Least persuasive argument used by Catholics?

[Reuben_J]

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.

Goodness. Unbelievable how far Christians have gone their own ways.

 

[spedteacherita]

I think it’s great that someone can be quoted about it - an early Christian Father…but can there be any quoted earlier as in the 1st or 2nd century? That’s the problem I have when I do the studying - I have difficulty finding some of the earliest Church Fathers speaking of some of the doctrines.

Thanks!

Rita

 

[Randy_Carson]

To all who know the Gospel, it is clear that by the words of our Lord the care of the whole Church was committed to Blessed Peter, the Prince of the Apostles.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I think it’s great that someone can be quoted about it - and early Christian Father…but can there be any quoted earlier as in the 1st or 2nd century? That’s the problem I have when I do the studying - I have difficulty finding some of the earliest Church Fathers speaking of some of the doctrines.

Thanks!

Rita

Ignatius of Antioch 107 AD Speaks a lot about church authority and the authority of the bishop. Definitely not a sola scripturist. Let me know if you want some quotes.

 

[Abu]

‘The Anglican Dr. John Lowe, in his book “Saint Peter,” pp. 60-62, writes of St. Peter: “To try to level him down as merely one among others all on the same footing is not really fair to the evidence … no one can take from him his special distinction as the leading disciple of Jesus, the first witness of the resurrection, the first head of the Church, the rock in a special sense on which it was built. On this point the Roman Catholic exegetes have had right on their side, as is increasingly recognised. Where they go wrong, and I say it with all respect to their learning and acuteness, is in the assumption that the commission given Peter includes successors.” The real assumption, however, for which no sound reasons exist, is that the supreme spiritual authority conferred upon St. Peter was not meant to be transmitted to successors. Are we to hold that the Church had a visible head on earth only so long as St. Peter was alive, but that it had to continue in a decapitated state all days from St. Peter’s death until the end of the world?’
[From Dr Rumble *Questions People Ask, Chevalier Books, 1972]

See former Protestant Dr Scott Hahn on the Papacy:
‘When you look at St. Augustine, a great saint and Father that the Protestants revere, Augustine had more things to say about the Popes as successors to Peter with all of his plenary authority than almost anybody else in the first seven centuries of the Church. It’s astonishing. Augustine said, “Who is ignorant that the chief Apostolate is to be preferred to any Episcopate?” Of the dignity of Peter he says, “in whom the primacy of the Apostles shone forth with excelling grace.” ’
catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp

 

[Rohzek]

‘The Anglican Dr. John Lowe, in his book “Saint Peter,” pp. 60-62, writes of St. Peter: “To try to level him down as merely one among others all on the same footing is not really fair to the evidence … no one can take from him his special distinction as the leading disciple of Jesus, the first witness of the resurrection, the first head of the Church, the rock in a special sense on which it was built. On this point the Roman Catholic exegetes have had right on their side, as is increasingly recognised. Where they go wrong, and I say it with all respect to their learning and acuteness, is in the assumption that the commission given Peter includes successors.” The real assumption, however, for which no sound reasons exist, is that the supreme spiritual authority conferred upon St. Peter was not meant to be transmitted to successors. Are we to hold that the Church had a visible head on earth only so long as St. Peter was alive, but that it had to continue in a decapitated state all days from St. Peter’s death until the end of the world?’
[From Dr Rumble *Questions People Ask

, Chevalier Books, 1972]

See former Protestant Dr Scott Hahn on the Papacy:
‘When you look at St. Augustine, a great saint and Father that the Protestants revere, Augustine had more things to say about the Popes as successors to Peter with all of his plenary authority than almost anybody else in the first seven centuries of the Church. It’s astonishing. Augustine said, “Who is ignorant that the chief Apostolate is to be preferred to any Episcopate?” Of the dignity of Peter he says, “in whom the primacy of the Apostles shone forth with excelling grace.” ’
catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp

Virtually everything you said in this and previous posts is contradicted by history. I won’t go into specifics, but in general yes, Pope Leo the Great expounded some form of papal primacy. Citing sources before him about papal primacy are largely just one liners taken completely out of their respective social and cultural contexts. And a lot of what you cite are examples composed into collections by the Gregorian Reformers of the eleventh century, who often had their own personal and biased motivations. The history is far too long to get into here. But before Pope Nicholas I during the late ninth century, the papacy actually had very little effect on the affairs of the churches north of the Alps. While the papacy was consulted on numerous issues (mainly, which traditions were the most ancient) and was revered precisely because of its Petrine status, it was NOT considered the highest court of the Chalcedonian Church nor to have jurisdictional supremacy, although Nicholas certainly began to claim exactly that despite the contentiousness and novelty of it. Yet Nicholas’ claims differed significantly from Gregory VII’s of the eleventh century, because Nicholas only sought to establish the papacy as the highest court of appeals, not a jurisdictional supremacy. Therefore, Nicholas was more than willing to maintain the pre-existing system of pentarchy, although with some modifications. Meanwhile, Gregory VII took his claims much much further. Gregory VII and his followers cared not for pentarchy whatsoever. In eastern church affairs the papacy was equally impotent, but often it was consulted albeit to a less extent than they were by the Carolingians north of the Alps. If you would like some of my sources, then you can begin with these (which are written by historians, not apologists):

Engen, John van. “Conclusion: Christendom, C. 1100.” In The Cambridge History of Christianity: Early Medieval Christianities c. 600 - c. 1100, edited by Thomas F. X. Noble and Julia M. H. Smith, 625-43. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Halfond, Gregory. The Archaeology of Frankish Church Councils, AD 511-768. Leiden: Brill, 2010.

Blair, John. The Church in Anglo-Saxon Society. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Brown, Peter. The Rise of Western Christendom: Triumph and Diversity, A.D. 200-1000, 2nd ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2003.

Herrin, Judith. “The Pentarchy: Theory and Reality in the Ninth Century.” In Cristianità d’Occidente e cristianità d’Oriente (secoli VI-XI) : 24-30 aprile 2003. Spoleto, Italy: Settimane di studio della Fondazione Centro italiano di studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 2004. 591-628.

Isaiah45_9’s account of history is remarkably accurate. And while concilarism wasn’t fully stamped out until Vatican I, for all intensive purposes it was circumvented when Pope Urban II launched the First Crusade.

 

[spedteacherita]

Ignatius of Antioch 107 AD Speaks a lot about church authority and the authority of the bishop. Definitely not a sola scripturist. Let me know if you want some quotes.

Yes, Jon, I would.

Thanks!

 

[Jon_S_1]

Yes, Jon, I would.

Thanks!

Here you go! Everyone should read all of St Ignatius of Antioch. He was second bishop of Antioch (where they were first called Christians) and write to the churches of the New Testament. He knew the Apostle John and may have even seen Jesus as a child. He is one of the earliest and most extensive early writings outside the New Testament.

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. …] Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. …] Whatsoever [the bishop] shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Smyrnaeans; Ch 8)

“Let all things therefore be done by you with good order in Christ. Let the laity be subject to the deacons; the deacons to the presbyters; the presbyters to the bishop; the bishop to Christ, even as He is to the Father.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Smyrnaeans; Ch 9)

“It is becoming, therefore, that ye also should be obedient to your bishop, and contradict him in nothing; for it is a fearful thing to contradict any such person. For no one does [by such conduct] deceive him that is visible, but does [in reality] seek to mock Him that is invisible, who, however, cannot be mocked by any one. And every such act has respect not to man, but to God.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Magnesians; Ch 3)

“Some indeed give one the title of bishop, but do all things without him. Now such persons seem to me to be not possessed of a good conscience, seeing they are not stedfastly gathered together according to the commandment.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Magnesians; Ch 4)

“Wherefore it is fitting that ye also should run together in accordance with the will of the bishop who by God’s appointment rules over you. Which thing ye indeed of yourselves do, being instructed by the Spirit. For your justly-renowned presbytery, being worthy of God, is fitted as exactly to the bishop as the strings are to the harp. Thus, being joined together in concord and harmonious love, of which Jesus Christ is the Captain and Guardian, do ye, man by man, become but one choir; so that, agreeing together in concord, and obtaining a perfect unity with God, ye may indeed be one in harmonious feeling with God the Father, and His beloved Son Jesus Christ our Lord.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Ephesians; Ch 4)

“It is therefore necessary that, as ye indeed do, so without the bishop ye should do nothing, but should also be subject to the presbytery, as to the apostle of Jesus Christ, who is our hope, in whom, if we live, we shall [at last] be found. It is fitting also that the deacons, as being [the ministers] of the mysteries of Jesus Christ, should in every respect be pleasing to all …] let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the sanhedrin of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church …] he who does anything apart from the bishop, and presbytery, and deacons, such a man is not pure in his conscience.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Trallians; Chs 2-3, 7)

Keep yourselves from those evil plants which Jesus Christ does not tend, because they are not the planting of the Father. Not that I have found any division among you, but exceeding purity. For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of repentance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren. If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walks according to a strange opinion, he agrees not with the passion [of Christ.]. (St Ignatius: Letter to the Philadelphians: Ch 3)

 

[Isaiah45_9]

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.

Do you purposefully ignore what other people write and just push your copy and paste collections?

And you refuted me in Nov 3, 2015!? Goodness, you are really good. How can I compete against such prophetic wisdom, LOL

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Virtually everything you said in this and previous posts is contradicted by history. I won’t go into specifics, but in general yes, Pope Leo the Great expounded some form of papal primacy. Citing sources before him about papal primacy are largely just one liners taken completely out of their respective social and cultural contexts. And a lot of what you cite are examples composed into collections by the Gregorian Reformers of the eleventh century, who often had their own personal and biased motivations. The history is far too long to get into here. But before Pope Nicholas I during the late ninth century, the papacy actually had very little effect on the affairs of the churches north of the Alps. While the papacy was consulted on numerous issues (mainly, which traditions were the most ancient) and was revered precisely because of its Petrine status, it was NOT considered the highest court of the Chalcedonian Church nor to have jurisdictional supremacy, although Nicholas certainly began to claim exactly that despite the contentiousness and novelty of it. Yet Nicholas’ claims differed significantly from Gregory VII’s of the eleventh century, because Nicholas only sought to establish the papacy as the highest court of appeals, not a jurisdictional supremacy. Therefore, Nicholas was more than willing to maintain the pre-existing system of pentarchy, although with some modifications. Meanwhile, Gregory VII took his claims much much further. Gregory VII and his followers cared not for pentarchy whatsoever. In eastern church affairs the papacy was equally impotent, but often it was consulted albeit to a less extent than they were by the Carolingians north of the Alps. If you would like some of my sources, then you can begin with these (which are written by historians, not apologists):

Engen, John van. “Conclusion: Christendom, C. 1100.” In The Cambridge History of Christianity: Early Medieval Christianities c. 600 - c. 1100, edited by Thomas F. X. Noble and Julia M. H. Smith, 625-43. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Halfond, Gregory. The Archaeology of Frankish Church Councils, AD 511-768. Leiden: Brill, 2010.

Blair, John. The Church in Anglo-Saxon Society. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Brown, Peter. The Rise of Western Christendom: Triumph and Diversity, A.D. 200-1000, 2nd ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2003.

Herrin, Judith. “The Pentarchy: Theory and Reality in the Ninth Century.” In Cristianità d’Occidente e cristianità d’Oriente (secoli VI-XI) : 24-30 aprile 2003. Spoleto, Italy: Settimane di studio della Fondazione Centro italiano di studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 2004. 591-628.

Isaiah45_9’s account of history is remarkably accurate. And while concilarism wasn’t fully stamped out until Vatican I, for all intensive purposes it was circumvented when Pope Urban II launched the First Crusade.

Thank you, Rohzek. You are correct, a closer and careful examination of history demonstrates the opposite to what some Catholic posters are painfully unaware of.

That was obvious when it was discussed on a now closed thread:

Primacy or Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome

Abu, have a read of that thread, buddy.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

This emphasises:
“This does not mean, however, that the Pope has absolute power.

Yes he does:

**Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.
Can. 332 §1. The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration. Therefore, a person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtains this power from the moment of acceptance. If the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.
Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.

More Canon Law:
Can.* 1404 The First See is judged by no one.
Can. 338 §1. It is for the Roman Pontiff alone to convoke an ecumenical council, preside offer it personally or through others, transfer, suspend, or dissolve a council, and to approve its decrees.**

Take a note of: supreme, full, immediate, universal, ordinary powers over the entire Church regardless of location, province or any other condition you can think of.

 

[Mystophilus]

And you refuted me in Nov 3, 2015!? Goodness, you are really good. How can I compete against such prophetic wisdom, LOL

11/3/15 = the eleventh of March, 2015. Note that Abu does not list his location as the USA.

 

[Mystophilus]

What are the least persuasive arguments you have heard?

• Any argument which starts with “False.” or “Wrong.” or any direct synonym thereof, especially if immediately followed by a series of quotations from Catholics expressing Catholic views. Preaching to the choir does not convince the general public.
• Any argument which depends upon the reasoning (expressed or not) “X proposition is true because Y Catholic authority says so.” See above.
• Any argument which attempts to use name-calling (“Protestants are heretics”, “Protestants are schismatics”, etc) to bludgeon us into converting. We remain Protestants precisely because we do not feel that disagreeing with you is bad. See above, also.
• Any argument which starts with “All Protestants do X”, for any X which is not automatically true of all Christians. If you fail to appreciate the nature of the group which you are arguing against, you fail to understand the discussion.
• Any argument which claims that Protestantism was an ex nihilo creation 500 years ago, failing to appreciate the connections of Protestantism to (and, in some cases, through) older forms of Christianity.

In short, any argument which commences in disrespect for its audience is doomed to failure.

More-persuasive arguments
Historical: the Church believes X because our earliest and most reliable sources believe X.
Scholarly: the Church believes X because the consensus of two thousand years of careful scholarship is that X fits the available data better than any other theory.
Philosophical: the Church believes X because [insert 40 000 words of Aquinas, and 10 000 of Aristotle here].

Most persuasive arguments
all of my real-life Catholic friends
more church buildings than I can fit in this post, starting with the Sistine Chapel
Pope Francis
St. Francis of Assisi
Thomas Aquinas
G K Chesterton
John Dalberg-Acton
Seamus Heaney
Thomas Merton
Gregor Mendel
Guy J. Consolmagno
Benedictine scholarship in particular
Purgatory
the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation
the Vatican museums

honourable mention
patrick457
Gorgias
dmar198
the moderators of CAF (looking at other online Christian forums is a good reminder of this)

 

[aidanbradypop]

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.

If a Cardinal is a prince of the RCC then…

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”.

Not following this. Assemblies of God is the US based member of a worldwide Assemblies of God fellowship

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.

We do the same. If a pastor says A and it seems odd then one can check it by going to the doctrines.

what is the Christian church? Who defines that?

Those who follow Christ by placing their hope, trust and faith in Him. The believers make up the Christian Church.

 

[Jon_S_1]

If a Cardinal is a prince of the RCC then…

Not following this. Assemblies of God is the US based member of a worldwide Assemblies of God fellowship

We were talking about all Christians though right? Not just A OF G.

We do the same. If a pastor says A and it seems odd then one can check it by going to the doctrines.

Those who follow Christ by placing their hope, trust and faith in Him. The believers make up the Christian Church.

so the Westboro baptist church are Christians? Mormons? JHW? All they have to say is they trust in Jesus and the rest is inconsequential?

 

[aidanbradypop]

so the Westboro baptist church are Christians? Mormons? JHW? All they have to say is they trust in Jesus and the rest is inconsequential?

Lol this is another “least persuasive argument used by Catholics.” What do you want me to say? Do you wish for me to state the the RCC is the only Christian Church?

There are members of WBC (you guys should really retire the WBC talking point), LDS and JW that are Christians. Stating otherwise would be assuming you know the soul of another, which is frowned upon here.

 

[commenter]

• Any argument which starts with “False.” or “Wrong.” or any direct synonym thereof, especially if immediately followed by a series of quotations from Catholics expressing Catholic views. Preaching to the choir does not convince the general public.
• Any argument which depends upon the reasoning (expressed or not) “X proposition is true because Y Catholic authority says so.” See above.
• Any argument which attempts to use name-calling (“Protestants are heretics”, “Protestants are schismatics”, etc) to bludgeon us into converting. We remain Protestants precisely because we do not feel that disagreeing with you is bad. See above, also.
• Any argument which starts with “All Protestants do X”, for any X which is not automatically true of all Christians. If you fail to appreciate the nature of the group which you are arguing against, you fail to understand the discussion.
• Any argument which claims that Protestantism was an ex nihilo creation 500 years ago, failing to appreciate the connections of Protestantism to (and, in some cases, through) older forms of Christianity.
  **
  In short, any argument which commences in disrespect for its audience is doomed to failure.**

More-persuasive arguments
Historical: the Church believes X because our earliest and most reliable sources believe X.
Scholarly: the Church believes X because the consensus of two thousand years of careful scholarship is that X fits the available data better than any other theory.
Philosophical: the Church believes X because [insert 40 000 words of Aquinas, and 10 000 of Aristotle here].

Most persuasive arguments
all of my real-life Catholic friends
more church buildings than I can fit in this post, starting with the Sistine Chapel
Pope Francis
St. Francis of Assisi
Thomas Aquinas
G K Chesterton
John Dalberg-Acton
Seamus Heaney
Thomas Merton
Gregor Mendel
Guy J. Consolmagno
Benedictine scholarship in particular
Purgatory
the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation
the Vatican museums

honourable mention
patrick457
Gorgias
dmar198
the moderators of CAF (looking at other online Christian forums is a good reminder of this)

What? I didn’t make honorable mention yet? (I mean honourable mention). I’m not only your typical arrogant amateur Catholic apologist, I’m your typical American, too, we’re the most arrogant).

 

[Jon_S_1]

Lol this is another “least persuasive argument used by Catholics.” What do you want me to say? Do you wish for me to state the the RCC is the only Christian Church?

There are members of WBC (you guys should really retire the WBC talking point), LDS and JW that are Christians. Stating otherwise would be assuming you know the soul of another, which is frowned upon here.

Well perhaps you are judging positively the state of another’s soul

Seriously, I’m not talking about who are saved…there are probably pagans and Buddhist and Hindus etc that are saved.

I’m talking about who are Christians. Who defines what christianity is… Many baptists for example will say only baptists and baptist leaning “born agains” are Christians…who gets to define what the Christian Faith is?

 

[aidanbradypop]

Well perhaps you are judging positively the state of another’s soul

Seriously, I’m not talking about who are saved…there are probably pagans and Buddhist and Hindus etc that are saved.

I’m talking about who are Christians. Who defines what christianity is… Many baptists for example will say only baptists and baptist leaning “born agains” are Christians…who gets to define what the Christian Faith is?

Being a follower of Jesus Christ. That makes you a Christian.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Well perhaps you are judging positively the state of another’s soul

Seriously, I’m not talking about who are saved…there are probably pagans and Buddhist and Hindus etc that are saved.

I’m talking about who are Christians. Who defines what christianity is… Many baptists for example will say only baptists and baptist leaning “born agains” are Christians…who gets to define what the Christian Faith is?

gotquestions.org/what-is-a-Christian.html

Couldn’t have said it better myself