Even today, most mainline protestants continue to value and embrace tradition, but consider that all tradition must be subjected to Scripture as the final authority. So, not so much “do away with” as** subjugating**.
That is true.
No.
Hm? I’m only discounting the value of your statements. I have accepted the statements of Itwin and Abidewithme and I think I have rebutted them as appropriate.
If that’s what you think, then report it, because ad hominem arguments are against the policies of this forum. I’d like to see what they say when I point out how you’ve been hounding me.
And yet I have proved you wrong on every point of Catholic doctrine and on every other point of significance in this thread.
No you haven’t. You’ve simply hounded me on one single point. I originally did not believe that Itwin denied OSAS. But he convinced me that he did. You however, continue to hound me on that point.
What discrepancy? I have addressed any discrepancies I had with Itwin directly with him. What do you have to do with anything he and I are discussing?
If its any of your business, here’s what I said to Itwin:
So why do you continue to hound me on that issue? Or have you not read the entire thread as you have previously claimed?
And I asked you to provide one example of a mainline Protestant denomination which does not reject Tradition with a Capital T.
I agree.
I believe your messages would be more productive if you would first get your facts straight.
You love to point the finger at others. Take the mote out of your eye. First have the courage and integrity to admit when you are wrong. Perhaps then you can advise others to do the same.
You said:
Essentially, thats an attack on Catholics. You are siding with Protestants against Catholics.
Hm?
I do that all the time. I frequently explain Protestant theology and show them their errors.
I directed Itwin to the Catechism not to individual Catholics. So what was your objection if you now claim to agree with me?
I didn’t direct Itwin to Cafeteria Catholics. I directed him to the Catechism. So what was your objection?
Quit changing the subject. How do you know the difference between a person who speaks the tongue of angels and one who is feigning that gift?
Again, how do you know the difference between a person who is feigning the gift of tongues and one who is genuine?
Everything you’ve brought up is way off topic. The only common thread in your messages was to complain about mine. And you seem to go to any lengths to do so.
It is.
Who made you the debate style judge is what I would like to know?
I’ve only used that with you because you love to offer your opinions with either nothing to back them up or errors.
And I’m here to tell you that the whole world does not revolve around you.
I’ve had certain Catholics who offered me advice. Here’s what they did.
I would go one beyond that, and say that the disagreement is the main point of the discussion. In general, none of us are here to talk about what we agree on, it is the points of disagreement that are the focus, don’t you think?
It is the number of false presumptions plus the number of times corrections were attempted.
It is practically impossible to clear up a misunderstanding when the person you are trying to communicate with insists he knows what you believe in spite of all efforts to show it is not correct.
Let’s see…how productive would that be, if you are convinced you understand the doctrine better than those who claim to espouse it? How productive would that be if you discount and devalue those who don’t agree with your point of view?
I am glad to see that progress has been made on this point.
This is absolutely true, and one good reason why it might be more prudent to be informed by one’s adversary, rather than assuming one knows what they believe.
It is certainly true that your style of apologetics has prevented effective discussion of the thread topic.
I am glad. I am an equal opportunity critic.
Perhaps,if you are willing to accept what others say they believe, it would be more effective to approach the topic now?
Had you ever considered approaching this from a perspective of what the Church teaches, and why, rather than an “I am right because I am Catholic, and you are wrong because you are not” mentality?
You have been making me laugh all night! Thanks.
I don’t think you are a poisoned well, De Maria. If you notice, I dont have any arguement with your theological points, just your style.
The fact that I disagree with your conclusion in the opening post does not mean that I do not believe we are justified in baptism.
It just comes across as so much narcissism, is all.
If you are saying that the charisms that Catholics take note of are different from those taken note of by Pentacostals, then I take your point. Take for instance the cults of Mary. and the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and the stigmata of many saints, including Francis. Evangelicals are turned off by these because of their theological doctrines/attitudes. But certainly Francis is as charismatic a figure as One can imagine.
You asked Itwin the origin of Scripture and he gave you this answer:
Instead of building from this common understanding of the nature of Scripture, you replied:
I found it somewhat of a nonsequiter, and wondered if you thought God was still inspiring the writing of scripture, so I asked you. I did not put any words in your mouth. I think maybe you are having trouble keeping track of what is coming OUT of your mouth. Or should I say, your fingers?
Thank God for that! I might fall into an act of hubris, and start going around offering to prove to others where they are wrong if they don’t agree with me!
Maybe we could return to the thread topic?
No, I did not.
No, you never gave one, so there was nothing to change. Use the little blue icon next to the name of the poster. That will take you back through the thread, and you can trace every post connected to this one. You will see that this did not happen.
Yes, this is probably a good idea. Obviously you misunderstood what I wrote, so that would be a good way to correct the problem.
LOL. You crack me up!
Ok, good! Let me try to say it in a more clearer way. Your assertion was that Sola Scriptura = rejection of Tradition, right? My response is that the accuracy of your equation depends upon how SS is defined. There are some Protestants that define SS in such a manner that they can still accept some Tradition. There are other definitions of SS that do not allow this. Also, the definition of SS evolves. Modern fundamentalists don’t define it like the Reformers did.
I never made any such claim. However, I did say that the accuracy of your statement depends upon how SS is defined.
How is that? It might be because you seem to view any perspective that does not affirm your own as adversarial. That being the case, and the fact that I don’t agree with everything you say, or how you say it, it makes sense that they would seem adversarial. However, it is not my intention to be adversarial with you. I would much rather you could accept my feedback graciously, and tolerate differing opinions with more charity.
I have made three posts on this today. I don’t know how to say it any different. Maybe we should just drop it, since it is off topic anyhow?
I apologize that my statement included the word “your” instead of “one’s” definition of SS. Obviously you took it personally, and it was not meant to be.
Actually, I derailed it by regaling you with feedback you did not want or appreciate.
De Maria, you are so defensive and adversarial that you cannot even accept a compliment. You are truly amazing. Cant’ you even bring yourself to be in agreement on such a thing? What would happen if you just said "yes, I do’.?
No. I disagree with Protestants and I don’t bug Catholics. If Catholics say anything with which I disagree, I approach them privately.
No. You are still portraying me as having false presumptions. I proved that all but one of my presumptions was right on the money. And I inssted that the one individual who claimed to hold different beliefs than what I expected should state that purported belief in various ways until I was satisfied to its veracity.It is the number of false presumptions plus the number of times corrections were attempted.
That describes you. Not me. I simply examined his testimony meticulously until I was satisfied that he was not making up doctrine in order to dodge the question.It is practically impossible to clear up a misunderstanding when the person you are trying to communicate with insists he knows what you believe in spite of all efforts to show it is not correct.
It would be very productive. Although you are poisoning the well by painting me as an unreasonable person, the outcome of Protestants debating with me is that
If I thought you understood the discussion, I might accept that as a compliment. But I think your lost.I am glad to see that progress has been made on this point.
Read it and understand it. That is precisely why I ignored your comments and focused on Itwin’s responses. Until I realized that you were also an adversary. I was then in the unfamiliar position of having a fellow Catholic as an adversary.
On the contrary, the thread topic was effectively discussed until Itwin and co, including you, decided to derail the thread and make it about me rather than about the subject matter.
I am glad. I am an equal opportunity critic.
I did think it was personal until I noticed that you are out to critique other Catholics as well. I guess that somehow makes you feel important.
I always accept what others claim to believe. I don’t accept what third parties claim that others believe. In other words, I don’t accept your claims about what itwin believes.
That is precisely my approach.
You are still making up straw men. My approach is that the Catholic Church is infallible and any doctrine which contradicts the Teaching of the Catholic Church is false. Do you have a problem with that?
You have been making me laugh all night! Thanks.
Hm? I responded to abidewithme. Are you and he the same person?
And therefore you poison the well.
And yet you have not mentioned Baptism even once.
You have never even addressed my opening post. Whenever you’re ready to examine my statements, I’m ready to defend them with you or anyone.
And you come off as what? Please tell me, who do you think you are?
I am trying to explain to you why it is that modern day Protestants accept part of Tradition while rejecting others. You are being unnecessarily adversarial.
Agree with what? That the garment was rended? It is a matter of history. My agreement or disagreement is immaterial. It happened. It is still happening.
De Maria, it seems that you still have a lot to learn about the history of the Reformation. One can learn quite a bit about events and people by studying history, and reading what they have written. But there is already another thread on this topic running, and since it is off topic here, let us not pursue it, shall we?
This is off the topic as well. It seems that you are as bent on derailing your own thread as anyone else.
You were noticing that I was inconsistent about using the “T” in 'tradition". Sometimes my caps don’t come out right becuase the finger that works the shift key is weak. It is a problem for me, and sometimes for my readers if I am going too fast and don’t make corrections.
Actually, I kept bringing YOU up. I was focused on your style of interaction, and how frustrating and unproductive it was. As you rightly noted, we are off topic.
This is a way of discounting what I have to say. Since I have not been appointed to these high stations you have invented, whatever I have to say can be disregarded.
My feedback to you about your interactional style is, indeed, just my observations. It so happens that others on this thread share my observations.
LOL.
Ok. Maybe now we can get back to the thread topic?
Naw. It does not rise to the level where such a thing is necessary. I just said it for the benefit of the lurkers.
LOL. Oh, my De Maria. You are living in some kind of dream world of your own making.
Ok. Well I am glad we are past that. Should we go back to the thread topic?
I was reading your posts, and found discrepancies, so I commented on them.
One of the forum guidelines states that you are posting publicly and that you should keep in mind that your comments are openly available on the internet. You have started a thread in an open forum. This is not your personal blog. Anyone who is a member can respond to whatever is written. If you don’t want people dropping in on the conversation, then you need to take it to PM.
You did,and I had a computer crash and lost the post. However, the bulk of my response had to do with the very point you seem so adversarial about - the seamless garment. The definition of what it is to be Protestant is that part of the garment has been rended. Although there are some Protestant ecclesial communities that retain a bulk of the Tradition, they all reject some.
What has your interpersonal style got to do with doctrine, Catholic or Protestant?
I am not “siding” with anyone, just stating the facts. When you read the polls, it is clear that the majority of the Catholic population in the US denies at least one, and often many essential doctrines of the Church. I think people who deny the doctrines of the faith, those who are commonly called “cafeteria Catholics” are really Protestants, the just don’t realize it. They imagine they are still in communion, when they openly deny the One Faith.
Well that helps explain why you take things so personally.
That certainly seemed to be what you set about doing on this thread. How did that work for ya?
You stated that anyone can know what you believe by reading the Catechism. I contended that such Catholics are far too rare.
A Protestant , or a Catholic for that matter, cannot assume that a person believes what is written there just because they claim to be Catholic. I am glad that you do.
I think we ought to take this one to a different thread.
Well we seem to be in that one together, aren’t we? You will note that your above question is off topic as well. How can we help one another to get back on topic?
Ok then. Let’s move on.
I think you don’t realize what you are doing here. You are coming into a conversation with certain assumptions and expectations, then “insisting”/demanding that your opponent “prove” to you that what you think they believe is not what they actually believe.
Do you realize that none of this was related to the thread topic?
It is true that I do have trouble following your reasoning. However, it is clear that you are quite passionate about your faith.
LOL. Wait…I ran out of hot cider! I need a refill, so it can come out of my nose again.
Happy to provide you with a new and different experience. :yup:
So, are we done?
If this were true, then most of the posts on this thread would not relate to the contrary.
Then I guess it is a good thing that I did not make any claims about what Itwin believes.
I guess if this is how you feel about yourself, then I will just accept it. One cannot really argue against anothers self esteem, or lack of it.
Really? all that time, and still no progress?
I must say, I do find your protests very compelling.
Why are you trying to explain something which is irrelevant? The fact they claim to believe in God, which is part of Sacred Tradition, makes no difference to the fact that they reject the Church which Jesus Christ built.
Because you have, for some reason, appointed yourself my apologetics instructor. And I don’t like anything you claim to be teaching.
Precisely my point.
Another point which I am making to you.
I’m not the one who claims that mainline Protestants embrace Tradition.
I’m not the one pursuing it. It remains you who introduces irrelevant topics on this thread. Why? I suppose it is to wow everyone with your encyclopedic knowledge of all Protestant trivia.
Its you leading this merry go round. I’m simply responding to your message.
Since you have suddenly realized what is off topic, who introduced Luther into this conversation? And where in the topic do you see Luther?
Ok.
That is a statement of opinion. Your opinion. In my opinion, my discussions on this thread were very productive.
You are off topic.
Precisely. You introduce all sorts of irrelevant topics. You continually say that my messages are unproductive, as though you are privy to what God knows. Because God alone knows whether my words have planted a seed or not.
I’m not here to please everyone. If you can do better, go right ahead. If I find your methods more efffective, I’ll emulate them. Up to now, you’ve shown me nothing but your inclination to impose upon other Catholics your irrelevant opinions.
Whenever you’re ready.
Naw. It does not rise to the level where such a thing is necessary. I just said it for the benefit of the lurkers.
If I remember correctly, you claimed that I was wrong on some of mine.
I posted the proof and you claimed you had not expressed yourself correctly.
I have trouble accepting feedback from anyone who
What is stopping you? I didn’t change the topic. You did.
You were reading my posts and objected to my style. If you objected to anything of substance, you were proven wrong.
Thanks for telling me something else I already knew.
I don’t mind people dropping in on conversations, if they have read up on the thread and don’t begin making false accusations.
That would be a good excuse if you had not gotten back online. But I have yet to see the example of a mainline Protestant denomination which embraces Tradition as you claim.
The seamless garment is the infallible Tradition of the Catholic Church. Apparently, you believe this has been dessimated by the Protestants. Whereas, that is news to me.
In other words, they no longer hold to Sacred Tradition. But you claim they do. So, now you’re contradicting yourself, again.
Unless you begin to make a point, that remains another irrelevancy which is not being discussed on this thread.
You keep saying that and then returning to the same accusations.
There you go again. I know precisely what I’m doing. Do you know what you are doing?
And that is wrong because…?
I know you’re aware that I started another thread in order to focus the topic, but Itwin preferred to remain here and muddy the waters. And you joined him in his endeavor to make this thread about me rather than about the subject matter.
Glad your enjoying yourself.
Are you done?
It is true.
That is false.
Correct. In a debate, I consider Protestants, adversaries. I have found that Protestant ethic and stringency is far below what is expected of a Catholic. Therefore, I examine their responses from every angle I can think of until I’m satisfied it is true.
Correct.
You did. And you kept upholding his statements. And you kept nagging me on points which had already been resolved. Essentially, you kept undermining my arguments.Then I guess it is a good thing that I did not make any claims about what Itwin believes.
Hm? What are you talking about? Do you know what “poison the well” means?
I don’t measure my productivity by how well I please you.Really? all that time, and still no progress?
Whenever you’re ready to discuss the thread topic, we can begin.
Good point. That’s what I would like to know. It is you who was complaining about my style. Not me about yours. I complained about your bad advice.
You’re not citing any facts that I can remember. Just stating opinions.
Again, I directed Itwin to the Catechism. Why do you keep bringing up “polls”?
Ugh!
Absolutely! Thanks for that example!
Really? I asked whether Itwin believed that God was still in the business of inspiration and you assumed I asked whether God was still inspiring Scripture?
Quote me where I said “there are current documents that should be included in the canon of scripture, because they are inspired by God”? Because the only one insinuating that I said such a thing, is you.
That’s what your doing now.Thank God for that! I might fall into an act of hubris, and start going around offering to prove to others where they are wrong if they don’t agree with me!
Promises, promises…
You do it again below. You claim:
Thank you for that admission.
Was that really necessary? You want to give me advice on how to debate. Now you want to give me advice on how to navigate the thread?
No.
Since I didn’t make that equation, your response is a nonsequitur.
I’m not addressing all the Protestants in the world and all the ramifications of SS. I’m only addressing one.
Protestants who contradict the truth of Catholic doctrine are my adversaries. You have sided with the Protestants who have sought to undermine every argument I have produced in defense of Catholic doctrine. Therefore, you have put yourself in the position of being my adversary, as well.
I am quite tolerant of objective criticism. I am however, quite capable of defending my position from fallacious claims such as those you used and continue to use.
How many times have you promised to drop it? It is you who began your agenda against me. I have the right of rebuttal. If you want to drop it, go ahead. I will respond to every false accusation you make against me.
Considering your track record, I feel justified in doing so. However, your apology is accepted.
Exactly. Let me give you some of my own advice.
With and against Protestants. Yes. Not with and against other Catholics.
Are you serious? You want me to agree that the Catholic faith is not one? Here’s what I was responding to when I asked, “and you don’t?”
And you don’t?
And you don’t?
I am sorry. I was responding to your question. The fact that we are justified in Baptism is part of the Sacred Tradition, so I thought it was relelvant.
Most Protestants don’t know that the CC is the one founded by Christ. Most of them think it is just another denomination. It has never occurred to them to "reject " it, since it is of little value to them.
What was it you thougth I was “teaching”?
I am glad we can agree on something.
Another good reason that it is not necessary to be adversarial.
You still have a lot to learn about the Protestant Reformation. Protestants do not treat the Sacred Tradition as a seamless garment. They accept various rended portions of it. Many Protestants accept the justification of the human soul in baptism. The further the groups drift from the Reformers, the fewer of them accept this, as is the case with all the Sacraments.
Ok De Maria. If you say so.
My my, you certainly are a contentious fellow, are you not? In your responses, you are bringing up questions and challenges to me that are not part of the thread topic. That is why I say you are as adept at derailing your own thread as anyone else.
I think that was Babs57
How is this relevant to the topic? I venture to say that, given your assertion in the OP, that you would think Luther believed Christ died in vain.
Yes. It seems that you have finally been able to accept that not all Protestants believe in OSAS.
This is very true. It seems to me that the effects you did produce were not the ones you wanted.
In that case, then, perhaps you can lead us back to the topic. What Biblical evidence do you have that the assertion you made in the OP is true?
This is not a matter of Catholilc doctrine. You made an assertion that Sola Scriptura = rejection of Sacred Tradition. I said (or tried to say) that such an equation would depend upon how one defines SS. All adherants to SS accept some parts of Sacred Tradition, the NTcanon being the biggest one. Certainly the loss of the Truth that baptism justifies is one of the elements of Sacred Tradition that has been lost among modern American fundamentalists and evangelicals.
Yes. This is a point on which we both agree as well. Since we are in agreement, perhaps we can get back on topic?
You are welcome. It helps us to remind each other of the forum rules when necessary.
You seem to have a hard time understanding that Protestants don’t accept Sacred Tradition the way Catholics do. It is not an all or nothing situation for them, as it is for you. It may be that your thinking is just too black and white to be able to see it any other way? Other people that don’t see it the way you do are just “wrong”.
No one can decimate what is infallibly protected by the HS, so the Sacred Tradition is alive and well in the Church Jesus founded. However, when Protestants began slicing and dicing, choosing which parts to believe, and which to reject, it became shredded for them. It is no longer a seamless garment in their view. A good example is the quote from Luther posted above. Luther rejected the Apostolic Teaching on Baptism, though he continued to retain the practice of it. As Sola Scriptura has evolved, even the practice has been lost.
I understand that it seems that way to you, since you have a hard time seeing things from other people’s point of view. In your mind, Sacred Tradition is one, whole, seamless garment. For Protestants, Tradition is fragmented, and some parts they accept, while others they reject.
I do not think it will be useful to attempt to move on to another point, since you have not been able to grasp this one. Besides, I would like to see some support for your assertion in the OP.