My response to a Catholic challenge

[RBushlow]

BouleTheou:

Irenaeus was neither Protestant nor Catholic.

I’ll bet you think Clement and Cyprian aren’t Catholic as well.

If you mean, he was very Catholic in the sense of modern Roman Catholicism

The correct term is Catholic and Catholicism; the term Roman Catholic is an invention of the Anglicans. You are very misinfomed.

Peace.

 

[WBB]

RBushlow:

I’ll bet you think Clement and Cyprian aren’t Catholic as well.
The correct term is Catholic and Catholicism; the term Roman Catholic is an invention of the Anglicans. You are very misinfomed.

Peace.

Thank you RBushlow! You are my hero! I have been correcting people for years about the term “Roman Catholicism” and its origins in the English Reformation.

 

[WBB]

BouleTheou:

mercygate -

Thank you, sincerely.

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

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

Not that you will listen to any of this, but I’ll give defining Tradition a shot. Maybe an analogy would do better to make our definition understood. When you look at something, a flower, a car, whatever, you are seeing essentially the image as it appears because of light reflected off of it. This reflected light goes through your pupil and lands on the cells of the retina where it is transmitted to the visual cortex of your brain. However, without a lens in your eye, the image would be just a blur. To Catholics, Tradition is the “lens” whereby the meaning of scripture is focused for us. For when we say “Tradition”, we mean “the faith as understood by the apostles” which has been handed down through teaching (oral and written) by their successors. Now, if you choose to reject it, so be it. You will only accept what the Holy Spirit gives you the grace to accept.

 

[beng]

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

Look in the mirror Mr Holier than thou. Your ridiculous claim is highly obnoxious which is in the border of insulting. Trent justifying doctrine by creating “unwritten tradition” concept? How much charity was in your heart when you wrote this?

 

[beng]

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

Iraneus was the Bishop of Lyons. What do you think he is? An Episcopalian Bishop? Or maybe a Bishop like the Most Emminence James White?

It’s ridiculous that Iraneous who is considered to be The Father of Tradition is anything but Catholic

“In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is MOST abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the Apostles until now, and handed in truth”
AH 3,3:3

“Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters…It behoves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord’s Scriptures.”
AH V 20,2

“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the letter to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. … To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded . . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherius. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us” (ibid., 3, 3, 3).

 

[JGC]

BouleTheou:

with out-of-context citations.

BouleTheou

Pot. Kettle. Black. - spring to mind.

I have to say you remind me very much of a protestant I knew who used pretty similar arguments and was as equally vociferous. End result? Eventually realised his position was untenable and totally unscriptural. Became Orthodox! Whether it was because he thought the Orthodox had the fullness of truth or just never got over the Anti - Catholic thing…

 

[Chris_W]

I need to go, so quickly, here’s a couple thoughts on the unwritten Tradition:

It is not a specifiable set of information. That is why you have not received an answer that satisifies you, Boule. You are asking for someone to describe what truth is not contained in Scripture, but I would say (hopefully this is theologically agreeable with official Catholic teaching) it iwould be better described as a depth of truth.

For example, you may post something here that is completely obvious to you, and yet others misinterpret what you mean (we’ve all been there a time or two). You have the ability to further clarify what it is you meant, as needed, right? But can you provide a list of all the understanding you have which would help you clarify your position? It would be impossible because what you rely on is what you understand, what you have learned etc. You cannot clearly explain all that Boule Theou knows, can you?

That is how I view the Apostolic Tradition. It is a depth of understanding or insight that allows the Chuch to correctly clarify as needed…for our sakes. That’s why it is called a deposit of faith. It is the Truth of Faith in a deposit, so to speak, which God protects from error, from which the Church can draw so that the Church can keep us from error.

I need to run now, and I’ll be away for the next day and a half, so I’ll check back then, if you have questions of me.

Peace,
Chris W

 

[ANWK]

Hi BT,

I know that you are pretty busy answering everyone else on this forum and I apologise that I have to persist in my line of questioning regarding your comments about how clearly the Trinity is put in the Bible, because I am really curious how you manage to understand a concept that is so profound just by reading the Bible when it took hundreds of years to be defined by intellectual luminaries.

I am not doubting your intelligence or anything of that sort, just wondering how you understand it and the thought processes
behind it. I will quote again what I wrote in a previous post.

---- Quote ----

Hi BT,

you have asked everyone to put the Trinity question to bed. the reason why i asked the question in the first place was because you were of the opinion that the Trinity is a “a doctrine attested to on every page of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation”. i take that to assume that it is clear as day in scripture what the Trinity is.

it should not be a problem for you then to explain whether you came to the understanding of the Trinity on your own accord or whether someone else told you about it, would it?

if we cannot even glean a “a doctrine attested to on every page of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation”, what hope would we have of understanding the more difficult concepts of Christianity?

which again boils down to my question. did you understand the Trinity just by reading about it in the Bible or did someone tell it and explain the concept to you?

by the same token, are you saying that anyone who has never heard of Christianity can come to the truth about Christianity just by reading the Bible, without any guidance of sorts?

did that happen to you or did someone tell you about Christainity, then tell you that the Bible is the inspired word of God and then you come to believe??

please help as i’m really curious how you actually know???

regarding the books of the Bible, you seem to be of the opinion that Catholics added 7 books in 1546 to the Protestant Bible, which you obviously believe is the true Bible.

the Protestant reformation in the 1500s was the second big split in the Church. the first was when the Orthodox broke away in about 1000-1100 AD thereabouts. step into any Orthodox Church today and see what type of Bible they are using. it is the exact same Bible that Catholics are using today.

if as you say, Catholics added to the Bible in 1546, how is it that a good 500 years or so before this alleged event took place, the Orthodox Church was already using the “wrong” Bible when they split from the Church??

please help me…

---- End of Quote ----

 

[Dr.Colossus]

BouleTheou:

Irenaeus was neither Protestant nor Catholic…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

Iranaeus not Roman Catholic? Then how do you explain his reference in Adversus Haeresis to “The very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul”, or the “tradition derived from the apostles”?

And what of his preoccupation with the succession of the Bishops of Rome:

“The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate…To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him…Clement was allotted the bishopric…To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then…Sixtus …Telephorus…Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.” (emphasis mine)

Or perhaps you believe his understanding of the faith was different than the modern Catholic Church?

“By shedding his true blood for us, and exhibiting to us his true flesh in the Eucharist, [Christ] conferred upon our flesh the capacity of salvation.” Adversus Haeresis: Book V, Chapter 2

 

[oliver73]

Patrick:

Perhaps this idea will help. The long list of quotes you gave, in which Jesus quotes the Jewish Scriptures to some of his listeners, and argues from them as authoritative texts…aren’t you imposing a future Protestant-Catholic dispute onto those situations, when it doesn’t really apply? Or to put it this way, when Jesus quotes the Jewish Scriptures to his listeners, both supporters and adversaries, isn’t he arguing from a commonly received body of teaching, both written and oral, that took for granted both the authority of the Rabbis and the authority of certain texts considered Sacred? And didn’t this body of teaching, and the culture of the time, also accept the Rabbis as authoritative interpreters of “the Law”, rather than holding to a kind of ancient Sola Scriptura principle that left no room for a group of living authoritative interpreters?

So when Jesus uses the Jewish Scriptures, He’s doing 2 things. First, He’s arguing from what was considered to be “Public Revelation”, rather than a privately formed conscience. He’s not saying, "Hey, dont you personally know what the Bible says?..Instead, He’s saying, “Hey, don’t we all accept what has been revealed already, both through Scripture and through the Rabbis?” And then secondly, He goes on to assert His own authority over this Public Revelation by giving it a definitive interpretation, thereby setting Himself up as not just another Rabbi, but indeed as the One who had given these Scriptures to the Jews in the first place.

That this is the proper way to understand Jesus’s use of the Scriptures is reflected elsewhere in the Gospels. As some of your respondents have mentioned, Jesus recognizes the “seat of Moses” as an office of living authoritative interpretation within ancient Judaism, and he specifically tells His disciples to do whatever the occupants of the seat of Moses tell them to do, even though the teachers of the Law were often guilty of not practicing it themselves. He does not write anything down, and the Gospels themselves show Him creating the Church and endowing it with authority.

Finally, the final “existential” answer to your question has to do with the issue of conscience, rather than private interpretation. Yes, Jesus confronts each of us with the need to make a personal choice for Him or against Him. But He doesn’t ask us to make this decision on the basis of information obtained privately, or through unilateral interpretation of inspired texts. He asks us to decide for or against Him on the basis of Public Revelation, which is available to all, and which is safeguarded by means of both Scripture and Church Authority. Do you see the difference?

I hope this helps.

 

[Aris]

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 find this very strange.

There are only two conclusions.

One is that the original church died and was replaced by the Catholic Church which means that Christ’s Church was never meant to last.

Two, the Church was really Catholic.

I guess B.T. will end up with a dead end with option 1. I have never seen anyone trace back their Church to the Apostles. Except the Catholic Church.

 

[Ella]

ANWK, I think your point about the Orthedox bible is a very good one, and I hope BT responds to it. But don’t hold your breath.

Also in reference to BT’s response to Beng:

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

I’ve read the Envoy forums for a long time, and I’ve seen Patrick/BT make it quite clear that he does not believe Catholics are Christians. He’s used the ‘celibacy is a doctrine of demons’ argument, among other familiar canards. He said that the Mass is a blasphemy of the cross of Christ.
So, I can’t see how he’s getting so upset at Beng’s posts. Nothing Beng has said has been half as bad as some of the stuff BT has said on other forums. He just hasn’t been on this one long enough to say some of those same things. Unless he’s changed his mind… which I doubt.

 

[BouleTheou]

Everyone -

Thanks to those of you who have posted arguments and have tried to engage in real interaction with me. Though we disagree, I respect that. I’ll respond to the meaningful posts when I can.

Ella -

I’ve read the Envoy forums for a long time, and I’ve seen Patrick/BT make it quite clear that he does not believe Catholics are Christians.

I do not believe Catholic theology is Christian. I think there are many Roman Catholic people who are trusting in Christ alone for their salvation and hence they are Christians. I do not make blanket judgements and say things like “all Catholics are unsaved” and “all Presbyterians are saved.” People who are trusting in the finished work of Christ and His righteousness alone to get them to heaven, no matter what label they wear be it Protestant or Catholic or Orthodox, are Christians.

He’s used the ‘celibacy is a doctrine of demons’ argument,

Indeed - and no one was able to refute it.

among other familiar canards. He said that the Mass is a blasphemy of the cross of Christ.

Because it is. To say that the Catholic Eucharist is a perpetuation of the cross of Christ and is an actual propitiatory sacrifice for sins is a blasphemy and an insult against the cross-work of Christ. I stand by that accusation.

So, I can’t see how he’s getting so upset at Beng’s posts. Nothing Beng has said has been half as bad as some of the stuff BT has said on other forums. He just hasn’t been on this one long enough to say some of those same things. Unless he’s changed his mind… which I doubt.

When I said that about the Mass, that was in response to a poster saying he had paid to have a mass said in my name. Sorry, that is offensive to me. My Savior bore my sins in his body on the cross once for all - 2000 years ago - and then he rose again from the dead and ascended to heaven. After He died on the cross, He was buried and then rose again. He is not still on the cross - that event is in the past - it is over - “it is finished.” He has made reconciliation and has sat down at the right hand of God. Read the book of Hebrews - chapters 5-10.

Beng’s posts do not contain arguments for the most part - only insults against me. This is, of course, indicative of a lost cause and demonstrates his inability to respond with argumentation to defend his perspective. I’ve seen many like him. You present them with arguments and facts and they respond by spitting at you… because that’s all they can do.

Again - thanks for those of you who have tried to make this thread meaningful - I appreciate that. I know many thoughtful, knowledgeable Catholic people whom I love dearly and respect. I don’t hold them responsible for the behavior of people like Beng.

BouleTheou (Patrick)

 

[Ella]

When I said that about the Mass, that was in response to a poster saying he had paid to have a mass said in my name. Sorry, that is offensive to me.

What about responding, “No, thank you?” Instead you wrote something that is really offensive, and in no way can be construed as polite.

 

[BouleTheou]

Ella -

I am told that my most precious held beliefs: Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, etc are heresy by Catholic apologists on a regular basis. Does that offend me? Not at all. They are simply being true to their convictions - and I respect that. When someone tells me that a mass, which is claimed to be a perpetuation of the cross of my Savior, is going to be said for me, then I’m going to tell that person what I think. That person knew I would never embrace such a thing. So I told him my opinion of the mass - since he was having one said for me. I can’t think of any other way to say it, Ella. Now, if I had said, “the mass is blasphemy, and you’re an idiot and your mother is ugly” then that would be impolite.

Why does it offend you when I state my beliefs and state how my beliefs cause me to view your beliefs? I’m not offended when you all do the same with me.

BouleTheou

 

[mercygate]

Boule –

Misused quotes from Irenaeus? You’re thrashing now. But I sympathize because you have been fed a richer than usual diet of anti-Catholic poison and, apparently, have been rewarded by your peers for your ability to regurgitate and improvise upon the themes. Been there. Done that.

 

[BouleTheou]

mercygate -

Misused quotes from Irenaeus? You’re thrashing now. But I sympathize because you have been fed a richer than usual diet of anti-Catholic poison and, apparently, have been rewarded by your peers for your ability to regurgitate and improvise upon the themes. Been there. Done that.

C’mon now, mercygate. Let’s get past the silliness, roll up our sleves, and talk. Show me why Irenaeus converted you to Catholicism.

BouleTheou

 

[mercygate]

BouleTheou:

mercygate -

C’mon now, mercygate. Let’s get past the silliness, roll up our sleves, and talk. Show me why Irenaeus converted you to Catholicism.

BouleTheou

He connected the dots between the historic, apostolic church, the doctrines of that Church, and the person of Jesus. He shows how the Mystical Body of Christ, is integrally tied to the historical Church.

 

[beng]

BouleTheou:

Beng’s posts do not contain arguments for the most part - only insults against me. This is, of course, indicative of a lost cause and demonstrates his inability to respond with argumentation to defend his perspective. I’ve seen many like him. You present them with arguments and facts and they respond by spitting at you… because that’s all they can do.

Again - thanks for those of you who have tried to make this thread meaningful - I appreciate that. I know many thoughtful, knowledgeable Catholic people whom I love dearly and respect. I don’t hold them responsible for the behavior of people like Beng.

BouleTheou (Patrick)

I have succesfully refuted your argument and prove that St Iraneus was a Catholic and that’s all you can come up with? Shame.

I do know that “some apologist” use the “sitting on a high horse” tactic to make him look right and the other wrong in a demeaning way. It seems that you learn this art. Power to you.

And about those verses showing Sola Fide, I;m currently still working on them. But it’s hard because I have a headache everytime an unrelated verses is thrown to show that it’s teaching Sola Fide. Youu have talent for smoke screen.

That would be my last project for you because you’re just not worth the salt. You’re holier than thou and continues smoke screen are just utter nonsense belong in the garbage.

 

[JPrejean]

BouleTheou:

I’ve seen many like him. You present them with arguments and facts and they respond by spitting at you… because that’s all they can do.

In all seriousness, if you’re still reading this forum after the ban, please take a look in the mirror, and pray about this. It’s not even questionable that this is exactly what you’re doing, and in my experience, a criticism habitually directed at others is almost always indicative of a flaw that a person sees in himself. We often attack in others what we don’t like about ourselves, so this could be a valuable lesson for you.