Least persuasive argument used by Catholics?

[aidanbradypop]

We have something in common, you and I, Aidan. We both started out as Protestants, became Catholics and are now Protestants again. For the record, I was raised as a moderate Southern Baptist, became a Catholic through the RCIA program in 1995, left the Church in 2002 in the wake of the Boston scandals, wandered through a wilderness of various and diverse faiths, beginning with the ELCA, going on to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- Day Saints, moving back to the Catholic faith, then on I went to the Baha’i Faith, Asatru, Islam, Shin Buddhism ( that’s where I got married) and back to Catholicism. That caused no small amount of contention between myself and the in- laws and I wanted a place to worship as a Christian and I went on to examining the Presbyterian Church in America and, after diligent study and prayer, I went on to the Lutheran Church- Missouri Synod. Part of the reason for that was because the focus of the Catholic parishes in Jacksonville were somewhat different from what I saw in Arlington: they focused on collecting money and the liberalism I found being preached was shocking to me. I was very much reassured by the continuity of theology in the LCMS in both Jacksonville and Northern Virginia. Back to the basics, where the ancient liturgies were kept and loyalty to the Lutheran Confessions maintained. I’d been a Catholic for nearly eighteen years and a Baptist for twenty- one. I was really into it, too… Scott Hahn, a bunch of CDs regarding the Catholic Faith, watching EWTN religiously whenever I got the chance… Mass once a week, Penance once a month ( more, during Lent). If I were to return to the Catholic Church, all I’d need to do is make a good Confession but wait! I’d still be barred from taking the Eucharist because I hadn’t gotten an annulment and my ex- wife wouldn’t be about to give me one. I am where I need to be.

My journey is much more boring than your own lol. Grew up Southern Baptist, converted to Catholicism for about 17 yrs and back to Evangelicalism. My family and I attend Assembly of God congregation.

I studied Gnosticism, but it was just for fun.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

False.

Oh but it’s so true:

Council of Constance, 1415AD (You know during that horrible Papal Schism where we had 3 Popes at the same time…):

In the name of the Holy and indivisible Trinity; of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Amen. This holy synod of Constance, forming a general council for the extirpation of the present schism and the union and reformation, in head and members, of the Church of God, legitimately assembled in the Holy Ghost, to the praise of Omnipotent God, in order that it may the more easily, safely, effectively and freely bring about the union and reformation of the church of God, hereby determines, decrees, ordains and declares what follows: - It first declares that this same council, legitimately assembled in the Holy Ghost, forming a general council and representing the Catholic Church militant, has its power immediately from Christ, and every one, whatever his state or position, even if it be the Papal dignity itself, is bound to obey it in all those things which pertain to the faith and the healing of the said schism, and to the general reformation of the Church of God, in bead and members. It further declares that any one, whatever his condition, station or rank, even if it be the Papal, who shall contumaciously refuse to obey the mandates, decrees, ordinances or instructions which have been, or shall be issued by this holy council, or by any other general council, legitimately summoned, which concern, or in any way relate to the above mentioned objects, shall, unless he repudiate his conduct, be subject to condign penance and be suitably punished, having recourse, if necessary, to the other resources of the law. . . .

trans J. H. Robinson in University of Pennsylvania. Dept. of History: Translations and Reprints from the Original Sources of European history, published for the Dept. of History of the University of Pennsylvania., Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, Series I. Voll III:6 [1912], 31-32

There you have it. 1415AD and still no universal, supreme, absolute, immediate jurisdiction over the whole Church.

http://addins.whig.com/blogs/stevie...ective-uncle-si-thats-a-fact-jack-300x300.png

 

[Randy_Carson]

There you have it. 1415AD and still no universal, supreme, absolute, immediate jurisdiction over the whole Church.

John Chrysostom (c. AD 349 – AD 407)

At all events the master of the whole world, Peter, to whose hands He committed the keys of heaven, whom He commanded to do and to bear all, He bade tarry here [Antioch] for a long period. Thus in His sight our city was equivalent to the whole world. But since I have mentioned Peter, I have perceived a fifth crown woven from him, and this is that this man [Ignatius of Antioch] succeeded to the office after him. For just as any one taking a great stone from a foundation hastens by all means to introduce an equivalent to it, lest he should shake the whole building, and make it more unsound, so, accordingly, when Peter was about to depart from here, the grace of the Spirit introduced another teacher equivalent to Peter, so that the building already completed should not be made more unsound by the insignificance of the successor.” (Homily on St. Ignatius, 4)

He saith to him, “Feed my sheep”. Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the head of the choir. For this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now that his denial had been purged away. He entrusts him with the rule [prostasia] over the brethren…If anyone should say “Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?”, I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that see but of the whole world. [St. John Chrysostom, Homily 88 on John, 1]

“God allowed him to fall, because He meant to make him ruler of the whole world, that, remembering his own fall, he might forgive those who should slip in the future. And what I have said is no guess, listen to Christ Himself saying, ‘Simon, Simon, how often hath Satan desired to sift thee as wheat, but I have prayed for thee that thy strength fail not, and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren’.” (Hom quod frequenter conveniendum sit, 5, vol XII, 466[329])

“When he is told, ‘Thou canst not follow Me now,’ he says, ‘Though all should deny Thee, yet will not I deny.’ Because, then, it appeared likely he would be puffed up even to madness, since he practiced contradicting, He warns him not to rebel. This is what Luke refers to when he says that Christ said: ‘And I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not,’ viz. that it may not be lost to the end, throughout teaching him humility, and proving that human nature is nothing by itself. For since his great love made him contradictory, He moderates him, that he might not in the future have the same fault, when he should receive the government of the world, but that remembering his fault he might know himself.” (Hom 73[72] in Joann 1, vol VIII, 395[429])

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Council > poetic quotes… Plus its boring to quote sling.

You already lost this battle, bro. The thread is closed.

 

[Peter_J]

Oh but it’s so true:

Council of Constance, 1415AD (You know during that horrible Papal Schism where we had 3 Popes at the same time…):

trans J. H. Robinson in University of Pennsylvania. Dept. of History: Translations and Reprints from the Original Sources of European history, published for the Dept. of History of the University of Pennsylvania., Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, Series I. Voll III:6 [1912], 31-32

There you have it. 1415AD and still no universal, supreme, absolute, immediate jurisdiction over the whole Church.

http://addins.whig.com/blogs/stevie...ective-uncle-si-thats-a-fact-jack-300x300.png

Well I don’t know about your logic, but if it makes you feel better I do not claim that the dogma existed prior to Vatican I.

 

[Peter_J]

Council > poetic quotes…

^^ Very Catholic.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Council > poetic quotes…

Council of Chalcedon

“Bishop Paschasinus, guardian of the Apostolic See, stood in the midst [of the Council Fathers] and said, ‘We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Pope Leo I], who is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the [present] assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out” (Acts of the Council, session 1 [A.D. 451]).

 

[Randy_Carson]

Did Christ give one man so much power? St Peter himself seemed to have questions about this:

Luke Chapter 12
[41] Peter said, “Lord, are you telling this parable for us or for all?”
[42] And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and wise steward, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time?
[43] Blessed is that servant whom his master when he comes will find so doing.
[44] Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions.

Christ says that the Master (i.e. Himself) will set a steward “over his household” and “set him over all his possessions.”

Okay, so Christ has said it, we know it is true. Now that means Christ has a steward “over all His possessions.” He didn’t set an Ecumenical Council “over all His possessions.” No, this universal jurisdiction is given to one single “steward.” If you look at Luke 12:41, you will see that these words are addressed to Peter.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Did Christ give one man so much power? St Peter himself seemed to have questions about this:

Luke Chapter 12
[41] Peter said, “Lord, are you telling this parable for us or for all?”
[42] And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and wise steward, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time?
[43] Blessed is that servant whom his master when he comes will find so doing.
[44] Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions.

Christ says that the Master (i.e. Himself) will set a steward “over his household” and “set him over all his possessions.”

Okay, so Christ has said it, we know it is true. Now that means Christ has a steward “over all His possessions.” He didn’t set an Ecumenical Council “over all His possessions.” No, this universal jurisdiction is given to one single “steward.” If you look at Luke 12:41, you will see that these words are addressed to Peter.

Whom is the addressed to Randy? Many Protestants do not have an issue with Peter being an early leader of the Christian Church.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Whom is the addressed to Randy? Many Protestants do not have an issue with Peter being an early leader of the Christian Church.

lets say the USA federal government collapsed and now was run by independent local governments in sort of a tribal system.

We could say that the once union of the states under the president is like the Catholic Church and pope and the now divided tribal system is like protestantism.

So applying your logic to this scenario would be like saying.

Many “tribal Americans” do not have an issue with George Washington being an early leader of the American continent.

Does that then mean that America was always run as a bunch of independent local bodies of which George Washington was just a prominent leader?

I see an equal ignoring of history if you claim Peter was just a leader but not THE leader. You have to ignore a lot of history to try and claim that “George Washington” was just another prominent figure among a scattered landscape of self ruling towns.

 

[aidanbradypop]

lets say the USA federal government collapsed and now was run by independent local governments in sort of a tribal system.

We could say that the once union of the states under the president is like the Catholic Church and pope and the now divided tribal system is like protestantism.

So applying your logic to this scenario would be like saying.

Many “tribal Americans” do not have an issue with George Washington being an early leader of the American continent.

Does that then mean that America was always run as a bunch of independent local bodies of which George Washington was just a prominent leader?

I see an equal ignoring of history if you claim Peter was just a leader but not THE leader. You have to ignore a lot of history to try and claim that “George Washington” was just another prominent figure among a scattered landscape of self ruling towns.

Jon he was an early leader just like Paul, James etc.

The argument does not fit with the model that you are trying to apply to. Ask the Orthodox Church.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Jon he was an early leader just like Paul, James etc.

The argument does not fit with the model that you are trying to apply to. Ask the Orthodox Church.

Sure it does…and as far as the Orthodox…lets add them in and even use their position which certainly is not the Evangelical position.

The orthodox would be like the south during the civil war, demanding state rights that the federal government acts as a “first among equals” to give unity and working ability to the state governments.

So the Orthodox would remember Washington as a prominent leader of the state governments, and the only dispute would be in weather Washington had supreme authority over the states, or the states had supreme authority over their state.

Evangelicals believe in at most a denominational authority (lets say this is like a local city amount of authority) but often they believe in “free” authority such as Evangelical Free Church, more often described as “free from authority” which means each individual congregation is its own authority to do whatever it pleases.

Thus the Evangelical position would be that each city or even each home or family or individual is its own authority and neither the state nor the federal government has any authority.

That may be true of evangelicalism now (or our post apocalyptic tribal america image), but trying to project that to the time of the Civil War or the nations founding as the “way it always was” would be frankly laughable…

 

[aidanbradypop]

Evangelicals believe in at most a denominational authority (lets say this is like a local city amount of authority) but often they believe in “free” authority such as Evangelical Free Church, more often described as “free from authority” which means each individual congregation is its own authority to do whatever it pleases.

Thus the Evangelical position would be that each city or even each home or family or individual is its own authority and neither the state nor the federal government has any authority.

That may be true of evangelicalism now (or our post apocalyptic tribal america image), but trying to project that to the time of the Civil War or the nations founding as the “way it always was” would be frankly laughable…

Jon this model you are presenting may fit with the Tradition of the Catholic Church, yet not be Scripture. Peter was an early leader. Not sure you will anyone that would say otherwise, but having the sole authority it very doubtful.

Evangelicals have authority at the denominational level. Even Evangelical non denoms have authority they must answer to. I believe that is a huge myth that is spread around circles much like this forum. “They do not want to follow the rules so they leave for Protestantism.”

AoG does not allow alcohol, tobacco, drugs, gambling and many others.

Even the President of the USA during thr Civil War model you are using did not have complete authority and neither did the federal gov.

 

[LutheranScholar]

My journey is much more boring than your own lol. Grew up Southern Baptist, converted to Catholicism for about 17 yrs and back to Evangelicalism. My family and I attend Assembly of God congregation.

I studied Gnosticism, but it was just for fun.

I call it my " wandering in the Wilderness" period. It wasn’t overly exciting, except that I got to experience certain different beliefs and have basic experiences. It boils down to " when I’m with the Lord, I’m good, but when I try to muck around with the world, I fall flat on my face." I’m pretty sure that my marriage wasn’t God’s will and I’ll tell you why: the more deeply I got involved with the church, the more alienated my now ex- wife became. once I had solidly established a place for myself at Hope Lutheran, she unleashed about six years’ worth of discontent. I wanted to keep the vows I made at our Convalidation, but she thought it was stupid nonsense. I told her how seriously the LCMS took marriage, she just rolled her eyes. I make it a point to consult God in prayer now BEFORE I make any life- altering choice.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Jon this model you are presenting may fit with the Tradition of the Catholic Church, yet not be Scripture. Peter was an early leader. Not sure you will anyone that would say otherwise, but having the sole authority it very doubtful.

Evangelicals have authority at the denominational level. Even Evangelical non denoms have authority they must answer to. I believe that is a huge myth that is spread around circles much like this forum. “They do not want to follow the rules so they leave for Protestantism.”

AoG does not allow alcohol, tobacco, drugs, gambling and many others.

Even the President of the USA during thr Civil War model you are using did not have complete authority and neither did the federal gov.

Of course my analogy is not perfect, but I think it is close enough to get the picture. The pope doesnt have dictator powers either. He is more like the president of the united states. the president is bound by the Judicial branch and the legislative branch. The pope is bound by the doctrines and dogmas he inherited from the apostles. He is “a son of the church” The church’s authority is found in the Bible, the Magesterium, and the Pope.

I was an evangelical for a long time so I dont believe I am spreading any myths. I was a member of an evangelical free church. And while they were by their own choosing affiliated with the EFCA, the EFCA had no authority of the church. The authority of the church resided in the pastor and elders alone. This is how many evangelical churches work and pretty much all nondenominational churches.

If you are AoG then I imagine it is more structured…more of a town government than a individual home in my analogy.

Regardless, the core tenet of protestantism is that the Bible is the authority but the problem lies in that the individual must discern what it says. This is like each individual american discerning what the constitution says and ignoring or rejecting the supreme court. Eventually it will devolve into chaos and then like minded individuals scrambling to figure this thing out will band together with each band believing they have it right.

The church is like the supreme court that protestants reject…only the church has the Holy Spirit to guide it so its even more alarming that it is rejected.

 

[Brandon_Cal]

Well in this thread, and many others the 30,000 denominations and counting is being attacked pretty bad, but I think people miss the point. Perhaps it’s not the number but the principal. Protestants are greatly divided right? Is there an “acceptable” number of protestant divisions?

And just because catholics debate doctrine does not mean we are divided…the church allows debate, at the end of the day there is one faith professed by the Catholic Church and you either agree and live faithfully or you step outside her bounds.

Food for thought.

The problem with the 33k argument is that it’s nothing more than special pleading. If you take it back a notch and apply it to Christianity as a whole one would be left with the impression that Christianity must be false because there are 33k+2 denominations. It’s usually at this point that a Catholic says something silly like “oh but Catholicism isn’t a denomination”.

Edit: While we’re at it, I think that statement (Catholicism isn’t a denomination), while not an argument per se, is one of the least effective statements I’ve seen on these boards. It’s the Catholic equivalent of what some Evangelicals say about Christianity not being a religion, rather a “relationship”.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Of course my analogy is not perfect, but I think it is close enough to get the picture. The pope doesnt have dictator powers either. He is more like the president of the united states. the president is bound by the Judicial branch and the legislative branch. The pope is bound by the doctrines and dogmas he inherited from the apostles. He is “a son of the church” The church’s authority is found in the Bible, the Magesterium, and the Pope.

I would call it more of an absolute monarch. The president and dictator are far off for me.

I was an evangelical for a long time so I dont believe I am spreading any myths. I was a member of an evangelical free church. And while they were by their own choosing affiliated with the EFCA, the EFCA had no authority of the church. The authority of the church resided in the pastor and elders alone. This is how many evangelical churches work and pretty much all nondenominational churches.

EFCA is a sour note with me so I will hold my tongue. Lol

If you are AoG then I imagine it is more structured…more of a town government than a individual home in my analogy.

Glad we agree. The “town” is also a part of a worldwide fellowship as well.

Regardless, the core tenet of protestantism is that the Bible is the authority but the problem lies in that the individual must discern what it says. This is like each individual american discerning what the constitution says and ignoring or rejecting the supreme court. Eventually it will devolve into chaos and then like minded individuals scrambling to figure this thing out will band together with each band believing they have it right.

I can see your point and I also believe that the Bible should be the authority in our lives. I’m sure you already knew that. I have heard two Catholic priest give their take on a certain Scripture and they were completely different.

The church is like the supreme court that protestants reject…only the church has the Holy Spirit to guide it so its even more alarming that it is rejected.

Yes I believe the Holy Spirit is guiding the Christian Church. I also find it alarming when people reject the Christian Church.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I would call it more of an absolute monarch. The president and dictator are far off for me.

While president is not perfect…I definitely disagree with absolute monarch. An absolute monarch can “create” laws (doctrine). The pope cannot. At least in talking about the faith not the Vatican.

Glad we agree. The “town” is also a part of a worldwide fellowship as well.

Yes, as it is a town in america…but is it really part of the worldwide “fellowship” if it does not fellowship or looks at other towns as being “wrong”.

I can see your point and I also believe that the Bible should be the authority in our lives. I’m sure you already knew that. I have heard two Catholic priest give their take on a certain Scripture and they were completely different.

Well there are multiple angles to take from individual readings. This is frustrating sometimes when I prepare for RCIA dismissal and the priest goes a totally different way with his homily. Doesn’t mean that my preparation and his homily are in opposition though. And if a priest says the bible says A and you think that it says b and the priest is wrong you just go to the CHURCH (bishop catechism, councils, encyclicals, etc) to see what the CHURCH teaches. Lord knows priests aren’t infallible.

Yes I believe the Holy Spirit is guiding the Christian Church. I also find it alarming when people reject the Christian Church.

what is the Christian church? Who defines that?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Whom is the addressed to Randy? Many Protestants do not have an issue with Peter being an early leader of the Christian Church.

Yes, that is true. The reason for posting that particular verse is to show that Jesus saw the steward as having authority over ALL of the master’s household - IOW, Jesus taught that the steward had universal jurisdiction.

Why would it make sense, then, to believe that Peter, Jesus’ Royal Steward, would have only limited jurisdiction over Jesus’ household?

 

[Abu]

Isaiah45_9 in his post #28 in the “Papal Infallibility” thread tried his gambit then and it was refuted by Abu in #49 11/3/15 – it is remarkable how little some learn from their mistakes.

The evidence of a papal final decision, subject to no Ecumenical Council bishops:
In *A Catechism Of The Catholic Church *by Fr Robert J Fox, Franciscan Herald Press, 1979, on the Council of Constance, 1414-1418, Fr Fox records that “ One decree, passed in the earlier stages of the council, asserted the superiority of an ecumenical council over the pope; this was later rejected.” (p 246).

This is recorded here also: “Sixteenth Ecumenical Council – Constance: 1414 -1418
Pope Martin ratified the council …except the decrees which proposed conciliarism.”
The Council of Constance is recognised by the Catholic Church as the 16th Ecumenical Council – its valid decrees were approved by Pope Martin V, and the decree purporting to make a pope obey a Council was struck down (the thesis of Gallicanism – see note 6 of The Gift of Infallibility, Fr James T O’Connor, Ignatius, 2008, p 25-6).

In Gallicanism the conciliarist theory lived on for hundreds of years. Conciliarism was formally condemned by the First Vatican Council (1869-70), which defined papal primacy, declaring that the Pope had “full and supreme jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which belong to faith and morals, but also in those which relate to the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the world.”

Thus the reason that papal infallibility was dogmatically defined at Vatican I was to crush the heresy of Gallicanism.

In answer to the Holy Father’s invitation, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith decided to study the matter by organizing a strictly doctrinal symposium on The Primacy of the Successor of Peter, which was held in the Vatican from 2 to 4 December 1996.

This emphasises:
**“This does not mean, however, that the Pope has absolute power. listening to what the Churches are saying is, in fact, an earmark of the ministry of unity, a consequence also of the unity of the Episcopal Body and of the sensus fidei of the entire People of God; and this bond seems to enjoy considerably greater power and certainty than the juridical authorities - an inadmissible hypothesis, moreover, because it is groundless - to which the Roman Pontiff would supposedly have to answer. The ultimate and absolute responsibility of the Pope is best guaranteed, on the one hand, **by its relationship to Tradition and fraternal communion and, on the other, by trust in the assistance of the Holy Spirit who governs the Church.”
The real significance, which some don’t seem to appreciate, but which is crucial, is now revealed:

“Since the power of the primacy is supreme, there is no other authority to which the Roman Pontiff must juridically answer for his exercise of the gift he has received: “prima sedes a nemine iudicatur”.42 This does not mean, however, that the Pope has absolute power. listening to what the Churches are saying is, in fact, an earmark of the ministry of unity, a consequence also of the unity of the Episcopal Body and of the sensus fidei of the entire People of God; and this bond seems to enjoy considerably greater power and certainty than the juridical authorities - an inadmissible hypothesis, moreover, because it is groundless - to which the Roman Pontiff would supposedly have to answer. The ultimate and absolute responsibility of the Pope is best guaranteed, on the one hand, by its relationship to Tradition and fraternal communion and, on the other, by trust in the assistance of the Holy Spirit who governs the Church.”

• Joseph Card. Ratzinger, Prefect
• Tarcisio Bertone, S.D.B., Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli, Secretary
  Note

1. CIC, can. 1404; CCEO, can. 1058. Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Pastor aeternus, Chap. 3: Denz-Hun, n. 3063
   vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19981031_primato-successore-pietro_en.html