My response to a Catholic challenge

[MarkInOregon]

BouleTheou:

Matthew -

The papacy, purgatory, the catholic priesthood, the mass, indulgences, all the Marian dogmas, the catholic concept of justification, scapulars, rosaries, magic medals, etc have absolutely, positively no basis in special revelation (i.e. Scripture) whatsoever.

BouleTheou

Continuing:

And Mary of the top of my head:

–Mother of God. Clearly in the Scripture. I’m pretty sure she gave birth to Jesus in the Scriptures.
–Ever Virgin. Scripture is clear that Jesus was born of a virgin so we know that Mary was a virgin at that point. And Scripture is silent as to after that. Now I know you will cite verses you believe contradict that but I don’t agree that those verses say what you want them to say. But we have oral tradition handed down since the time of the apostles to affirm this teaching and thats why we believe it.
–Immaculate conception & assumption. Scripture no where denies these doctrines so you cannot prove them false through scripture. We have oral tradition from the time of the apostles handing these beliefs down to us today. Thats why we believe them.

Now I see no rational explanation for the venom and anger these teachings seem to draw from you. Just what about them is offensive to you? How do they detract from or deminish Christ–I can’t see how they possibly do. Christ certainly honored his mother while He was here on earth as a man and these teachings reflect that honor and deny nothing of what Christ is and what he did for us. Mary by her life provides an example to us of how to follow Christ, of how to fully submit to the will of God–and yet you seem to be afraid to show her the honor and respect she deserves as one chosen by God–a respect shown to her by Christ whom we should model. Indeed you seem to show more respect to the apostle Paul than to the mother of our God made man.

Finally it would be nice if you could make a distinction between doctrinal teaching and devotional practices. The rosary, scapular and medals (which by the way are not magic) are not doctrinal teachings but rather are devotional practices which help draw us nearer to Christ. Your anger over these only shows your ignorance regarding the practices. Why would you object to someone praying and meditating on the life of Christ–which is what we do when we pray the rosary–is beyond me.

The peace of Christ be with you.

Mark

 

[MarkInOregon]

BouleTheou:

hlgomez -

[chuckle] - ok. Bearing the nihil obstat (latin: “nothing objectionable”) and imprimatur (latin: “let it be printed”) of the Roman Catholic Church, the “Catholic Encyclopedia” states the following regarding the canon of Scripture:

Now, gomez, what was it you were saying?
BouleTheou

It says most explicit not only. The ealier councils were binding on the faithful, are infallible teaching as is forcefully declared by the declaration you were so nice to share with us. Thank you

 

[Pisio]

MarkInOregon:

the mass–off the top of my head I would:
–Refer you to the Gospels and the last supper narratives–this is the focus of the mass and it is what is done at every mass.
–Refer you to Acts and the NT letters & epistles (cites can be provide later–but I’m sure you are familiar w/them) where we see the early Christians gather to read the word of God and break bread and this is what we do at every mass.
–Refer you to the book of Revelation and while to complex to go into in this post you can see the mass there–the liturgical celebration.
–Refer you to Justyn Martyrs 1st Apology–the description of the mass as celebrated then is so close to our mass today it is inconceivable that you could claim (as you did in one of these threads) that an early Church father would not recognize the mass down at our local parish today. Have you ever even been to a mass?

continued

Not to mention Luke 24, and the walk to Emmaus. Examine closely what Christ did, and you find a Liturgical guidline we follow to this day:

Enter into a relationship with one another, share and explain the scriptures, break the bread (recognizing Him in that act), be sent out to tell others the good news.

In Christ, with Mary,
Pisio

 

[hlgomez]

If they weren’t in Scripture, Luther would not have felt the need to rip some pages out of his Bible and would not have desired to rip out James, Revelation and Jude. He did this because what he removed from the Bible supported doctrines HE decided were false. You don’t find that troubling in the least?

I find this troubling for BouleTheou.

Pio

 

[RMP]

Luke -
Quote:
You said that special revelation written or oral…creates the church.
It pre-existed the church because it created it. God does not need to establish a “church” or any kind of visible organization before he can reveal himself to man. Notice the case of Adam, the case of Abraham, the case of Noah. The idea that without a visible church or visible organization on earth to speak for God, we’re just not going to have Scripture just is not historically the case.

BouleTheou

This statement is completely false. The written word did not create the church. Jesus Christ created the church through the incarnation, HIS words, and Holy spirit. A book of collections (scripture) of those words only supports what the word actually is.It cannot create anything. By your logic, " MOBY dick " created whale hunting. Since we have the book now there is no need for ships, spears, ect.

What other type of special revelation besides scripture was written down?

HOW do you know we ACTUALLY HAVE EVERY POSSIBLE scripture written down and preserved in the CANON. Has anything been lost? ever? This is still an open question. The church ruled “what is” the canon in the 4th century because it had time to review all previous scripture that claimed to be inspired and through time make that determination. THE CHIRCH decided the CANON. The CANON does not decide the church. How many libraries have burned down over time, we lost hundreds of rare works and do not recall what what written in them. The question is still open, “ITS THAT ALL” . It would be foolish to say yes. What if tommorrow we discover a new text in a cave that was writtin by an apostle or early church figure. I know the possibility is rare, but not impossible. ex dead sea scrolls.

 

[BouleTheou]

c0ach -

Patrick! That’s inceptive aorist tense! You’re misusing it. How ya doin’ buddy?

Hey, I’ve been able to use that argument a lot since Jimmy Akin first made it. When you’re backed up against a wall and don’t know what to do, to impress your friends and confound your enemies, ya just say, “well, those verbs are inceptive second aorist forms… which mean [then fill in whatever helps your argument].”

Doing fine my man,

BouleTheou

 

[BouleTheou]

RMP -

HOW do you know we ACTUALLY HAVE EVERY POSSIBLE scripture written down and preserved in the CANON. Has anything been lost? ever?

[chuckle] Because although you claim that not everything was committed to Scritpure, you can’t show anything to me that wasn’t

BouleTheou

 

[mercygate]

BouleTheou:

RMP -

[chuckle] Because although you claim that not everything was committed to Scritpure, you can’t show anything to me that wasn’t

BouleTheou

Hey, guys. Don’t muddy the water. Give this one to Boule. What we have is what we have. The Church does not claim otherwise. That more was said: yes. Who would deny it? That the Church holds the keys to interpret Scripture? Yes. But the canon is closed.

 

[BouleTheou]

mercygate -

Hey, guys. Don’t muddy the water. Give this one to Boule. What we have is what we have. The Church does not claim otherwise. That more was said: yes. Who would deny it? That the Church holds the keys to interpret Scripture? Yes. But the canon is closed.

Thank you, sincerely.

But the church does claim otherwise - the Council of Trent in its fourth session said these words:

This [Gospel], of old promised through the Prophets in the Holy Scriptures,[1] our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, promulgated first with His own mouth, and then commanded it to be preached by His Apostles to every creature[2] as the source at once of all saving truth and rules of conduct. It also clearly perceives that these truths and rules are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves,[3] the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down to us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand.

All I have tried to do is simply to get you to tell us what these “unwritten traditions” are. You know what I think? I think Trent is pulling smoke and mirrors. I think this “unwritten traditions” is simply their license to believe and teach their pet doctrines about Mary, indulgences, the Mass, purgatory, papal infallibility, etc. They know these have no basis in Scripture, “so, we’ll just postulate a dual source of revelation.” The fact that no one here can produce these “unwritten traditions” along with the fact that mercygate is now saying to everyone to just admit what I’ve been saying all along proves my point.

mercygate - I thank you for your honesty. You don’t have to be stuck with Rome’s strange dogmas, you at least see things clearly. Read Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians over the next few weeks and ask yourself these questions, “Did Paul teach these Churches Roman Catholicism? Did he teach them about the mass? Purgatory? Justification by baptism? Re-justification by the sacrament of penance? Did he tell them to hold fast to Peter’s successor in Rome? Did he teach them that by looking at femurs of dead Christians, one can gain time out of purgatory?”

An honest person has nothing to fear from the truth.

take care and God bless,

BouleTheou

 

[mercygate]

BouleTheou:

mercygate - I thank you for your honesty. You don’t have to be stuck with Rome’s strange dogmas, you at least see things clearly. . . . “Did Paul teach these Churches Roman Catholicism? Did he teach them about the mass? Purgatory? Justification by baptism? Re-justification by the sacrament of penance?”

An honest person has nothing to fear from the truth.

take care and God bless,

BouleTheou

I’m not backing off on Tradition in the least. I’m just recognizing that Tradition is the other leg of Church teaching. Yes to Mass, baptism, penance and Purgatory in scripture (Penance is the best part!) . None of this is “strange dogma.” Remember – I’m a Convert, so like you, there was a time when I would have denied all of this as well. Yet all of your “strange dogmas” derive from Scripture as interpreted by the Tradition – much of it also written, in fact. But then, you’ve read the Catechism, so you already know that.

And I think an honest person could have a great deal to fear from the truth. The day I realized that the Catholic Church was, in fact, THE Church, I was scared spitless . . . But that was my pride.

 

[BouleTheou]

mercygate -

What was it, specifically, that made you realize Catholicism was the true church?

My studies have led me to reject its claims.

BouleTheou

 

[beng]

BouleTheou:

mercygate -

All I have tried to do is simply to get you to tell us what these “unwritten traditions” are. You know what I think? I think Trent is pulling smoke and mirrors. I think this “unwritten traditions” is simply their license to believe and teach their pet doctrines about Mary, indulgences, the Mass, purgatory, papal infallibility, etc. They know these have no basis in Scripture, “so, we’ll just postulate a dual source of revelation.” The fact that no one here can produce these “unwritten traditions” along with the fact that mercygate is now saying to everyone to just admit what I’ve been saying all along proves my point.

How dishonest you are to say that Trent is making up unwritten tradition to introduce doctrines.

Mary, indulgence, Papal infallibility, Mass, Purgatory etc have biblical basis and has been explained so many times. Not only that but we have patristic support of those doctrine, thus the “unwritten tradition”.

And Sola Fide, where is that in the Bible? Oh yeah, James 2:24. But why aren’t you doing exactly what James said? And Sola Scriptura, where is that in the Bible? Dissension into denominations, where is that in the Bible? Contraception, where is that in the Bible?

Get a cold shower and get real.

 

[mercygate]

BouleTheou:

mercygate -

What was it, specifically, that made you realize Catholicism was the true church?

My studies have led me to reject its claims.

BouleTheou

History. Irenaeus of Lyons. Smacked me upside the knot and wouldn’t let go. I was confronted with the unity of the “spiritual” Church and the “historical” Church. Took me decades to face up to the logical consequence: the necessity of conversion – kicking and screaming every inch of the way. I grasped at every obstacle I could – some of those Renaissance Popes did a pretty good job of keeping me away. But the Boss was beckoning. And we all know the futility of resisting Him!

 

[mercygate]

BouleTheou:

mercygate -

What was it, specifically, that made you realize Catholicism was the true church?

My studies have led me to reject its claims.

BouleTheou

P.S. I did not read Irenaeus in a Church setting. It was in a course on early mediaeval history at my large, state-supported secular university. No agenda pushing there – except maybe the general anti-God atmosphere of much university life.

 

[BouleTheou]

beng -

Sorry, I don’t interact with hotheads with keyboards. If you can post something other than a temper tantrum, maybe we’ll talk.

BouleTheou

 

[BouleTheou]

Irenaeus? What in the world in Irenaeus made you convert to Romanism? Would you be specific please? I’ve seen the lists of misused quotes from him by RCs… maybe you can do better.

BouleTheou

 

[Sarah_Jane]

BouleTheou:

Irenaeus? What in the world in Irenaeus made you convert to Romanism? Would you be specific please? I’ve seen the lists of misused quotes from him by RCs… maybe you can do better.

BouleTheou

St.Irenaeus was very Catholic.

 

[BouleTheou]

Sarah -

Irenaeus was neither Protestant nor Catholic. I read the early church fathers and let them be who they were. Irenaeus was catholic in the ancient sense of that term. If you mean, he was very Catholic in the sense of modern Roman Catholicism, then I know you’ve never read much of Irenaeus outside of quote-books or links with out-of-context citations.

BouleTheou

 

[Sarah_Jane]

BouleTheou:

Sarah -

Irenaeus was neither Protestant nor Catholic. I read the early church fathers and let them be who they were. Irenaeus was catholic in the ancient sense of that term. If you mean, he was very Catholic in the sense of modern Roman Catholicism, then I know you’ve never read much of Irenaeus outside of quote-books or links with out-of-context citations.

BouleTheou

I read “All against heresies” and for me, he was very Roman Catholic.

 

[mercygate]

BouleTheou:

Irenaeus? What in the world in Irenaeus made you convert to Romanism? Would you be specific please? I’ve seen the lists of misused quotes from him by RCs… maybe you can do better.

BouleTheou

Adversus Haeresis