Here is a way to prove Catholic claims false...

[dennisknapp]

On this board we see alot of debates between Protestants and Catholics, some good, some bad.

What usually happens is one or the other in the debate starts quoting scripture to support his or his claims. This goes round and round until finally the thread dies. Also, there are those who are more theologically inclined and they not only use scripture but the Fathers of the Church as well. This is where things can get interesting. As this type of debate goes on we usually see some Protestants leave the debate by claiming the Fathers are not scripture and so need not be heeded.

What most Protestants do not understand when debating Catholics is that Catholics don’t accept the Protestant doctrine known as Sola Scriptura. So, debating a Catholic using the bible alone is like having a musical without the music. You may have the actors and props, but without the music it is no musical.

If Protestants want to get anywhere with Catholic they must do so using more than just Scripture. They must use the Fathers and the Councils, as well. Catholics take what has been taught by previous Christians very seriously, the earliest Christians even more so. For they are the closest link we have to the Apostles and Christ apart from the limited information we receive from Sacred Scripture.

If you want to get anywhere with Catholics this is something that needs to be addressed.

Peace

 

[RyanL]

Catholics, more than anyone else, want to worship like the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd century Christians! If a Protestant can find evidence which discounts any of the Catholic positions from the first 3 centuries of Christian writers, it would go a long way.

Just some advice.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Karen10]

Check here first:
catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9403qq.asp
and scroll down to the question:

Why does the Catholic Church claim (from Vatican I) that its doctrines can be verified by the “universal and unanimous consent of the Fathers” when it’s so easy to prove that the Fathers were not unanimous in their teachings? Catholic doctrines such as purgatory, baptismal regeneration, and papal primacy were not “universally” held in the early Church.

Here’s one small snippet to get you interested in reading the rest:

The Catholic Church never has claimed that every Church Father at all times believed and taught every single Catholic doctrine in the sense that the Church teaches it. It is the Church as a single organic entity, the Body of Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 12:12-27) that always and everywhere has faithfully guarded and proclaimed the apostolic deposit of faith–not necessarily its individual members. This is true today. The Catholic Church universally teaches, as it always has, the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist…

Purgatory, baptismal regeneration, and papal primacy *were *universally taught in the early Church, as can be demonstrated by a study of patristic writings. (For starters, consider the many quotations from the Fathers on these issues in “The Fathers Know Best” department of This Rock). The Fathers appealed not only to Scripture as their doctrinal authority, but also to the Fathers who came before them, to show the constant tradition of Catholic teaching on a given subject.

 

[Della]

The main problem I see with your theory, Dennis, is that some very vocal Protestants interested in debating with Catholics not only hold to Sola Scriptura, but to Sola Interpretation, i.e., that whatever they think a verse or passage means, that’s what it means no matter how much it doesn’t really say what they want it to or how much they want to think it does.

People who do not want to see that the Church’s position is correct will and do go way out of their way to prove that it doesn’t. Some, especially one whose name escapes me at the moment, has gone to great lengths to edit the Church Fathers, as he does Scripture, to “prove” that the CFs didn’t support Catholic teachings. One simply cannot debate with people who absolutely will not agree that the Church is right on certain issues when they will not believe it no matter what proofs might be set before them.

I’m not accusing them of being deliberately dishonest, but they are so determined the Church must be wrong that they will do whatever it takes, including fudging the facts, to make it be so. You see, they believe the ends justify the means, and so they cannot see that the way they are going about “proving” the Church wrong is not only committing the sin of bearing false witness, they cannot see that such an approach will never convert knowledgeable Catholics. This is why they give up on us pretty quickly and concentrate on those they can persuade: the ignorant, the disaffected, and those experiencing difficulties in their lives, such as the loss of a loved one, a job, the lonely, etc.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

Were the Protestants to honestly and truthfully argue from the Fathers of the Church and the Councils etc. they would basically have to be Catholic as they would be accepting the Tradition as a valid source of the Word of God. Thus accepting Tradition, they must accept the infallible Church as the source and defender of these Truths other wise, what is “Tradition” other than another source of personal interpretation? Sayings of old dead men don’t have much authority if you buy that everyone can interpret Scripture for themselves because why would they be any better at it then we are? Thus, to accept the teachings of the Fathers as accurate and reliable witness to the constant teaching of the Church would be to discard personal interpretation, be it for Scripture or anything else.

Arguing from the Councils, I would seriously wonder again why they’d still be protestants-a Council is an act of an Universal Church, not an “invisible” church.

Knowlegable and faithful Catholics do not fall for the erronous interpretation of “bible-believers” because we understant Authority and I also believe that many of us (especially today, with the internet and greater availability of sources of information) are pretty well read up or at least familiar with the Fathers, Church history and secular history relating to the Church. I believe even from a secular viewpoint, history points to the Catholic position as the more accurate one-speaking from an unbiased reading of the Fathers and history.

Like Cardinal Newman said, to be deep in history is to cease being a protestant!

 

[dennisknapp]

ComradeAndrei:

Were the Protestants to honestly and truthfully argue from the Fathers of the Church and the Councils etc. they would basically have to be Catholic as they would be accepting the Tradition as a valid source of the Word of God. Thus accepting Tradition, they must accept the infallible Church as the source and defender of these Truths other wise, what is “Tradition” other than another source of personal interpretation? Sayings of old dead men don’t have much authority if you buy that everyone can interpret Scripture for themselves because why would they be any better at it then we are? Thus, to accept the teachings of the Fathers as accurate and reliable witness to the constant teaching of the Church would be to discard personal interpretation, be it for Scripture or anything else.

Arguing from the Councils, I would seriously wonder again why they’d still be protestants-a Council is an act of an Universal Church, not an “invisible” church.

Knowlegable and faithful Catholics do not fall for the erronous interpretation of “bible-believers” because we understant Authority and I also believe that many of us (especially today, with the internet and greater availability of sources of information) are pretty well read up or at least familiar with the Fathers, Church history and secular history relating to the Church. I believe even from a secular viewpoint, history points to the Catholic position as the more accurate one-speaking from an unbiased reading of the Fathers and history.

Like Cardinal Newman said, to be deep in history is to cease being a protestant!

I see you point, but if Protestants want to get anywhere with Catholics this issue needs to be addressed. It like trying to communicate with someone who speaks a different language. You need to learn the language in order to communicate.

Peace

 

[RyanL]

Della:

… some very vocal Protestants interested in debating … who do not want to see that the Church’s position is correct will and do go way out of their way to prove that it doesn’t. Some, especially one whose name escapes me at the moment, has gone to great lengths to edit the Church Fathers, as he does Scripture, to “prove” that the CFs didn’t support Catholic teachings…

Hmmm…what could that name be…Jack Black? No…Jim Green? No…Jerry Red? No…I wonder what his name was…

 

[deb1]

dennisknapp:

On this board we see alot of debates between Protestants and Catholics, some good, some bad.

What usually happens is one or the other in the debate starts quoting scripture to support his or his claims. This goes round and round until finally the thread dies. Also, there are those who are more theologically inclined and they not only use scripture but the Fathers of the Church as well. This is where things can get interesting. As this type of debate goes on we usually see some Protestants leave the debate by claiming the Fathers are not scripture and so need not be heeded.

What most Protestants do not understand when debating Catholics is that Catholics don’t accept the Protestant doctrine known as Sola Scriptura. So, debating a Catholic using the bible alone is like having a musical without the music. You may have the actors and props, but without the music it is no musical.

If Protestants want to get anywhere with Catholic they must do so using more than just Scripture. They must use the Fathers and the Councils, as well. Catholics take what has been taught by previous Christians very seriously, the earliest Christians even more so. For they are the closest link we have to the Apostles and Christ apart from the limited information we receive from Sacred Scripture.

If you want to get anywhere with Catholics this is something that needs to be addressed.

Peace

Actually, a protestant can go a long way with me by just acknowledging that I am a Christian who doesn’t need to be converted to their particular denomination.

 

[Shlemele]

deb1:

Actually, a protestant can go a long way with me by just acknowledging that I am a Christian who doesn’t need to be converted to their particular denomination.

pins sign on back; “I’m Catholic and going to Heaven”

sneaks away like the sneaky Mennonite he is, livin in an Amish Paradise

 

[dennisknapp]

My point is that Protestant are going to get nowhere with us just by qouting the bible. Are they expecting us to take their interpretation over that of the first Christains and Church?

If they prove the early Christians wrong the rest just falls into place.

Peace

 

[O.S.Luke]

dennisknapp:

What most Protestants do not understand when debating Catholics is that Catholics don’t accept the Protestant doctrine known as Sola Scriptura. So, debating a Catholic using the bible alone is like having a musical without the music. You may have the actors and props, but without the music it is no musical.

And what most Catholics don’t understand is that not all Protestants accept or even espouse Sola Scriptura. Even so, such debate is usually a waste of time, as I’ve said before, when you set the strawman up before the debate begins.

Quite frankly, such thread titles are bait for fish in a barrel on a Catholic website - and fully aware of the possiblity that my post might be deleted (and respect that, as I’m not Catholic). Dennis… when are you going to quit the charade? I would admire your faith a lot more if you quit trying to denigrate others with false claims of converting back to being Protestant when you get adequate “proof.”

The proof you claim to seek can’t be “proved” - your faith, like mine, is wonderfully embraced by the mystery of Christ and the mystery of the sacraments. Debate has a limited effectiveness when talking about things mysterious and supernatural that can’t be ‘proved’ - only experiences and embraced by faith. “Blessed are those who have not seen yet believe.”

Clement of Alexandria, in his exhortation to the Greeks: “When we are baptized, we are enlightened. Being enlightened, we are adopted as sons. Adopted as sons, we are made perfect. Made perfect, we become immortal.” Can you prove that or even debate that? No. But I believe it nonetheless. I can only ask others to embrace it. Debating it is folly.

I have a lot of admiration for Catholics and the Catholic faith. But I’m sorry, you continue to come off as disingenous. Embrace your faith, be proud of it, and seek to convert others. But don’t dangle carrots in trying to challenge others to ‘make their case’ when you know in your heart of hearts that you have no plans on changing.

I imagine your priest, as well as the Magisterium, would have a hard time with you knowing that you’re a provisional Catholic until you’re convinced that something else is closer to the Truth. The Catholic Church is supposed to HAVE the truth, is it not? Aren’t you being disobedient by being open to the possibilty that it isn’t?

Look at the threads you’ve started:

Here is a way to prove Catholic claims false…
ATTN: I will revert to Protestantism if Protestants can…
Poll: Should we be willing to follow the truth where ever it leds us? Yes or No
Here is your chance Protestants!

And the best one:

Desperately seeking evidence for Sola Scriptura in church history

So… are you REALLY looking for a better church, or are you just goading folks into making your argument? It seems that, from a faithful point of view, you’re going to run into problems in either case.

Be genuine, Dennis. Please.

O+

 

[dennisknapp]

O.S. Luke:

And what most Catholics don’t understand is that not all Protestants accept or even espouse Sola Scriptura. Even so, such debate is usually a waste of time, as I’ve said before, when you set the strawman up before the debate begins.

Quite frankly, such thread titles are bait for fish in a barrel on a Catholic website - and fully aware of the possiblity that my post might be deleted (and respect that, as I’m not Catholic). Dennis… when are you going to quit the charade? I would admire your faith a lot more if you quit trying to denigrate others with false claims of converting back to being Protestant when you get adequate “proof.”

The proof you claim to seek can’t be “proved” - your faith, like mine, is wonderfully embraced by the mystery of Christ and the mystery of the sacraments. Debate has a limited effectiveness when talking about things mysterious and supernatural that can’t be ‘proved’ - only experiences and embraced by faith. “Blessed are those who have not seen yet believe.”

Clement of Alexandria, in his exhortation to the Greeks: “When we are baptized, we are enlightened. Being enlightened, we are adopted as sons. Adopted as sons, we are made perfect. Made perfect, we become immortal.” Can you prove that or even debate that? No. But I believe it nonetheless. I can only ask others to embrace it. Debating it is folly.

I have a lot of admiration for Catholics and the Catholic faith. But I’m sorry, you continue to come off as disingenous. Embrace your faith, be proud of it, and seek to convert others. But don’t dangle carrots in trying to challenge others to ‘make their case’ when you know in your heart of hearts that you have no plans on changing.

I imagine your priest, as well as the Magisterium, would have a hard time with you knowing that you’re a provisional Catholic until you’re convinced that something else is closer to the Truth. The Catholic Church is supposed to HAVE the truth, is it not? Aren’t you being disobedient by being open to the possibilty that it isn’t?

Look at the threads you’ve started:

Here is a way to prove Catholic claims false…
ATTN: I will revert to Protestantism if Protestants can…
Poll: Should we be willing to follow the truth where ever it leds us? Yes or No
Here is your chance Protestants!

And the best one:

Desperately seeking evidence for Sola Scriptura in church history

So… are you REALLY looking for a better church, or are you just goading folks into making your argument? It seems that, from a faithful point of view, you’re going to run into problems in either case.

Be genuine, Dennis. Please.

O+

You seem to be quite upset with me. I have stated before hand that my titles are meant to draw people. Why would I select a boring title to a thread when I know that those threads don’t draw anyone? All I am doing is trying to make the title interesting. That is all.

Also, numerous times you have questioned my character. Why? I value true debate, and the Truth most of all. You speak of experience and mystery. Fine. I know from my own experience that mystery is a valid part of a Christains life, but does that mean you have to buy it? No. Experiece is only valid for those who experience it. In life we sometimes have to trust things we don’t experience. I have never been to China, but I know it is there. I know this through books, the internet, TV, etc. Most of the abstract concepts I believe in are not based on experiece, but on reason. I use logical argumentation to come to conclusions about the world that I cannot experience.

I do desire Truth. And I think the Church would want me to do so. I would change my beliefs if they were proven to be false, who wouldn’t? Why believe in something that is false no matter how it makes you feel or what you’ve experienced?

The titles of my threads are a rhetorical device, that’s it. Please stop questioning my integrity.

Peace

 

[arieh0310]

O.S. Luke:

The proof you claim to seek can’t be “proved” - your faith, like mine, is wonderfully embraced by the mystery of Christ and the mystery of the sacraments. Debate has a limited effectiveness when talking about things mysterious and supernatural that can’t be ‘proved’ - only experiences and embraced by faith. “Blessed are those who have not seen yet believe.”

I think what Dennis is trying to get at is that most Protestant denominations believe that they are the embodiment of primitive Christianity. They say Catholicism has added to the Gospel even when most of the uniquely Catholic doctrines can be argued from Scripture. So, what our debate eventually boils down to is Scriptural interpretation. Knowing early Christian Biblical exegesis becomes critical. When a Protestant says that the papacy was a take-your-pick-century invention you can reply with patristic quotes from the second century on (in addition to the Bible); when a Protestant says that transubstantiation was invented at the Fourth Lateran Council you can hit back with a quote from Justin Martyr. I think the debate suggestions given by Dennis are valid and helpful, but unfortunately for Protestants many would convert to Catholicism as a result–that is what happened to me

 

[O.S.Luke]

dennisknapp:

You seem to be quite upset with me. I have stated before hand that my titles are meant to draw people. Why would I select a boring title to a thread when I know that those threads don’t draw anyone? All I am doing is trying to make the title interesting. That is all.

And as I have stated beforehand, what you mean and how it comes across are two different things. Regardless of what you mean, the perception is quite different. And if I’m, not mistaken, I’m not the only one to have told you so previously.

Your titles provoke… is that a legitimate Christian ‘draw’?

Also, numerous times you have questioned my character. Why? I value true debate, and the Truth most of all. You speak of experience and mystery. Fine. I know from my own experience that mystery is a valid part of a Christains life, but does that mean you have to buy it? No.

Huh? If you are Catholic, you DO have to “buy it” (mystery, that is). If you don’t, you are at best a cafeteria Catholic.

True debate? Or strawman tactics?

Experiece is only valid for those who experience it. In life we sometimes have to trust things we don’t experience. I have never been to China, but I know it is there. I know this through books, the internet, TV, etc. Most of the abstract concepts I believe in are not based on experiece, but on reason. I use logical argumentation to come to conclusions about the world that I cannot experience.

If you’ve used true logical methods, you’ve at best stretched their limitations. You’re going to run into nominalistic problems (basically, inadequate language/concepts) very quickly using logic to talk about basic and formative Christians doctrines such as the Atonement, Real Presence, Sanctifying Grace, and the Virgin Birth.

Reason fails when it comes to the supernatural. And if you’re going to be Catholic, you’re going to have to embrace the supernatural. You cannot reason the Real Presence of Christ, you cannot reason the eschatological nature of Christ, you cannot reason the dual nature of Christ, you cannot reason the Resurrection, and you cannot reason miracles. They are not part of the natural order, they are supernatural. They operate in the both/and. They can be paradoxical.

Logic is what Protestant post-modernists and process theologians are using to back their arguments. Those arguments run counter to the Faith.

I do desire Truth. And I think the Church would want me to do so. I would change my beliefs if they were proven to be false, who wouldn’t? Why believe in something that is false no matter how it makes you feel or what you’ve experienced?

The Catholic Church is the Truth and has the Truth. The magisterium teaches “into all truth.” Your task as a practing Catholic is to know your Catholic faith, live your Catholic faith, and spread your Catholic faith (from Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth, Revised Second Edition, Copyright © 1996, Catholic Answers).

The titles of my threads are a rhetorical device, that’s it. Please stop questioning my integrity.

If such a rhetorical device is not received charitably, and you’re aware of that by others who have said so previously, is continuing to do so a sign of integrity?

You may not MEAN to communicate such. But all some of us can go by is what you say. We can’t read your mind, only your words - and your words have been received as I’ve described.

The truth is best taught by conviction and example. Rhetorical device and the Socratic method are great debate techniques for high school forensics, but I’m dubious about their value for Christian conviction and conversion.

O+

 

[dennisknapp]

O.S. Luke:

And as I have stated beforehand, what you mean and how it comes across are two different things. Regardless of what you mean, the perception is quite different. And if I’m, not mistaken, I’m not the only one to have told you so previously.

Your titles provoke… is that a legitimate Christian ‘draw’?

Huh? If you are Catholic, you DO have to “buy it” (mystery, that is). If you don’t, you are at best a cafeteria Catholic.

True debate? Or strawman tactics?

If you’ve used true logical methods, you’ve at best stretched their limitations. You’re going to run into nominalistic problems (basically, inadequate language/concepts) very quickly using logic to talk about basic and formative Christians doctrines such as the Atonement, Real Presence, Sanctifying Grace, and the Virgin Birth.

Reason fails when it comes to the supernatural. And if you’re going to be Catholic, you’re going to have to embrace the supernatural. You cannot reason the Real Presence of Christ, you cannot reason the eschatological nature of Christ, you cannot reason the dual nature of Christ, you cannot reason the Resurrection, and you cannot reason miracles. They are not part of the natural order, they are supernatural. They operate in the both/and. They can be paradoxical.

Logic is what Protestant post-modernists and process theologians are using to back their arguments. Those arguments run counter to the Faith.

The Catholic Church is the Truth and has the Truth. The magisterium teaches “into all truth.” Your task as a practing Catholic is to know your Catholic faith, live your Catholic faith, and spread your Catholic faith (from Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth, Revised Second Edition, Copyright © 1996, Catholic Answers).

If such a rhetorical device is not received charitably, and you’re aware of that by others who have said so previously, is continuing to do so a sign of integrity?

You may not MEAN to communicate such. But all some of us can go by is what you say. We can’t read your mind, only your words - and your words have been received as I’ve described.

The truth is best taught by conviction and example. Rhetorical device and the Socratic method are great debate techniques for high school forensics, but I’m dubious about their value for Christian conviction and conversion.

O+

First, name one strawman I have ever used.

Truth is best taught by conviction and example? I admit, instruction can be reinforced by conviction and a good example, but best taught? No. Do you instruct your children by conviction and a good example alone? Or do you tell them what is right and then use your example to back it up?

If you are not into lively debate, that’s fine, but please don’t rain on everyone else’s parade. The Socratic method is one of the greatest teaching techniques ever devised. If it was good enough for the Greeks it is good enough for me.

My comments regarding truth and experience were meant to show you that experience is not enough to prove anything to anyone. All experience is only enough for those who experience it. Your experience has nothing to do with what is true or not, its entirely subjective.

If some on this forum have had a problem with my thread topics they have the right not to read the thread. I learned long ago that you can’t please everyone. Instead of personal attacks and red-herrings, maybe you can deal with the issues and the discussion at hand.

Peace

 

[O.S.Luke]

dennisknapp:

First, name one strawman I have ever used.

I’ve done that in the past. If you weren’t open to admitting it before, I doubt seriously you’re open to admitting it now.

Truth is best taught by conviction and example? I admit, instruction can be reinforced by conviction and a good example, but best taught? No. Do you instruct your children by conviction and a good example alone? Or do you tell them what is right and then use your example to back it up?

How do you “back up” the Virgin Birth? The Real Presence of Christ? I believe in them, and I teach them as a pastor. I believe them to be the truth. But I can’t use logic… I can only use faith. Christian Truth is based on faith on things unseen and by a Church who serves as a witness.

If you are not into lively debate, that’s fine, but please don’t rain on everyone else’s parade. The Socratic method is one of the greatest teaching techniques ever devised. If it was good enough for the Greeks it is good enough for me.

Debate that has a purpose is fine. But why would you as a Catholic want to avail yourself to be possibility that Protestants have the truth if they can win a debate with you?

My comments regarding truth and experience were meant to show you that experience is not enough to prove anything to anyone. All experience is only enough for those who experience it. Your experience has nothing to do with what is true or not, its entirely subjective.

You just made my point - welcome to Christian theology. While you and I may agree that Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, we have no proof that would hold up to objectivity and logic. Christian Theology is subjective, my friend - it’s based in the supernatural.

If some on this forum have had a problem with my thread topics they have the right not to read the thread. I learned long ago that you can’t please everyone. Instead of personal attacks and red-herrings, maybe you can deal with the issues and the discussion at hand.

I think this IS an issue to discuss… that is, if you’re going to invite Protestants - or anyone else - in on the discussion.

You haven’t answered MY question: why is a Catholic asking these things and offering to convert if given proof?

O+

 

[Pythagoras]

which takes more primacy,…

sola scriptura over sola fidei OR sola fidei over sola scriptura???

protestants should choose only one since these two solas don’t complement each other

 

[Zooey]

Pythagoras:

which takes more primacy,…

sola scriptura over sola fidei OR sola fidei over sola scriptura???

protestants should choose only one since these two solas don’t complement each other

I hesitate to speak for OSLuke–who in any case, doesn’t need any help from me–but…
The fact is, that one problem that arises again & again, is that some Catholics–by no means all, nor even most, but some–fail to recognize that many of us Protestants don’t believe in Sola Scriptura.So to raise it as a blanket Protestant belief, is to start on a false foundation from the start.
That’s my only point here…

 

[The_Eurasian]

Maybe there is a third “sola” operating here, the “SOLA MIA”.

 

[dennisknapp]

Zooey:

I hesitate to speak for OSLuke–who in any case, doesn’t need any help from me–but…
The fact is, that one problem that arises again & again, is that some Catholics–by no means all, nor even most, but some–fail to recognize that many of us Protestants don’t believe in Sola Scriptura.So to raise it as a blanket Protestant belief, is to start on a false foundation from the start.
That’s my only point here…

I never said “all” Protestants believe the doctrine of sola scriptura. I said “most” Protestants believe the doctrine of sola scriptura.

Peace