SPLIT: Questions Catholics Will Not Answer.

[Schabel]

Seeing Peter as the leader of the apostles is a far cry from believing all of Peter’s successors have primacy.

YES! That, I believe, is the point that Maria was making!

Seeing Moses as the leader, speaking and giving the Law from his “seat,” is ALSO “a far cry from beliving all of” MOSES’ “successors have” this authority.

Except from Jewish Tradition, which Jesus implicitely ratifies.

Thus, Catholic Tradition is very much akin to Jewish Tradition as ratified by Our Lord!

 

[guanophore]

No one has ever said that people can’t interpret the Scriptures to make use of them devotionally.

On the contrary, justasking4 says that all the time!

What Protestants are not allowed to do is say that any Catholic, especially the Magisterium, is “wrong” in their interpretation of Scripture. Protestants are free to do or believe whatever they like, apart from that.

How can you say this?! justasking4 has been doing pretty much that since he joined CAF!1

 

[CentralFLJames]

How can you say this?! justasking4 has been doing pretty much that since he joined CAF!1

It’s probably not fair to cross-thread posts and pull in individuals into this thread from other discussions.

But if we want to generalize it to a principal I think it becomes obvious what the problem is with any private interpretation. Such can only hold what they want to believe but never have an authority over anyone else’s private interpretation. So Protestants or non-Catholics thus have no basis for “protesting” anything and in that realization they have no basis for existing as an organizational entity! The more protestants “protest” against Catholicism in favor of Sola Scriptura the more they undermine their own case for existing and descend to hypocrisy and look more and more like Pharisees.

I don’t think that **rebellion and protest **against Catholicism or anything else is a good moral basis for developing cannon around. The principal of rebellion as an organizating principal is only tracable to scripture is in the general fall of humanity and in Lucifer’s fall from grace to become Satan. What does that tell us?

James

 

[Mannyfit75]

This has proven to not be true time and again. It is simply an invention of the RCC, not the Catholic Church.

First of all there is no such thing as invention of the Catholic Church. These are revealed revelations from Jesus Christ.

Jesus revealed this in Matthew 16:17-19:

Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

The mere fact that you deny this essential truth which the Church had proclaimed and believed for 2,000 yrs is because your Anti-Catholic misconception.

Jesus established his Church upon Peter, and Peter’s successors today exist and Pope Benedict XVI is his successors. This continuous line of Apostolic Succession has been proven true.

I also like to make it clear that Jesus Christ Church is not properly called Roman Catholic Church. It is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, or just plain Catholic.

When you say that we are just Roman Catholic. You will offend Catholics who do not consider themselves Roman. These Eastern Rite Churches all 22 of them are Ruthenian, Meronite, Caldeaneans, Byzantine,Coptic Catholic Church, Syriac Catholic Church,Armenian, etc.

Your claims have been proven false and have been historians would strongly disagree with you. Jesus Christ’s Church is Catholic. It was always been like that. You will fade away but His Church will endure to the end because Jesus promise he will be with His Church for all times.

You want to prove yourself. Show me your proof. I want citations and reference materials. You better back yourself up because my friend if you can’t. You have deceived yourself completely for distorting the TRUTH!!

 

[Old_Scholar]

Well I am not going to read the 65 pages of past posts, however the Catholic Church has apostolic tradition which is a direct succession from today’s Bishops to the original Apostles ordained and sent out by Christ. The Orthodox Church was not a separated entity until after the first 1000 years. The difference between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church was one of authority within the Church not a significant change in teaching. The issue is the direct authority of Peter (see Acts) resides in the Roman side of the Catholic Church.

Sorry but the Orthodox Church had the same beginning as the RCC. They followed the path together until the split. Apostolic succession is also claimed by them, just like the Lutherans, Anglican, Anabaptists and the Reformed.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Well, I am off to Adoration, but I will propose this as a method.

The process of elimination.

An honest investigation into the history of any faith community, church, assembly etc will lead you back only to the man or woman who started it all. This will be true of a storefront Bible study or a mega church of thousands.

The history of the Catholic Church goes back directly to Jesus and the Apostles. The Orthodox does also… but that split that is yet unresolved does not jeopordize doctrine… but rather the final authority for safeguarding the doctrines.

One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism… that all might be One.

If there was an apostasy as some anti-Catholics would have us believe, that alone would mean Two.

To be steeped in history is to cease to be Protestant.

.

Yes, practically all churches had the same beginning, or at least they make claims to have come directly from Christ, so there must be another way.

 

[Pwrlftr]

YES! That, I believe, is the point that Maria was making!

Seeing Moses as the leader, speaking and giving the Law from his “seat,” is ALSO “a far cry from beliving all of” MOSES’ “successors have” this authority.

Except from Jewish Tradition, which Jesus implicitely ratifies.

Thus, Catholic Tradition is very much akin to Jewish Tradition as ratified by Our Lord!

The obvious difference being the seat of Moses had no charism of infallibility?

 

[Old_Scholar]

geezerbob

Old Scholar, this thread is about to close and it will be helpful to all concerned if you confine any future threads to the discussion on one topic, and one topic only, to avoid the disaster that this thread has become.

Your first post contained way too many questions to be dealt with in one thread. Read the rules: One question per thread. Moreover, another poster researched “your” questions and found that they had been copied and pasted from another web site. You never did respond to the allegation that you had claimed these questions as your own when, in fact, they weren’t. Just to keep things on the up and up, please clarify this for us.

You are right of course. There are so many quick responses that I can’t answer them all and give them enough thought. I apologize for doing it that way.

I just posted another thread and already there are enough answers to take an hour to respond to them all. That makes it a little hard to handle.

I wasn’t aware that the rules allow only one question—but actually the way my post was worded, it really was only one question. I am doing it quite differently this time around.

Thank you…In Christ we trust!!!

 

[Mannyfit75]

Sorry but the Orthodox Church had the same beginning as the RCC. They followed the path together until the split. Apostolic succession is also claimed by them, just like the Lutherans, Anglican, Anabaptists and the Reformed.

I revere the Eastern Orthodox Church rather than the Protestant one since Protestants did away with Apostolic Succession and the Seven Sacraments. They also have valid priests and bishops. They are schmatics because they are not in full communion with the Pope. Both the CC and OE are the original Patriachiate Churches which consist of Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and Constantinople.

Only the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church have their history trace back to the Apostles themselves. Protestants on the other hand break from the Apostolic Succession by getting rid of the Holy Orders.

Of course, there are priests and bishops in the Angelican Churches and Episcopalian Churches but the Catholic Church does not believe their sacraments are valid.

Oh the side note, there has been dialogue between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church which will bring an eventual reunion between the two ancient Christian Churches. It is going to happen.

The latest document from the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Joint Commission issued a statement that the Eastern Orthodox now believe in Papal Primacy. This is only one step for unification and once this happen, Jesus’ prayer for unity will be fullfilled.

 

[jmcrae]

Sorry but the Orthodox Church had the same beginning as the RCC. They followed the path together until the split. Apostolic succession is also claimed by them, just like the Lutherans, Anglican, Anabaptists and the Reformed.

All of the Patriarchs of the East were in full communion with Rome until the mid-1000s AD. After that, Rome remained one, but the East split into five, and there are more than that, today.

The Church in Great Britain and Northern Europe was in full communion with Rome until 1524 AD, after which Rome still remained one, but Northern Europe and Great Britain split into quite a few - by the end of the 1500s, there were at least a dozen mutually contradictory Protestant religions, and today we are looking at hundreds of them.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I also like to add that fragments of the Eastern Orthodox Churches reunited with Rome in the 1500s-1900s. They make up the majority of the Eastern Rite Churches. It is odd that these Churches decided to reunit with Rome. I rarely see this kind of reunion in Protestant churches.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Church Militant

Quote:
Shouldn’t you be trying to do the same? If you would only researchy what I am writing, then you would see how wrong you are on so many things.

I already have and I have used easily verifiable sources in my refutation of your posts. I have heard so much of this trash and waded through it as research only to find that it is virtually libelous propaganda from dishonest people.

If I have posted libelous progaganda, then why don’t you show me when and where? I have only posted my opinion, to which I am entitled, and copies from the early church fathers.

Now is you just don’t like what they have said, then there is nothing I can do about that.

Quote:
Go back to the original Catholic Church and study the beliefs and then look at them now and remember what Christ said about changing things.

Gee, I did and guess what I found!? The Eucharistic Real Presence in both the New Testament and the writings of the earliest ECF, infant baptism in the New Testament and in the verifiable testimony of an early church Bishop and martyr, and quotes of the Deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament in the New Testament from Our Lord Himself and the apostles, just to name a few.

I believe Christ appeard during the Eucharist but I don’t believe you can list the writings of the early church fathers that say there is transubstantiation taking place. Christ used His wording figuratively. Perhaps you could list (with references of course) the early writings that say this???

Infant baptism may have been mentioned in the ECF, but it is not Biblical. In fact, I would like to see which early church father mentioned it and which ones did not…

And I challenge you to list the Scriptures that show Christ, or any apostle, quoting from the Apocrypha books.

I really have to resent that allegation. After all, OS, it wasn’t any of us who plagiarized an anti-Catholic website and didn’t have the common integrity to cite that source or any sources in all your posts on this thread.

I did my homework, and that is precisely why I am Catholic. It is you in fact who has failed to prove a single allegation that you have made nor even cite a single source for your rhetoric.

While you accuse me of plaigarism, I notice the lack of references throughout these posts so I did not believe it was common to list sources. For example, I have read lots that you posted but very little when it comes to sources. In fact I read lots and lots of allegations but rarely ever a reference or source. In many cases of course, there is no source and that’s why RCCs don’t want to list them. They just aren’t there.

I will list my sources in the future and expect you to do likewise.

 

[Old_Scholar]

OS, You just quoted 2Tim 3:16 then you stated it said “sufficient”. I am sorry but I dont see that would in the text, I see profitable.
. Scripture does say "the Pillar and foundation of truth is the Church, it does not say the Bible.

There was already a growing Church before the New testament was compiled.

What they were writing about was the Church so the writings could not come before the Church.
Also I would suggest that you read the Early Church Fathers.

I’m sorry, I just assumed everyone would read the context. It’s in the next verse:

2 Tim 3:17 * that the man of God may be complete*, furnished completely to every good work.

I believe we would both agree that means sufficient.

And Scripture is the pillar and foundation of truth. That is quoted by the early church fathers.

I do study the early church fathers thank you, that’s why I am making the claims I am making. Their writings show conclusively that the church is not the same church that we had in the first two centuries. I am showing their beliefs on Scripture right now in another thread.

 

[mercygate]

I’m sorry, I just assumed everyone would read the context. It’s in the next verse:

2 Tim 3:17 that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely to every good work.
I believe we would both agree that means sufficient.

No, we would not agree that this means “sufficient”. Scripture is essential to make a person completely equipped. It is not the entire armamentarium. And that passage does not say that it is.

It’s as if I were to say to my son: Son, I am giving you this duffel bag so that you may be completely furnished for summer camp. Great. But if I don’t give him tennis shorts and sneakers and all the other stuff, he won’t be completely furnished.

And Scripture is the pillar and foundation of truth. That is quoted by the early church fathers.

OS: you are contradicting Paul here.

I do study the early church fathers thank you, that’s why I am making the claims I am making. Their writings show conclusively that the church is not the same church that we had in the first two centuries. I am showing their beliefs on Scripture right now in another thread.

The ECFs stand in a line of consistent teaching that forms a major part of the Tradition that you reject as not being part of the needful deposit of faith. So why would you “study” them. I think what you do is scour them to find things that contradict Catholic teaching. And since the Fathers are not infallible or “inspired” in the sense that Scrpture is inspired, one may find things that challenge received teachings (think: Origen, Tertullian). Or, because certain concepts had not yet achieved full doctrinal development, one may encounter apparent contradictions that are not actually contradictions. I think of a passage frequently quoted about the “bread and wine” of the eucharist. The discussion is about the hypostatic union, not about the real presence, so it doesn’t even relate to the subject. That doesn’t stop people from holding it up with a great: “GOTCHA!”

 

[Teflon93]

67 pages so far.

Could someone please catch me up? Has Old Scholar admitted Catholics have answered his questions or is he still maintaining we do not?

 

[Church_Militant]

If I have posted libelous progaganda, then why don’t you show me when and where? I have only posted my opinion, to which I am entitled, and copies from the early church fathers.

I already have, in every post of yours that I have refuted, starting with post # 2 and following the entire thread. You have been asked many times to respond and this is your only (diversionary) response, and virtually every person on this thread has seen it.

Now is you just don’t like what they have said, then there is nothing I can do about that.

Of course I don’ like them. No honest person likes lies, regardless of the source. You never have cited where you get all this rhetoric, and you never did admit that you plagiarized your initial post material even when others proved it and provided he link to it.

I believe Christ appeard during the Eucharist but I don’t believe you can list the writings of the early church fathers that say there is transubstantiation taking place. Christ used His wording figuratively. Perhaps you could list (with references of course) the early writings that say this???

There is no writing anywhere that says that “Christ appeared during the Eucharist” and you don’t even believe in a Eucharist yourself even though that is precisely the term that the early church called it.

You ask for proof from the ECF!? You wouldn’t if you had bothered to honestly check the links to the articles that I responded with earlier, but here is a direct quote from Ignatius of Antioch barely a decade after the death of the apostle John who discipled him.

CHAP. VII.–LET US STAND ALOOF FROM SUCH HERETICS.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,(7) because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death(11) in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect,(13) that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of(15) them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion[of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.(16) But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.
LINK

Infant baptism may have been mentioned in the ECF, but it is not Biblical. In fact, I would like to see which early church father mentioned it and which ones did not…

Polycarp outright told the proconsul at his trial that had been a been a Christian 86 years and he was 86 years old at the time.

CHAPTER 9

9:1 But to Polycarp, as he entered the arena, there came a voice from heaven, saying, Be strong, and play the man, O Polycarp. And the speaker no man saw; but the voice those of our people who were present heard. And when he was brought in there was a great tumult, when men heard that Polycarp was apprehended.

9:2 Then, when he had been brought in, the proconsul asked him if he was Polycarp. And when he confessed, he would have persuaded him to deny, saying, Have respect unto thine age, and other things like these, as is their custom to say: Swear by the fortunes of Caesar; Repent; Say, Away with the Atheists. But Polycarp, when he had looked with a grave face at all the multitude of lawless heathen in the arena, having beckoned unto them with his hand, sighed, and looking up unto heaven, said, Away with the Atheists!

9:3 And when the proconsul pressed him, and said, Swear, and I will release thee, revile Christ; Polycarp said, Eighty and six years have I served him, and in nothing hath he wronged me; and how, then, can I blaspheme my King, who saved me?

LINK

The fact that the New Testament plainly tells us that entire households were baptized, which plain God given common sense tells you would include the infants

And I challenge you to list the Scriptures that show Christ, or any apostle, quoting from the Apocrypha books.

With pleasure! But I will not point to “apocryphal writings” but only the Deuterocanonical books that are inspired canon of scripture.
Here’s the list!

While you accuse me of plaigarism, I notice the lack of references throughout these posts so I did not believe it was common to list sources. For example, I have read lots that you posted but very little when it comes to sources. In fact I read lots and lots of allegations but rarely ever a reference or source. In many cases of course, there is no source and that’s why RCCs don’t want to list them. They just aren’t there.

Do you even know what plagiarism means? In regular discussion one need not supply citations of source, as with my responses to Ja4 earlier, but when one literally copies and pastes from another website, especially one that is not authored by you, it is expected that you include a link to that page. If you look at the Forum Rules, this is also included there as well.

I will list my sources in the future and expect you to do likewise.

Defensive now huh? You can’t bag me for not citing a source, I’ve buried you in 'em so far and will continue to do so. Now we’ll see if you can actually debate a single topic as the rules say to instead of this rambling wreck of a thread that will be closed at 1,000 posts anyway.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Thousand post limit reached and thread closed.