The "catholic but not Roman Catholic" argument

[JonathanKinsman]

Accusations! without a leg.

1.)You’ve linked a catholic apologist website
2.) I copied no one verbatim and you know it.

I read them in light of their context much clearer than you my friend, I am not wearing your Roman colored lens.

Okay, Simon, I got the quote. I’ve tried copying it and pasting it to this thread: it doesn’t take.

So, anyone out there: how to I take a two paragraph quotation of James White from a website and paste it to this thread?

Please help ASAP, Simon is waiting.

Thanks

 

[JonathanKinsman]

JesusforMadrid said:

A few more comment of my own (my take):

1. The Marian doctrines or dogmas examined, including The title Mother of God, Immaculate Conception, Ever Virgin, Assumption and Sinlessness do not enjoy the “unanimous consent” of the Fathers.
2. The relatively few Fathers who opine on any given Marian doctrine or dogma suggests that the RC church is being selective in its use of the Fathers to justify its doctrine.
3. The lack of documentation from the 1st and 2nd century for these doctrines is particularly troubling. How could Mary be assummed to Heaven and it doesn’t appear anywhere in any of the Father’s writings until more than 300 years afterwards? In all the meticulous writings of Ignatius, 7 epistles in total in this period, an no mention of the Assumption of Mary, the mother of Jesus? What, it wasn’t considered important? This would have been absolutely remarkable and all over the ECF documents. Yet not a word.
4. The dogmas of Mary regarding the immaculate conception and the assumption of Mary, were declared in absence of “unanimous consent” of of the Fathers and thus, not in accord with the standard used at Trent. Of course, this could have been based on purely scriptural reasons, though these seem speculative.

So, after this exercise, I conclude that there is a lack of “unanimous consent” or even “majority consent” for the Marian doctrines and dogmas discussed above.

Jesus4Madrid:

Let’s see if you can understand this:

1. ‘Mother of God’ or ‘Theotokos’ is a term for Mary which EVERYONE (West and East) applies to her. It is a title of fact (she carried Jesus) and a title of honor (she submitted to the will of God). It is NOT mandatory that Catholics and Orthodox call Mary the ‘Mother of God,’ it is LIKE SO MANY OTHER CHRISTIAN customs and beliefs which you may (or may not) follow, a result of many different sources, INCLUDING scripture.

2.Immaculate Conception. Well, nothing I can say will say it better than the original papal bull on this dogma. In it, Pope Pius IX delineates the scriptural and Traditional (early writings of the Fathers; early manuscripts like the Protoevangelium of James and customs of individual churches) of the doctrine and why it should be elevated to that of dogmatic belief.

If you have problems with the IC, Jesus4Madrid, let’s address those issues as stated in Ineffabilis Deus, okay? Then we can avoid these peripatetic wanderings all over the place (from all of us!).

1. Ever Virgin/Sinlessness. These are aspects of Mary’s role as Christ-bearer (another old Greek phrase!) and theotokos. Since everyone is called ‘brother’ in the NT and there exists NO Aramaic word for ‘brother’ or ‘sister’ (the closest one is tantamount to my last name: kinfolk), hanging siblings on some passages which mention ‘brothers and sisters’ is rather flimsy. Don’t you think Jesus would have handed over the care of Mary to James or someone else at the Cross instead of John? After all, Jesus was Jewish and that is customary pursuant to the 4th Commandment.

to be continued

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Okay, Simon, I got the quote. I’ve tried copying it and pasting it to this thread: it doesn’t take.

So, anyone out there: how to I take a two paragraph quotation of James White from a website and paste it to this thread?

Please help ASAP, Simon is waiting.

Thanks

Highlight desired text “control c” to copy
“control v” to paste… do it for the verbage and the page you are getting it from please.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

4.** “the relatively few Fathers who opine on any given Marian doctrine and dogma suggests the RC Church is being selective in the use of the Father to justify its doctrine.”**

Well, no. The Eastern Church believes with the Western Church on many of these issues who have trouble with understanding. Watch that “RC” stuff!

Where are the “Fathers” (I hope you are referring to only those Patristic writers who ARE considered ‘Fathers’ of the early Church!) on the Trinity? The Hypostatic Union? What constitutes the canon of the Bible?

Find some “unanimous consent” there, my friend. And then explain why you put so much faith into a collection of books (“biblia”) which this “Marian loving Church” discerned were inspired and relevant to the Cycle of Redemption and Jesus’ teaching at almost the same time in which you claim this Marian “doctrine and dogma” was being touted?

1. Lack of documentation issue. Again, you are placing misplaced authority of the ECFs regarding the dogmas of the IC and the Assumption. Read the papal bull. If you want, I can keep responding to you with quotations from it. But isn’t that a waste of time on this thread? We Catholics (West and East) who believe these dogmas aren’t the ones with the doubts.

to be continued

 

[JonathanKinsman]

Highlight desired text “control c” to copy

“control v” to paste… do it for the verbage and the page you are getting it from please.

Simon,
I tried this. I’ll give it another go as soon as I finish answering Jesus4Madrid

Thanks

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Simon,
I tried this. I’ll give it another go as soon as I finish answering Jesus4Madrid

Thanks

PM me the web page you know when I am wrong I admit it I’ll be honest its my nature. Lets not sidetrack the thread.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

JesusforMadrid said:

I set out a challenge for someone to show me that there was “unanimous consent” of the Fathers on Marian dogma and doctrine. I asked this because the Council of Trent mentions this standard and equates it to Scripture.

Jesus4Madrid:

1. Your number 4, above, is just a restatement of your conclusion disguised as a premise.

The highlighted sentence: Trent DOES NOT EQUATE THIS (the Immaculate Conception) to SCRIPTURE. Scripture is not the be all, end all of what is considered “Christian.”

If it were, then the Bible should have been put together better. There are (seemingly) contradictory statements by St Paul and Jesus which taken out of context and without understanding the audience they were addressing, can be used to support any hare-brained idea of “what being a true Christian really means.”

One last time (it’s getting old, Jesus4Madrid) Marian dogmas are not what Trent was discussing it its decree during the 4th Session: the subject was interpretation of scripture.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Jesus4Madrid:

Again, why are you beating to death the “unanimous consent” standard on scriptural interpretation?

It has NOTHING, nada, zip, zilch, rien, to do with the dogma of the IC or with the Assumption of Mary."

This is certainly true, as my analysis has shown. There was not unanimous, nor majority nor even plurality consent. There was very little consent whatsoever. Almost none.

The consent of the Fathers has, we can both conclude, absolutely "Nothing, nada, zip, zilch, rien to do with the Marian dogma of the RC Church. Absolutely nothing. Nothing!

Are you proud of this? Because as a seeker, I personally find the complete lack of consent fairly troubling, and I suspect I am not alone. There is enormous consent of the Fathers for the trinity, beginning in the 1st century. Yet almost none for Marian dogma. Interesting.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/09/dialogue-on-my-critique-of-james.html

Simon: Here is the Dave Armstrong’s blog which has James White’s 2 paragraph quotation in green.

It is about half way down the page (at the end of a long section in green)

This is a record of an on-line debate and discussion between these two men.

Your words are verbatim.

Jonathan

 

[myfavoritmartin]

This is certainly true, as my analysis has shown. There was not unanimous, nor majority nor even plurality consent. There was very little consent whatsoever. Almost none.

The consent of the Fathers has, we can both conclude, absolutely "Nothing, nada, zip, zilch, rien to do with the Marian dogma of the RC Church. Absolutely nothing. Nothing!

Are you proud of this? Because as a seeker, I personally find the complete lack of consent fairly troubling, and I suspect I am not alone. There is enormous consent of the Fathers for the trinity, beginning in the 1st century. Yet almost none for Marian dogma. Interesting.

I’ve gotta say it sure seems as though JFM has got you guys in a checkmate on this one!

 

[Nicene]

Of course it is about scriptural interpretation. But, again, Trent says I cannot, if I am a Catholic, interpret scripturally privately in a way that would go against the RC Church’s interpretation of Scripture or the "Unanimous Consent "of the Fathers. Conversely, it follows that I can interpret scripture privately if it is in line with Church teaching or if it does not contradict the unanimous consent of the Fathers. The juxtaposition stands: Church authority on Scripture is equated to the unanimous consent of Fathers.

1 Jn 4:1: Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world.

Only the proud will not submit his spirit to the test to be tested by the Holy Spirit which guides the church. Spirits which refuse to be tested are not of God.

2 Pet 1:20: First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,
21: because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

1 Cor 14:29: Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said.

As can be seen above this is what the Evangelical protestant rejects by the very arguement being used.

The true spirit is the humble spirit because it does submit and say *“Not according to my will but yours be done” *The spirit of the proud (the sin of Adam) does not submit to the body of Christ of Christ in reality (not the protestant metaphorical body) but rather says “My will be done, not yours”

Now the humble servant submits to the church, the proud does not and twists and interprets scripture to his own destruction:

1 Pet 5:5: Likewise you that are younger be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.”

2 Pet 3:16: speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

1 Tim 6:3: If any one teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching which accords with godliness,
4: he is puffed up with conceit, he knows nothing; he has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions,
5: and wrangling among men who are depraved in mind and bereft of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.

cont…

 

[JonathanKinsman]

9.)IRENAEUS

“To this effect they testify, saying, that before Joseph had come together with Mary, while she therefore remained in virginity, ‘she was found with child of the Holy Ghost;’” (Against Heresies, 3:21:4)

Irenaeus uses “come together” with intercourse. Implying that Joseph and Mary had normal marital relations after Jesus was born.

Simon,

Here is the passage taken from the above-linked website. You will see that it is word for word.

Jonathan

 

[Nicene]

So, I continue my quest: Can you or anybody show me unanimous consent of the Fathers on the Marian dogma?

An example: We have 618 bishops who decided to make dogma Mary as the Theotokos, yet we don’t have 618 writings by these fathers, yet there was unanimous concent to do so (not only among the bishops as can be seen by the people outside, the laity, who carried them out in celebration after the decision) However in protestant theology each person must write according to this errant (and once again strawman) arguement. Ergo each person bishop or whatever their leaders wish to call themselves must each write a paper on sola scriptura for it to be true. Yet we do not see this, therefore, under protestant interpretation, the doctrines of Sola scriptura and Sola Fide must be false sinse not all agree on it or they would have all written on it. (the protestants of today and the protestant early fathers - still waiting for their writings to surface one day)

You have pretty much lost all credibility, as having read through some of the next few pages you refuse to give up the strawman.

1: Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
2: For by it the men of old received divine approval.

All these things can only be seen through the eyes of true and authentic faith. Baptism, Real presence, the dormition, the body, etc. because faith, true faith, is a gift from God.

Evangelicals need a sign, but none will be given to this generation. All things needs to be seen to be believed (written down) all (false) miracles grandioce and gaudy in front of oohhing and aaahing crowds. There is no authentic faith for those who can only believe by seeing and in desperate need of signs.

Would evangelical protestants actually have been one of the first christians? The absolute need for it to be written down in a legal document (in the form of scripture and how it is treated) would have precluded that conversion. Evangelicals claim to be like the first christians (their traditions not to be found regardless), yet the first christians believed without one word written down. Yet the protestant insistance is that it MUST be written down in order to be believed. Ergo they would not have converted sinse it was not written down. Isn’t that actually a false faith?

I am often remided of:

Jn 5:39: You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me;
40: yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.

Isn’t tradition really the test of true faith? The more I read from protestant apologists the more I am convinced of it, (regardless of their dishonesty consistantly employed)

John 3:14: And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up,
15: that whoever believes in him may have eternal life."
16: For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Rom 10:13: For, “every one who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved.”
14: But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher?
15: And how can men preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach good news!”

Futher the kingdom started out as a mustard seed, which grows into the strongest tree, this is the church. Evangelicalism seeks to chop down the tree and start all over. This is a man made doctrine at it’s core, the core of unbelief IMHO. Like all things God created, Christ meant his body to grow and mature in understanding (not in terms of numbers as in protestantism). Thankfully the church is founded on the rock.

The mustard seed cannot be put back into it’s shell at the behest of modern mans will over Gods will.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[JonathanKinsman]

This is certainly true, as my analysis has shown. There was not unanimous, nor majority nor even plurality consent. There was very little consent whatsoever. Almost none.

The consent of the Fathers has, we can both conclude, absolutely "Nothing, nada, zip, zilch, rien to do with the Marian dogma of the RC Church. Absolutely nothing. Nothing!

Are you proud of this? Because as a seeker, I personally find the complete lack of consent fairly troubling, and I suspect I am not alone. There is enormous consent of the Fathers for the trinity, beginning in the 1st century. Yet almost none for Marian dogma. Interesting.

Are you proud you keep yoking two distinct concepts together which have no common bond or bearing on one another?

You set up the goofy premise that Marian dogma needs to be viewed in light of scriptural interpretation. The Catholic Church has never said it must, nor have you addressed the analogies to you beliefs which are not delineated by the ‘Fathers’ (which you quote from some and include other Patristic writers under this rubric).

You win because you’re playing by yourself, with rules you set and you change the playing field to justify your conclusion.

Look, it’s easy to mock things. I could mock you in you insistence that you “feel” the Holy Spirit when you attend your services. You can prove that you do. I do not ask that you do.

But I ask that you keep to common sense in discussion.

And intellectual honesty.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

---

You are quoting James White verbatim without attribution.

Jon,
Yes, the same argument… Verbatim? no.
This opinion was established long before the Armstrong White debate… If I am required to post the original person whom thought of this then so should White… Well and for that matter many arguments you post are from prior debates.
Jon quit trying to deface me it is not becoming, it gives you the appearance of losing an argument.
My bible instructor once told me if you tell the truth and people get mad or lash out personally it is because they know you speak the truth and the wish to not accept it. Is this the case Jon?

 

[JesusforMadrid]

An example: We have 618 bishops who decided to make dogma Mary as the Theotokos, yet we don’t have 618 writings by these fathers, yet there was unanimous concent to do so (not only among the bishops as can be seen by the people outside, the laity, who carried them out in celebration after the decision) However in protestant theology each person must write according to this errant (and once again strawman) arguement. Ergo each person bishop or whatever their leaders wish to call themselves must each write a paper on sola scriptura for it to be true. Yet we do not see this, therefore, under protestant interpretation, the doctrines of Sola scriptura and Sola Fide must be false sinse not all agree on it or they would have all written on it. (the protestants of today and the protestant early fathers - still waiting for their writings to surface one day)

You have pretty much lost all credibility, as having read through some of the next few pages you refuse to give up the strawman.

1: Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
2: For by it the men of old received divine approval.

All these things can only be seen through the eyes of true and authentic faith. Baptism, Real presence, the dormition, the body, etc. because faith, true faith, is a gift from God.

Evangelicals need a sign, but none will be given to this generation. All things needs to be seen to be believed (written down) all (false) miracles grandioce and gaudy in front of oohhing and aaahing crowds. There is no authentic faith for those who can only believe by seeing and in desperate need of signs.

Would evangelical protestants actually have been one of the first christians? The absolute need for it to be written down in a legal document (in the form of scripture and how it is treated) would have precluded that conversion. Evangelicals claim to be like the first christians (their traditions not to be found regardless), yet the first christians believed without one word written down. Yet the protestant insistance is that it MUST be written down in order to be believed. Ergo they would not have converted sinse it was not written down. Isn’t that actually a false faith?

I am often remided of:

Jn 5:39: You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me;
40: yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.

Isn’t tradition really the test of true faith? The more I read from protestant apologists the more I am convinced of it, (regardless of their dishonesty consistantly employed)

John 3:14: And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up,
15: that whoever believes in him may have eternal life."
16: For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Rom 10:13: For, “every one who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved.”
14: But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher?
15: And how can men preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach good news!”

Futher the kingdom started out as a mustard seed, which grows into the strongest tree, this is the church. Evangelicalism seeks to chop down the tree and start all over. This is a man made doctrine at it’s core, the core of unbelief IMHO. Like all things God created, Christ meant his body to grow and mature in understanding (not in terms of numbers as in protestantism). Thankfully the church is founded on the rock.

The mustard seed cannot be put back into it’s shell at the behest of modern mans will over Gods will.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

Nicene, honestly, I love Scripture and have committed much of it to memory. But this is simply preaching, which I got in good dosage yesterday, on Sunday at my local parish.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Are you proud you keep yoking two distinct concepts together which have no common bond or bearing on one another?

You set up the goofy premise that Marian dogma needs to be viewed in light of scriptural interpretation. The Catholic Church has never said it must, nor have you addressed the analogies to you beliefs which are not delineated by the ‘Fathers’ (which you quote from some and include other Patristic writers under this rubric).

You win because you’re playing by yourself, with rules you set and you change the playing field to justify your conclusion.

Look, it’s easy to mock things. I could mock you in you insistence that you “feel” the Holy Spirit when you attend your services. You can prove that you do. I do not ask that you do.

But I ask that you keep to common sense in discussion.

And intellectual honesty.

I’m glad I “win” but that is not my intention. Rather, I wanted to understand the case for Marian dogma and doctrine from tradition, as a seeker. The Fathers are important to help us understand the Bible and the history of the church. The case for the trinity is very strong from the Fathers, as it is in the Bible.

The Marian case from the Fathers is very weak, as my analysis has concluded. I have not addressed in detail the Scriptural evidence, but that, in my opinion, is also scant.

 

[Nicene]

Lets have a look at the gospels, according to the necessity of unanimous concent, according to our protestant apologists.

Two gospels have the infancy narative, two do not. They are not in agreement, ergo two of the four must be false. The first protestant early church fathers would have HAD to dismiss two of them because they is not unanimous concent between the four.

In fact certain gospels have things only contained within that particular gospel, and sinse the other three do not agree, under protestant employment understanding of unanimous concent, they must be false sayings and/or occurrances.

Turning the tables, sinse it must be written under protestant theology, and unanimous concent, defend the infancy narratives. These are the gospel fathers after all and their must be unanimous concent (according to protestant interpretation of unanimous concent and theology)

If you can’t it provides the basis for the ultimate strawman you keep throwing out there.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Nicene]

Nicene, honestly, I love Scripture and have committed much of it to memory. But this is simply preaching, which I got in good dosage yesterday, on Sunday at my local parish.

In other words you can’t answer any of the objections.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[JesusforMadrid]

In other words you can’t answer any of the objections.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

Good objections and very appropriate for another thread.