something to the word of God by calling tradition, sacred. Scripture does not call tradition sacred

No one adds to scripture by calling Jesus’s teaching holy, as sacred = holy, tradition = Jesus and the apostles inspired teaching. Some of that teaching got written down i.e. the bible and the Catholic church affirmed which books those were. The unwritten parts were handed down and eventually got written down through the church fathers, inscriptions etc

Protestants like Luther and others took away whole books and parts of the Bible, and retranslated the Bible to fit their own whims.

 

[MT1926]

To say that converted Jews had “nothing to do with Rome” would entail denial of the Scriptures, specifically references in the Letter of Paul to the Romans that makes it clear there was a thriving Christian community there. How did this happen?

I just wanted to add to this…

Romans 1:10 Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)
10 asking that somehow by God’s will I may now at last succeed in coming to you.[a]

Footnotes:
1.10 Paul did not found the church at Rome.

This verse makes it pretty clear that the Church in Rome was already established prior to St. Paul’s arrival.

God Bless

 

[guanophore]

I am Catholic in terms of my Church network, but protestant in terms of my theology.

Can you explain what this means, or give an example?

We do not desire to strong-arm Catholics into, quote, “coming home.” Perhaps you know protestants who do these things, but it has never been my experience.

I have known a lot of Protestants that strongly pressure Catholics to “come out of the whore of Babylon”. But we do not attempt to “strong arm” Protestants into “coming Home”. It is an invitation, and strong urging. Research has proven that the more people are pushed, the more they will resist.

In your case, you were baptized into the faith, then left. What happened? You say you had a powerful spiritual experience. What was that, and why did it lead you out of the Catholic Church?

We do not insist you must believe like us lest you end up going to hell, but you do.

No, the Catholic Church does not teach that.

 

[Benadam]

A method I have used to reach ears deaf to things Catholic is to join a discussion without anyone knowing I’m Catholic. I affirm what I can affirm and then add to what can be added. . I get a lot of yeah’s awes, and amen brothers before some one asks " are you Catholic?. By then a friendly bond has formed and I’m just one of the brothers in fellowship, .well almost .I just say I love to to share my love for Jesus and the bible. I’ve wondered if the catholic meanings of scriptures they accepted whole hearted, without prejudice stuck with them or not. I get the feeling the only thing i added that would be later rejected is whatever I said that made them ask if I’m catholic.

 

[tgGodsway]

It is not the comments of disagreement that leads me to that conclusion, it is the disparagement and accusations against ancient Rome.

Here, let me help you, I have nothing personally against Rome Italy. But it is the CC who makes the claim that the pope (in Rome) rules every local body around the world as a mandate from God. This never was, and will never be God’s will.

Jesus said, blessed are those who see and believe, but more blessed are those who do not see and yet still believe."

Our supreme Bishop is invisible to our natural eyes, yet we see Him, hear His voice, and yield to His rule. The idea of a literal and natural world bishop to rule, (by force if necessary) is sooooo not of God. Perhaps this is what you read into my words. It just so happens that the pope’s home is Rome.

Have you ever wondered why God doesn’t fix the reformation in your favor? … after all, it has been over 500 years. Certainly he is all powerful to do so. Yet, God has no intention of forcing His body to submit to the pope and his perspective, this I know. I’m sure there will be more attempts to do so in our future. Until then, all that you can do is conclude that all of us are heretics and haters. I’m sure you will find some like that in any group, but it is not my experience in the Reformed Church. Our people are loving and incredibly respectful to the word of God. Most of my friends at Church would give me the shirts off their backs if I needed it.

In my own personal view, the Church is universal including members of the RCC, but to say that those boundaries and perspectives are all that God intended to have, is to make our God very small.

 

[guanophore]

it is the CC who makes the claim that the pope (in Rome) rules every local body around the world as a mandate from God. This never was, and will never be God’s will.

Actually it was Jesus who set things up this way. the CC just preserves what He taught. Perhaps it is this notion of “Rule” that is the problem? Jesus told Peter to feed his sheep, and to care for the flock. He did not give any geographical boundaries. This duty was passed to the successor of Peter, and so on until the present day. There will be a need to feed and care for the flock until He comes again.

The idea of a literal and natural world bishop to rule, (by force if necessary) is sooooo not of God. Perhaps this is what you read into my words. It just so happens that the pope’s home is Rome.

While I will agree that Jesus did not intend for Bishops to rule by “force”, He clearly intended that Apostolic succession continue. If He did not, then He would have corrected Peter and the other Apostles when they chose Matthias to succeed Judas in the Bishopric. Or he would have corrected Paul from appointing Bishops.

“Encourage and rebuke with all authority.” Titus 2:15

It boils down not so much to whether this authority was passed from the Apostles to the Bishops, but how it is to be exercised.

Or he could have corrected any and all of the Bishops using any Saint or Holy Prophet for the last 2000 years. He could have corrected the early fathers of the Church, who received this from the Apostles (or thought they did). Do you honestly believe that Jesus could find no one to listen to Him until the Reformation?

Have you ever wondered why God doesn’t fix the reformation in your favor?

No, I have not. I understand the political, economic and cultural reasons for the divide. Had I lived at the time of Luther, most likely I would have become a Lutheran!

God has no intention of forcing His body to submit to the pope and his perspective

Of course not. God does not “force” faith. He does not even “force” obedience to His commandments. Even tho the scriptures command the faithful to be in unity and not tolerate different doctrine (heterodoxy) it st9ll happens.

I wonder what you imagine the “perspective” of the Pope to be, that is so objectionable? Have you read any homilies or encyclicals?

 

[guanophore]

Until then, all that you can do is conclude that all of us are heretics and haters.

This is a strawman, tgG. Although you regularly post statements that demonstrate your hostility toward Roman Catholicism and the Pope, I have never called you a heretic and have attempted to correct others that appear to do so. To be a heretic, one must first embrace the faith, then willfully and knowingly leave it. You do not seem to ever have understood or embraced Catholic faith.

In my own personal view, the Church is universal includes members of the RCC, but to say that those boundaries and perspectives are all God intended, is to make our God very small.

We know that God never intended for us to have these separations because He said so. He taught that by our unity, they would know we are Christians. He taught us to be One, as He and the Father are one. He taught that there were to be no “doctrinal distinctives”.

 

[AnnetteJoan]

One thing I have learned in my 35 years of doing apologetics with protestants and others who have left the Church/hate the Church, is that they have an issue with authority and rebellion. Seems to me someone else had that same problem, and fell from heaven with all his buddies because of it. Don’t be like him.

 

[tgGodsway]

While I will agree that Jesus did not intend for Bishops to rule by “force”, He clearly intended that Apostolic succession continue. If He did not, then He would have corrected Peter and the other Apostles when they chose Matthias to succeed Judas in the Bishopric. Or he would have corrected Paul from appointing Bishops.

Yeah there is just one problem with this oral tradition. It is contrary to scripture, especially on the idea of succession. Here’s why.

Though it is true that Matthias needed to replace Judas and they did so, preserving the Apostleship. But Matthias was an eye witness to the resurrection, a requirement to be a part of this special Apostleship. If you simply read the context of Act 1 you will see that being an eye witness to the resurrection is a must.

Was Peter’s successor an eye witness to the resurrection?.. was that person’s successor also an eye witness to the resurrection?..

We do know that the office of Apostle goes beyond the 12 apostles because Paul taught a five-fold ministry gift in the book of Ephesians, to include the office of apostle, but may I suggest the original twelve Apostles were a special class not to be succeeded without the requirements found in Acts 1.

Secondly, the interpretation of what was given Peter was also given to all of this original apostleship. They, much like the Pharisees, had the KEY of knowledge of the kingdom to impart to others.

in the Bishopric

I think this is a stretch not that it matters because a Bishop is simply an overseeing elder, a position one espiers to, unlike the call to the office of Apostle. This suggest that all of the Apostles were also Bishops. I doubt it. Surely this would be reflected in their letters if that was what was meant.

 

[guanophore]

One thing I have learned in my 35 years of doing apologetics with protestants and others who have left the Church/hate the Church, is that they have an issue with authority and rebellion. Seems to me someone else had that same problem, and fell from heaven with all his buddies because of it. Don’t be like him.

Indeed, at the bottom line, it is all about the issues of authority and a spirit of rebellion.

Yeah there is just one problem with this oral tradition. It is contrary to scripture, especially on the idea of succession.

I am sure you wish it were!

Though it is true that Matthias needed to replace Judas and they did so, preserving the Apostleship. But Matthias was an eye witness to the resurrection, a requirement to be a part of this special Apostleship. If you simply read the context of Act 1 you will see that being an eye witness to the resurrection is a must.

Yes, only Apostles could be eyewitnesses of Christ. Bishops, who were ordained by the apostles to take over the bishopric, were not necessarily eyewitnesses.

Was Peter’s successor an eye witness to the resurrection?.. was that person’s successor also an eye witness to the resurrection?..

Not necessarily. He was not considered an Apostle, but like Matthias, a person who took over a Bishopric.

We do know that the office of Apostle goes beyond the 12 apostles because Paul taught a five-fold ministry gift in the book of Ephesians, to include the office of apostle, but may I suggest the original twelve Apostles were a special class not to be succeeded without the requirements found in Acts 1.

Yes, we are in agreement on this point. There are many referred to in Scripture as Apostles that were not part of the 12. Some have asserted that the 70 sent by Christ were "apostles’ (one who is sent). Where we don’t agree is that those who are “sent” only legitimately come from the Apostles, or successors of the Apostles.

Secondly, the interpretation of what was given Peter was also given to all of this original apostleship. They, much like the Pharisees, had the KEY of knowledge of the kingdom to impart to others.

I am sorry, but you lost me here, tgG. There is more to the Keys of the Kingdom than just knowledge. It also includes authority.

 

[guanophore]

Yeah there is just one problem with this oral tradition. It is contrary to scripture, especially on the idea of succession.

Well, we read it differently, don’t we, tgG? And all the Christians from the first century to the Reformation understood it differently also. One would think that God could have found SOMEONE who could hear God? Why did God allow the Church to misunderstand HIm for 1500 years? It seems like He did not keep his promise to lead the Church into 'all Truth".

Clearly those in the Reformed Tradition must reject Apostolic succession. If it were to be allowed to exist, then it would cause incurable problems for many new doctrines created at the time of the Reformation.

Though it is true that Matthias needed to replace Judas and they did so, preserving the Apostleship. But Matthias was an eye witness to the resurrection, a requirement to be a part of this special Apostleship. If you simply read the context of Act 1 you will see that being an eye witness to the resurrection is a must.

Yes, Apostles are eyewitnesses. They passed their authority on to Bishops, most of whom were not present at the events of Jesus’ life.

Was Peter’s successor an eye witness to the resurrection?.. was that person’s successor also an eye witness to the resurrection?..

No, they were not considered Apostles. Their ordination can be traced back to the Apostles.

I think this is a stretch not that it matters because a Bishop is simply an overseeing elder, a position one espiers to, unlike the call to the office of Apostle.

Scripture refers to the Apostolic succession as a “bishopric”, so your argument is with Holy Spirit’s choice of words.

Yes, an overseeing elder, but one that has been ordained by an Apostle, or is in the Apostolic succession.

This suggest that all of the Apostles were also Bishops. I doubt it.

The passage in Acts that Peter quotes refers to the office as a Bishopric. Obviously the Apostles were scattered around the known world, and did not remain in one geographical area, as Bishops do today. They had the care and feeding of the whole Church. Bishops ordained by them were assigned to certain geographical areas. This practice has continued to today.

Surely this would be reflected in their letters if that was what was meant.

Again, tgG, what Catholics see reflected in scripture Reformed Christians cannot see. This is a result of the installation of a punctum caecum, which accompanies Reformed theology.