I'm going out on a limb here

Status
Not open for further replies.
MagdalenaRita said:
You will have to explain a little further, how does history prove the Catholic Church is not the Church Christ founded?
Click to expand...
That is a long discussion. Let’s just say that I have found the claims that everything the Catholic church teaches is apostolic in origin doesn’t add up.
 
If ever you’re in the mood to lay it out and discuss, I’d love to read it. I have some doubts as well though I don’t really have a dog in this fight. It could wind up ugly…though I’d hope not! If you’re willing to go there, I’d post it in the non Catholic section ☺️☺️☺️
 
lanman87 said:
That is a long discussion. Let’s just say that I have found the claims that everything the Catholic church teaches is apostolic in origin doesn’t add up.
Click to expand...
So without any explanation or reasons I cant really comment.
Though, a really good show on EWTN, The Journey Home, is very excellent to watch. Week after week Marcus Grodi interviews ex protestants, alot of them ex-pastors. He is an ex protestant, several different denomination, pastor himself…
Almost all have the same reasoning for coming home: history and authority.God leads them home.
 
Last edited:
Likely referring to Marian stuff.

I would say that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

And that we can go from doctrine to dogma with better understanding of existing, organic belief.
 
I honestly don’t see how anyone can read the early works of Ignatius, Justin Martyr, the Didache, etc and see protestant Christianity. James White, in particular, is a very peculiar fellow.

Now, I could see someone examining history and becoming faithful Anglican as they hold to Vincentian Canon and are very Eucharistic just as the early church was. But reformed, like Baptist or something? No way can I understand it.
 
Last edited:
Lenten_ashes said:
I honestly don’t see how anyone can read the early works of Ignatius, Justin Martyr, the Didache, etc and see protestant Christianity. James White, in particular, is a very peculiar fellow.

Now, I could see someone examining history and becoming faithful Anglican as they hold to Vincentian Canon and are very Eucharistic just at the early church was. But reformed, like Baptist or something? No way can I understand it.
Click to expand...
Obviously those works were either fabricated by later Catholics or were used to displace the true Christians, who were known for their fantastic rock bands during worship and adult-only Baptism.
 
Some still argue that the earth is flat and that the holocaust never happened…
 
Pattylt said:
If ever you’re in the mood to lay it out and discuss, I’d love to read it. I have some doubts as well though I don’t really have a dog in this fight. It could wind up ugly…though I’d hope not! If you’re willing to go there, I’d post it in the non Catholic section 🙂🙂🙂
Click to expand...
If I were to lay it all out it would basically be a long research paper with footnotes and whatnot and I don’t have the time, energy, or desire for that much work. Plus, it wouldn’t really make a difference to anyone.
 
Lenten_ashes said:
I would say that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Click to expand...
Let’s say I make a wild claim. That Alabama and Georgia fought a horrific battle against each other over water rights in 1872. Then you go back and look at the newspapers of both Alabama and Georgia in 1872 and 1873 and see no mention of any battle between Alabama and Georgia. Then you go to the historic archives and read personal letters of folks in Alabama and Georgia in 1872 and can find no mention of any battle between Alabama and Georgia.

Then you come to me and say “I can’t find any evidence of a battle between Alabama and Georgia in 1872” and I say “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”. What would your reaction be?
 
lanman87 said:
If I were to lay it all out it would basically be a long research paper with footnotes and whatnot and I don’t have the time, energy, or desire for that much work.
Click to expand...
I understand what you are saying, talking about history can usually be a long discussion and I usually avoid those long discussions too. I think that is another reason God gave us the Catholic church, to preserve the history of Christianity, so that we can know our story.
 
Last edited:
lanman87 said:
40.png
Lenten_ashes:
I would say that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Click to expand...
Let’s say I make a wild claim. That Alabama and Georgia fought a horrific battle against each other over water rights in 1872. Then you go back and look at the newspapers of both Alabama and Georgia in 1872 and 1873 and see no mention of any battle between Alabama and Georgia. Then you go to the historic archives and read personal letters of folks in Alabama and Georgia in 1872 and can find no mention of any battle between Alabama and Georgia.

Then you come to me and say “I can’t find any evidence of a battle between Alabama and Georgia in 1872” and I say “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”. What would your reaction be?
Click to expand...
My reaction would be very different from my reaction to the same claim from almost 2000 years ago. We have far better records of 1872 than 72.
 
HopkinsReb said:
My reaction would be very different from my reaction to the same claim from almost 2000 years ago. We have far better records of 1872 than 72.
Click to expand...
The point is, if you want to make a historical claim you need to back it up with documentation, or else it is just a claim. Anyone can claim anything.

The Catholic church claims “Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching.” Therefore the church needs to document how all of it’s teachings have always existed from the apostles forward til today.

If Sacred Tradition is the teaching of the apostles, and anyone can claim that an apostle taught something, then how do we differentiate between what is claimed and what is truth?

The Protestant answer is Sola Scriptura, the Catholic answer is an infallible church. But then again, anyone(or any group) can claim to be infallible…
 
lanman87 said:
The Catholic church claims “Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching.” Therefore the church needs to document how all of it’s teachings have always existed from the apostles forward til today.
Click to expand...
What you’re asking for is a logical impossibility.
lanman87 said:
The Protestant answer is Sola Scriptura
Click to expand...
And, to go back to beating a long-dead horse, if you reject the idea of an infallible church, how do you get to an infallible canon of Scripture? Without an infallible church, the Bible’s authority is nothing more than an assumption.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top