Debating with protestants who just won't listen

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Can you show me where the Church teaches that about a “lay person”?

Your specific post was removed and I do not, therefore, think it my place to say anymore about it, given the decision that it should be removed.

The point was, the definition of heresy.

I quoted from the CCC
2089 “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same”

It’s very straight forward.

And I’ve quoted “Great Heresies” The Great Heresies | Catholic Answers back on Jan 15

And what Msgr Pope wrote about all of us being a watchman. I used it back on Jan 12. http://www.ncregister.com/blog/msgr-pope/how-to-respond-when-people-say-who-am-i-to-judge

 

[steve-b]

MT1926:

I also believe the ones that went out to evangelize and preached to the NEW Churches (In every Nation) had authority over those Churches, that was given to them by the ones that taught them (2 Tim 2:2) and that authority went the whole way back to the Apostles.

I do not. Once the Apostles died, inspiration of scripture was critical seeing that people cannot pass on truth without twisting it. But here (below) is a quote from the book “Are We Together,” a Protestant Analyzes of Roman Catholicism, author Dr. RC Sproul p.87, on this topic.

Ya mean the same one, who said about the bible, it is a “Fallible Collection of Infallible Books”
sheesh!!!

 

[Don_Ruggero]

In one sense it means that each bishop can name who laid hands on them in line all the way back to an Apostle

None of us who have a genealogy of Order can go back, name by name, to the apostles. This is to misrepresent what is meant by apostolic succession.

 

[MT1926]

None of us who have a genealogy of Order can go back, name by name, to the apostles. This is to misrepresent what is meant by apostolic succession.

I stand corrected.

 

[guanophore]

I’m not sure how someone else is using this term but from my understanding infallibility means divine assistance to be preserved from error when teaching on the matters of faith and morals.

This is a good point MT1926. This term gets misused. Fallibility, the ability to err in acting and judgement, properly belongs only to persons. Fallibility requires intellect and action of the will. This is why Scripture cannot be “infallible”. Scripture does not have intellect and will, and cannot make choices. The same can be said about Sacred Tradition, which comes from the same Source. These two strands of Divine Revelation are inerrant, and inspired, but the application of them can be fallible.

To me this is a no brainer. If we are going to admit that God did not give humans a way of knowing that something regarding to our faith is divinely taught, to be without error, then we have no way of knowing if anything is true.

Yes, it seems like that to me too. The difference is that Protestants who espouse Sola Scriptura really become their own “infallible” source because everyone reads and interprets the scripture in the light of their own experience and education (or lack of it).

 

[guanophore]

St. Paul was talking about the word of God. He himself was unaware that his letters would later be considered to be the word of God

IT is refreshing to read something we can agree upon 100% !!

If you notice here there is no mention of a successor to lay the foundation again or repetitively.

Right. Catholics believe that this foundation was complete at the death of the last Apostle.

Other teachers may come and build upon the solid foundation, but they must take heed how they build.

This is a challenge for those who have been separated from the Sacred Tradition. The Reformers wanted to build using only the part within the NT. This is a smaller/different foundation, which is why the results are so different.

This implies that the foundation is flawless and infallible, (not Paul) but everything else to be built must be done carefully with the understanding that mistakes can be made and heresy can enter the house of God.

Since the foundation does not “act” then it does not qualify as infallible (no intellect or will), but it is considered inspired and inerrant. Heresy is embraced by persons, which can damage the house of God, but the Church, like Christ, has two natures. The Church has Christ as her head, and the Holy Spirit as her Soul. It is these divine elements that protect her from error, not the human elements.

When the apostles laid the foundation (teaching and writing) they were acting infallibly.

The concept of a successor equal to Paul or Peter or any of the other Apostles, was outside of their thinking. It doesn’t exist in the inspired record.

Well, we read it differently, don’t we? Those who have received the faith of the Apostles interpret it through sacred tradition, so we observe Paul ordaining bishops, and instructing them on their duties to succeed the Apostles.

Apostolic faiths also have the witness of the early church in the writings which testify to the apostolic succession. It is important for Reformed Christians to deny these elements to justify being separated from them.

 

[guanophore]

no but I have heard that the Catholic Church IS THE FOUNDATION today. It was put to me by someone on this site that the CC is the big brother while the protestant Church is the weaker lesser brother. really?

It is said that the CC has the “fullness” (all the elements from the Apostles). The CC recognizes that many of these elements are present in Protestant ecclesial communities. I would not characterize it as “weaker”, since many Protestants are better formed in faith than the majority of Catholics! Despite having the “fullness of faith”, they do not practice the spiritual disciplines of our separated brethren, such as reading the scriptures, praying, attending Church, etc.

If Peter had a successor to his office, this assumes that his successor functioned in the same way as Peter. So that today in a chain of successors, the current Pope functions in the same capacity as Peter. Am I wrong?

Yes and no. Peter had successors, but their function is to protect, preserve, and promulgate the paradosis with which they were entrusted. No new public revelation occurs.

“O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you” I Tim. 6:20

Timothy, a bishop ordained by Paul, was charged with preserving the divine deposit of faith.

Titus, another Bishop ordained by Paul was reminded that he has Apostolic authority:

"You must teach these things and encourage the believers to do them. You have the authority to correct them when necessary, so don’t let anyone disregard what you say. " Titus 2:15

Hence an infallible church with infallible successors.

The Church is infallible by virtue of her divine elements. Successors are only protected by the gift of infalliblity through these divine elements. When successors faithfully teach from the divine deposit of faith, they are protected from error.

 

[guanophore]

But this is crucial because if the basic foundational truths are still in a process of being laid, then the sky is the limit for anyone who wants to add to the foundation and thus alter it.

Yes, I agree! Wow, twice in one day.

The reason why it is a finished foundation is because Jesus Christ is the Chief cornerstone. The implication is that “in Christ” you are made complete. (Col 2:10) He completes the foundation. The Apostles and prophets are apart of that foundation with Jesus Christ being the one element that holds it all together as a foundation. see. Eph. 2:20.

Yes. What we might see as different is that we believe the Church is the fullness of Him, so to be fully “in Christ” we must be fully in unity with His One Body, the Church. That brings us to the definition of “church”. The Reformers had to create a new definition of “church” in order to separate from what they thought was corruption.

The successors in the context of the Corinthian Church are all those in that local body who can build upon those foundational truths.

The successors that are authorized to build on the foundation are those who have been ordained by the Apostles to do so. They have been given responsibility.

“Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account.” Heb. 13;17

“For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands.” I Tim. 1;6

The laying on of hands is used in ordination for successors of the Apostles.

 

[guanophore]

I think we agree on the word sacred. It is set apart and holy. The word infallible has come up in connection with sacred tradition saying that tradition is without error and that the Church is without error.

Perhaps this is a problem due to the disparate definitions of Church? For most of our separated brethren, “church” is the “body of believers on earth”. This is an inadequate definition compared to what received from the Apostles, who taught the Church is One and Holy. But it is not the “body of believers on earth” that make her Holy and infallible, it is the divine elements.

The gift of infallibility is a “negative” gift, meaning it is preventative. By it the Church is prevented from teaching error. If the Church taught error, the faithful would go astray, and pass through the gates of hell. Since Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail, He prevents the Church from teaching error.

This does not mean that individuals are infallible, or that everything taught or done by members of the Church is infallible. It means that the once for all divine deposit of faith is preserved infallibly by the Holy Spirit.

The 1st Century Church certainly was not without error or the possibility of falling into error. And certainly there was no one saying that their tradition is infallible.

So, I thought since you use the word sacred with tradition implying holy and even infallible, I want to see how

How could anything that came from God be fallible? How can the Word of God be in error? Why would the Apostle instruct the faithful to “hold fast” to something that is fallible?

People in the Church make errors, but the divine bride of Christ is protected by Him and kept holy and blameless, though the fallible persons connected to her may become sick or fall. Those who depart from the Holy Foundation cannot change that foundation. The foundation remains immutable. That foundation contains the Holy Scripture and the Sacred Traditions (teachings of the Apostles preserved in the paradosis).

I don’t think that you can “see” this using the current definition you have for “church”

I did a little word study on the whole concept of oral tradition or tradition itself. There was not much to be said from the word of God.

I would not expect that you would. Sacred Tradition compliments the written scripture.

But, you cannot even accept the references to paradosis that are found in the Scripture, so it stands to reason you would not find much!

 

[guanophore]

Paul admits he’s not first in Rome. That doesn’t mean that when he got to Rome he didn’t build the Church of Rome.

The testimony of the Fathers is that Peter and Paul both labored in Rome to build the Church there, and for that reason, it has the primacy. Some anti-Catholics will charge that Peter was never in Rome, because the Scriptures do not specifically say he went there. And the letter of Paul to the Romans makes it clear that there was a thriving community there prior to Paul’s arrival. These facts are not contradictory.

But some anti-Catholics will use the letter of Romans to “refute” that Peter and Paul built up the Church there.

You’re assuming Peter arrived in Rome after that… For sake of argument, one could say, so what? Peter is still the head of the Church, no matter where Peter is at any moment of time.

The truth is we can only estimate when Peter arrived. It is easier to date Paul’s arrival based on more detail around the records. Peter may have already been in Rome when the letter was written.

Irenaeus gives more detail about this period, and about the succession that tgG denies exists.

" Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority [potiorem principalitatem].

1. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. "

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

 

[tgGodsway]

This is a challenge for those who have been separated from the Sacred Tradition. The Reformers wanted to build using only the part within the NT. This is a smaller/different foundation, which is why the results are so different.

No, I don’t think so. The Reformers had gotten their FILL of all the, quote, sacred tradition dictated to them all of their lives. It was in light of comparing that tradition with inspired scripture (the eye-witnesses to the foundation) more critically, did Luther and others begin to realizes they had been sold a bill of goods. “The JUST shall live by faith” was a revelation to Luther that totally changed his Catholic view so that salvation became a real gift and not a “pending obligation.”

Seeing that no one has yet shown how tradition itself is of an equal authority to scripture or that it should be intertwined with scripture, as it makes it’s interpretation with every verse, I consider it a lesser element to consider, as Jesus did. He never called it the word of God.

Traditions along with customs, are fine as long as those traditions do not override the doctrinal stance found in the Sum Of Thy Word. In the CC many of these so-called sacred traditions came centuries later and fly right in the face of holy scripture.

 

[tgGodsway]

Yes and no. Peter had successors, but their function is to protect, preserve, and promulgate the paradosis with which they were entrusted. No new public revelation occurs.

“O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you” I Tim. 6:20

Timothy, a bishop ordained by Paul, was charged with preserving the divine deposit of faith.

Titus, another Bishop ordained by Paul was reminded that he has Apostolic authority:

Yes but neither Timothy or Titus were eye-witnesses to the resurrection, a condition that one must have in order to be of the same caliber as the 12 apostles. A Bishop in my view is a lessor office.

So, my question is, the successor to Peter (in the Catholic tradition) was he an eye witness to the resurrection of Christ? If not, then how can he truly be a successor in the way you define it?

We are all successors in a more broader sense. We are all called to build upon the foundation that was laid by the Apostles. We are all just like the pope. We can kiss his ring and he can kiss our ring. This is what Luther eventually realized.

Also: can you please give me a definition of paradosis. I do not know this word.

 

[MT1926]

Traditions along with customs, are fine as long as those traditions do not override the doctrinal stance found in the Sum Of Thy Word. In the CC many of these so-called sacred traditions came centuries later and fly right in the face of holy scripture.

You know tgG I have asked you on several occasions to stop making this comment. Why are you so uncharitable to Catholics that you have to keep bearing false witness by making this comment? Point to one thing the Catholic Church teaches that is contrary to what is written in scripture and not just your interpretation.

Since you can only say you don’t agree with our interpretation then please stop making this comment.

The definition of contrary means the exact opposite would have to be shown in scripture.

To say it “fly right in the face of holy scripture” would mean it would have to be “OPENLY” opposite of what is written.

I know this line of thinking has been beaten into you by your teachers but you need rise above them.

God Bless

 

[tgGodsway]

Yes. What we might see as different is that we believe the Church is the fullness of Him, so to be fully “in Christ” we must be fully in unity with His One Body, the Church

A couple of things here: Firstly when you say Church, do you mean the universal body? All those who call upon the name of the Lord from every circle and tradition? Or do you mean the Church who’s traditions are rooted in the CC beginning at Rome?

Secondly, as you say, “to be fully in Christ.” Please clarify this idea. On what scriptural and foundational basis do you see anyone partially in Christ? Where is this taught from the founders point of view?

The Reformers had to create a new definition of “church” in order to separate from what they thought was corruption.

It was new to them, seeing that they grew up in the Roman Catholic Tradition, but it was never new.

The Greek word, as you know, means Called out! It suggest those who answer the call out into the public. Though it is a noun in the feminine gender, it can be understood as a verb.

The Church does have an organizational aspect to her. But that organization is subject to it’s local bodies with it’s local traditions and customs in each generation. At least this is what we find in the 1st. and 2nd. century. The notion that Peter was ruling the entire Church by 42 a.d. with all other apostles in subjection and that the CC had this rule from Rome, is simply not historically correct and difficult to take seriously.

 

[guanophore]

The Reformers had gotten their FILL of all the, quote, sacred tradition dictated to them all of their lives.

It is not/was not Sacred Tradition that bothered the Reformers, but the corruption of clerics claiming to embody it. This and the conflation of ecclesial power/position with secular precipitated the political and economic frustration that burst through with Luther. I think Luther precipitated it, inasmuch as he was the pebble that started the landslide, but if it had not been him, it would have been someone else.

It was in light of comparing that tradition with inspired scripture (the eye-witnesses to the foundation) more critically, did Luther and others begin to realizes they had been sold a bill of goods.

I think you are confusing the traditions of men for Sacred Traditions here.
There have been many bills of goods sold by those who make claims on the basis of religion. Often it is done by those who are sincere and passionate about their faith. My ancestors in America were rabid anti-Catholics, who were happy to remove their lives from the earth in fine Puritan fashion.

“The JUST shall live by faith” was a revelation to Luther that totally changed his Catholic view so that salvation became a real gift and not a “pending obligation.”

Yes, I think this is true. Despite years of reading the scriptures, translating them, praying them daily with other monks, and being told this by pastors and spiritual directors, for some reason it never sunk in until after he embraced other heresies. For his sake, I am very glad that it finally did sink into his understanding. This does not mean, however, that salvation is any kind of “pending obligation”. Salvation is a work that begins at the moment we are born again, and is completed when we are united with our inheritance, kept imperishable for us in heaven. It is a hope, that which we work out while we live on this earth.

 

[guanophore]

Seeing that no one has yet shown how tradition itself is of an equal authority to scripture or that it should be intertwined with scripture, as it makes it’s interpretation with every verse

I do not think there is anything that you might find convincing on this matter except perhaps an angel of God, so I will pray that you receive one.

Catholics, unlike “bible Christians” do not “make interpretation with every verse”. We read the Scriptures wholistically from the point of view of the faith that produced them.

Traditions along with customs, are fine as long as those traditions do not override the doctrinal stance found in the Sum Of Thy Word.

At least we are in agreement on that point! Where we might not disagree is the “doctrinal stance” that we find in the Scriptures. Catholics also understand the “Sum” to include the OT, and received many things from the Jews, such as the nature of man, and light upon the nature of salvation, the last times, the nature of the Church, etc.

In the CC many of these so-called sacred traditions came centuries later and fly right in the face of holy scripture.

I understand that it seems that way to you because you do not seem to know much about your own family history, and you interpret the scripture from an anti-catholic viewpoint.

Yes but neither Timothy or Titus were eye-witnesses to the resurrection, a condition that one must have in order to be of the same caliber as the 12 apostles. A Bishop in my view is a lessor office.

Perhaps, not sure how you mean “lesser”. You seemed to get offended when someone suggested your ecclesial communion was “lesser”. It is certainly different in quality and trajectory. Jesus was clear that the place for the 12 was unique. The point is that the Apostles entrusted their authority and the paradosis to the Bishops, so you may consider them “lesser” but that does not detract from their mission and purpose.

So, my question is, the successor to Peter (in the Catholic tradition) was he an eye witness to the resurrection of Christ? If not, then how can he truly be a successor in the way you define it?

I am sorry, I don’t think I understand your question. It is your definition that has precluded this, not mine. You are the one who has introduced the qualification that the successor of an Apostle had to be an eye witness, not me.

 

[guanophore]

We are all successors in a more broader sense. We are all called to build upon the foundation that was laid by the Apostles. We are all just like the pope. We can kiss his ring and he can kiss our ring. This is what Luther eventually realized.

Yes, each of us has a ministry, and each of us is to be built into the church as living stones. As persons, we are like the pope, but only the pope has the ministry of Peter. He has responsibility to feed and care for the whole flock of God.

Luther was responded to arrogantly by the Bishops and the Pope. If more humility had been exercised, things might have been different.

Also: can you please give me a definition of paradosis. I do not know this word.

I think you do know it, as you have just stated that we all have a responsibility to build on the foundation, though you may not be familiar with how it is used in the Gk. NT.

You seem to be intelligent and educated, tgG. I don’t know if you have college experience, but you have referred to word studies you have done, so clearly you have some skills in research. Have you ever been on a debate team and had to defend a position with which you did not agree?

Perhaps you could consider an academic exercise, such as proving there is such a thing as paradosis (assuming that you may not agree there is such a thing?)

 

[guanophore]

Also: can you please give me a definition of paradosis. I do not know this word.

For I handed on to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures; 4 that he was buried; that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures; I Cor. 15;3-4

This phrase is one of the earliest written parts of the present Creed. It was recited by those who were coming for baptism.

2 I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you. I Cor. 11;2

Paradosis refers to the process of handing down, and is also used to refer to the content of Apostolic Teaching that was entrusted to the successors of the Apostles.

παράδοσις (paradosis) is the word used in this passage:

15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

Translated “traditions”, it refers to Apostolic traditions (as opposed to the traditions of men). These are referred to equally in importance by Paul here, as well as in I Cor.

 

[steve-b]

In my response that you responded to Debating with protestants who just won't listen - #682 by steve-b

I also said

Consider this

Who then is Paul writing to? To pagan Rome? No. They could give a rip who Paul is. And they for sure wouldn’t keep his letter. Paul wrote to the Church that is already there. But as you quote, Paul just said he doesn’t build on another man’s work. Yet he is writing to the Church that is already there. Does that mean he just broke his own rule?

guanophore:

We don’t have an exact date when Peter arrived in Rome, but some have suggested that this is allusion to Peter already being there.

And I agreed

In addition, while Rome is Peter’s see, it doesn’t mean he can’t evangelize and work outside of Rome. He was probably away from Rome when Paul wrote his letter to the Church of Rome. Since the dates of all the writings are estimates / approximates, that’s why I use ( ~ ) in front of most dates. Peter wrote a Letter from Rome. Again the date is an estimate.

Yes tg denies much. After many years on this forum, he’s been given evidence NOT OPINION, in avalanche proportion for Catholic Truth going back to the first century and Jesus and the apostles…

 

[guanophore]

Point to one thing the Catholic Church teaches that is contrary to what is written in scripture and not just your interpretation.

One of the handicaps of a fundamentalist mindset is that the reader believes their interpretation is what is written. One cannot get one’s mind around the possibility that it could be interpreted differently.

Since you can only say you don’t agree with our interpretation then please stop making this comment.

I miss the old forum rules. It used to be that non-Catholics were expected to respect our belief/faith, even if they disagree with the doctrine. That seems to have been lost in the sauce.

I know this line of thinking has been beaten into you by your teachers but you need rise above them.

Reformed Christians are well versed and "drilled’ as it were, in an anti-Catholic perspective.

A couple of things here: Firstly when you say Church, do you mean the universal body? All those who call upon the name of the Lord from every circle and tradition? Or do you mean the Church who’s traditions are rooted in the CC beginning at Rome?

There is only One Body.

There is no Church that began in Rome. The Church founded by Christ began in Palestine. Christians that travelled to Rome and formed the first community there were likely those who were at Pentecost in Jerusalem.

Secondly, as you say, “to be fully in Christ.” Please clarify this idea. On what scriptural and foundational basis do you see anyone partially in Christ? Where is this taught from the founders point of view?

Paul writes to the Corinthians about how, when they have sex with a prostitute, the “two shall become one”, and the perpetrator has then joined the prostitute with the Body of Christ.

15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16 Do you not know that he who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two shall become one flesh.” 1 Corinthians 6:15–16

So we can see that which is unholy can be joined to the Body through the sinful actions of members of the body. Would you say that the member of the Body who had sex with a prostitute was “fully in Christ”?