The "catholic but not Roman Catholic" argument

[Nicene]

FYI the gospel reading this week was on John 1. Which is IMHO appropriate for understanding Mary. We could show you creation week, and John 1 and 2 (the wedding of Cana), and we could also show you Luke and Samual. The gospels are themselves written utilizing typology and allegory (as a defence of the faith against the Jews)

But you and I both know, so lets be honest here, no matter how much we revealed them, due protestant proof texting you would never believe anyway. You would never see because you are conditioned not to see, and reject because you are taught to reject.

The opened eyes of faith see. You say you know scripture inside out, as do I, yet how can you read and not see once it is revealed? The apocalypse (revelation) is something revealed, not hidden, the unveiling. It is why Jesus gave us apostles, preachers, teachers.

There is some really cool stuff if you go and read ceration week for example, and spiritually understand it when John “types” it. Watch for how John presents each day. Then at Cana watch for how John contrasts Adam and Eve with Mary and Jesus.

As I said though, lets be honest, I could tell you but you wouldn’t believe. Honesty, especially with oneself, demands this be admitted.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Nicene]

Good objections and very appropriate for another thread.

Ermm appropriate for this thread. You opened them up, not us.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[JonathanKinsman]

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.

Mercy mercy me! The ‘Fathers’ are important, no one is saying otherwise. But it is important to read those Church documents which explain the dogma of the IC BEFORE making assertions (the dogma is not substantiated through the ‘Fathers’ argument) which can never be disproved because of the premise ('Father’s unanimous consent = anything to be considered “christian”).

The Marian case from the Fathers is very weak, as my analysis has concluded.

Not if you read the ‘Fathers of the Church’ which is a different list than the Patristic writers of early Christianity. I respect Mark Twain, but Twain’s opinion that Shakespeare was a front for another, more educated, poet-playwright, is hooey.

Yet Twain is considered to be one of the worlds great authors in the English language: shouldn’t we believe him on Shakespeare???

Your analysis is a mind-game of solitaire: no Protestant or Catholic historian considered mainstream (public university or private university not founded within the past 50 years) would agree with your premise and conclusion. Que frommage!

 

[hoosierdaddy]

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

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

That or he just doesn’t want to. Is he obligated to?

 

[JonathanKinsman]

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?

Simon: your 2 paragraph quotation, without reference to James White, is James White’s intellectual property and language.

You quoted him verbatim, word for word, as Dave Armstrong quotes him verbatim in their back-and-forth discussion.

The least you can do is follow what the early Church required its members to do: make a public confession and apologize for not giving attribution to someone else’s ideas.

Heck, like White, when you were asked for proof that “come together” means sexual intercourse, you never responded.

Gives a whole new meaning to the Beatles’ “Come Together.”

 

[Nicene]

Nicene, honestly, I love Scripture and have committed much of it to memory.

I didn’t catch this the first time. In fact this is inherantly one of the problems. (I know this is going to sound offensive, but it isn’t meant to be so please don’t view it in that light)

The Pharisees memorized scripture, yet they rejected him. Memorization has nothing to do with understanding, it’s only a vehicle. In fact the Pharisees were required to memorize scripture, they also walked around with phylacteries and tassels (Jesus had a tassel too)

Memorization vs. understanding.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Nicene]

Simon: your 2 paragraph quotation, without reference to James White, is James White’s intellectual property and language.

I’m sure some of it he wishes were never public, such as when White was forced to admit that Jesus and the apostles were not sola scripturists. (One of he classics I have in my bookmarks)

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Ermm appropriate for this thread. You opened them up, not us.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

Sorry, your argument does not follow and is best appropriate elsewhere. You may not like the fact that there is very little consent from the Fathers for Marian doctrine, as I have shown. You might find it challenging, even confusing. You might disagree with the methodology.

But instead of addressing the topic that I introduced, you attack Protestantism. Are you saying that your best defense of the RC position on the lack of consent of the Fathers for Marian doctrine is to attack Protestantism? Is that why it is relevant?

 

[JesusforMadrid]

I didn’t catch this the first time. In fact this is inherantly one of the problems. (I know this is going to sound offensive, but it isn’t meant to be so please don’t view it in that light)

The Pharisees memorized scripture, yet they rejected him. Memorization has nothing to do with understanding, it’s only a vehicle. In fact the Pharisees were required to memorize scripture, they also walked around with phylacteries and tassels (Jesus had a tassel too)

Memorization vs. understanding.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

I certainly agree on your attack on legalism (assuming it is not an ad hominem attack on me). Jesus didn’t come to establish a new religion. He came to establish a new relationship, with each one of us, under the New Covenant.

 

[Nicene]

Sorry, your argument does not follow and is best appropriate elsewhere. You may not like the fact that there is very little consent from the Fathers for Marian doctrine, as I have shown. You might find it challenging, even confusing. You might disagree with the methodology.

But instead of addressing the topic that I introduced, you attack Protestantism. Are you saying that your best defense of the RC position on the lack of consent of the Fathers for Marian doctrine is to attack Protestantism? Is that why it is relevant?

And again, (and why I say you have no integrity and have lost credibility) throwing up the same strawman which has already been corrected numerous times.

You continue to force unanimous consent into what you want it to mean, which is (from your earlier post)

1. The Council of Trent said that there had to be “unanimous consent” of the Early Church Fathers for a tradition to be considered doctrine.

instead of what it states itself: post #70: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=127963&page=2

As long as you contiue to be blatently dishonest, and you are, I see no real reason to continue, As the gospel says:

Lk 10:10: But whenever you enter a town and they do not receive you, go into its streets and say,
11: `Even the dust of your town that clings to our feet, we wipe off against you; nevertheless know this, that the kingdom of God has come near.’

15: To the pure all things are pure, but to the corrupt and unbelieving nothing is pure; their very minds and consciences are corrupted.

1 Tim 1:1: Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,
2: through the pretensions of liars whose consciences are seared,

You may wish to look up references to conscience in sacred scripture (especially how it is linked to true belief and baptism)

If ou can’t be trusted and honest with that simple document and what it states, how can we trust you with scripture?

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[JesusforMadrid]

And again, (and why I say you have no integrity and have lost credibility) throwing up the same strawman which has already been corrected numerous times.

You continue to force unanimous consent into what you want it to mean, which is (from your earlier post)

instead of what it states itself: post #70: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=127963&page=2

As long as you contiue to be blatently dishonest, and you are, I see no real reason to continue, As the gospel says:

Lk 10:10: But whenever you enter a town and they do not receive you, go into its streets and say,
11: `Even the dust of your town that clings to our feet, we wipe off against you; nevertheless know this, that the kingdom of God has come near.’

15: To the pure all things are pure, but to the corrupt and unbelieving nothing is pure; their very minds and consciences are corrupted.

1 Tim 1:1: Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,
2: through the pretensions of liars whose consciences are seared,

You may wish to look up references to conscience in sacred scripture (especially how it is linked to true belief and baptism)

If ou can’t be trusted and honest with that simple document and what it states, how can we trust you with scripture?

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

Wow, what a rubuke! Well, I am a follower of Jesus and he asks us to love everyone. And guess what: you are next!

Thank you for returning to the proper issue at hand: unanimous consent of the Fathers.

As the defining article by Steven Ray has stated:

“When the Fathers of the Church are morally unanimous in their teaching that a certain doctrine is a part of revelation, or is received by the universal Church, or that the opposite of a doctrine is heretical, then their united testimony is a certain criterion of divine tradition. As the Fathers are not personally infallible, the counter-testimony of one or two would not be destructive of
the value of the collective testimony; so a moral unanimity only isrequired” (Wilkes-Barre, Penn.: Dimension Books, 1965), pg. 153.

As you have seen from my analysis above, I do not think the key issue is those Fathers that clearly oppose the modern RC view. I think the real problem, for me anyway and again I am a seeker, is that so few of the Fathers:

“are morally unanimous in their teaching that a certain doctrine is a part of revelation”.

So few actually positively consent to these doctrines.

To review:

1. Mother of God: only 9% of the Fathers consent to this
2. Immaculate Conception. only 13% of the Fathers consent to this
3. Mary Ever Virgin. Only 16% of the Fathers consent to this
4. Mary’s Assumption to Heaven. 0% of the Fathers consent to this
5. Sinlessness: 0% of the Fathers, based on the information collected so far, consent to this.

It is plausible that the Assumption of Mary occurred and NO Father would have mentioned it? We can argue about what Trent meant about “unanimous consent” all you want. Maybe Trent meant that when they say “unanimous consent”, they just mean “majority” or the most important or whatever.

But I cannot escape this conclusion: there is very little consent to much of Marian doctrine.The Fathers are absolutely not morally unanimous in their teaching on these Marian doctrines. And no amount of ad hominem attacks on me personally or on Protestantism can change this.

 

[Nicene]

To revie

1. Mother of God: only 9% of the Fathers consent to this

Lets use this one to prove the falsehood (and screwing with numbers and writings)

The contenetion of the protestants is that sinse only 9% wrote about the Theotokos then it is false. Yet when the council convened all the bishops accented to it, and it went further to the council of Chalcedon.

The erronious fabrication is that if it isn’t written about it is a negative belief (bad science, lets prove it)

(fictional figures used)There are 100% scientists. 10% are biologists. Of that 10% only 3% address prostate cancer.

Using the above evangelical usage of math. Sinse only 3% of the biologists write about prostate cancer, and 7% don’t, and further that 97% of scientsts don’t write about it, prostate cancer isn’t a disease that is to be believed in because it isn’t written about by the majority of scientists. The above is obviously false as prostate cancer does exist. But by using evangelical scientific methodology, it doesn’t exist.

Steve Ray says the same thing I have and the document says. And the document itself is concerning biblical interpretation.

Once again a red herring. When you decide to be honest let us know.

The other problem with evangelical protestantism, apparently it approaches the Sacred scripture scientifically and not spiritually.

The above post wasn’t a rebuke, I stated simple fact. It is in fact what the gospel says to do. Do you disagree with the gospel? However I think it worthy of note that that Jesus does tell us to love everyone, Agapate alleilou. But that love is not greeting card mentality.

Well, I am a follower of Jesus and he asks us to love everyone.

That may be in question. Jesus says his followers don’t lie. Misrepresentation is a lie, much as you did previously when saying CS Lewis was Evangelical. In the above case a lie of omission. However, concering love, even athiests love. It is not the same love. “Agape” Paul still excommunicated in the strongest terms, in hopes of the repentance and salvation.

And guess what: you are next!

For prostelyzation?

Not to be too critical, but honestly I have met very very few honest evangelical apologists (in fact none that I can remember), so the likelyhood is the same as the sun exploding tomarrow.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Nicene]

Another tidbit concerning CS Lewis: He also believed in and went to confession in the High Church. From what we understand of evangelicals and OSAS they still don’t believe in nor practice this correct?

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Mannyfit75]

Lets use this one to prove the falsehood (and screwing with numbers and writings)

The contenetion of the protestants is that sinse only 9% wrote about the Theotokos then it is false. Yet when the council convened all the bishops accented to it, and it went further to the council of Chalcedon.

The erronious fabrication is that if it isn’t written about it is a negative belief (bad science, lets prove it)

(fictional figures used)There are 100% scientists. 10% are biologists. Of that 10% only 3% address prostate cancer.

Using the above evangelical usage of math. Sinse only 3% of the biologists write about prostate cancer, and 7% don’t, and further that 97% of scientsts don’t write about it, prostate cancer isn’t a disease that is to be believed in because it isn’t written about by the majority of scientists. The above is obviously false as prostate cancer does exist. But by using evangelical scientific methodology, it doesn’t exist.

Steve Ray says the same thing I have and the document says. And the document itself is concerning biblical interpretation.

Once again a red herring. When you decide to be honest let us know.

The other problem with evangelical protestantism, apparently it approaches the Sacred scripture scientifically and not spiritually.

The above post wasn’t a rebuke, I stated simple fact. It is in fact what the gospel says to do. Do you disagree with the gospel? However I think it worthy of note that that Jesus does tell us to love everyone, Agapate alleilou. But that love is not greeting card mentality.

That may be in question. Jesus says his followers don’t lie. Misrepresentation is a lie, much as you did previously when saying CS Lewis was Evangelical. In the above case a lie of omission. However, concering love, even athiests love. It is not the same love. “Agape” Paul still excommunicated in the strongest terms, in hopes of the repentance and salvation.

For prostelyzation?

Not to be too critical, but honestly I have met very very few honest evangelical apologists (in fact none that I can remember), so the likelyhood is the same as the sun exploding tomarrow.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

Way to Go. Keep it up, Nicene. :dancing:

 

[BrianH]

Way to Go. Keep it up, Nicene. :dancing:

Manny, as a person who promotes charity at every turn I am surprised you approve of Nicenes personal attacks. This seems out of character for you. Not to interupt too much

 

[Nicene]

Manny, as a person who promotes charity at every turn I am surprised you approve of Nicenes personal attacks. This seems out of character for you. Not to interupt too much

Brian,

I have no problem discussing things honestly. But even you must admit, when the falsehood is continually presented after being corrected it needs to be brought to the forefront.

If the integrity of the arguement presented can’t withstand scrutiny by continually and willfully adhering to falsehood do you disagree that it should be addressed?

For example, I have great respect for Fredericks, no matter how much we disagree, because he is always honest and a good man. You can see his christianity living in him through his integrity.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Mannyfit75]

Manny, as a person who promotes charity at every turn I am surprised you approve of Nicenes personal attacks. This seems out of character for you. Not to interupt too much

He isn’t attacking he is defending the Catholic Church’s doctrines. against JesusForMadrid’s attacks against the Catholic Church.

 

[BrianH]

The text you quoted Nicene, on page 2 or 3, is not necessarily interpreted the same or even understandable from a Protestant paradigm after a quick reading. Much better to assume that than lack of honesty, IMHO.
Having read this thread carefully without emotion it certainly appears to be about definitions and not intentions.

 

[Redbandito]

But that doesn’t change my quest. The RC church can define “unanimous consent” any way it wants, including some way that goes against common sense.

As I explain above:

Without “unanimous consent”, an argument for doctrine based on tradition seems arbitrary and capricious.

How? Please make a logical argument as to why a doctrine must have no objectors in order to be based on tradition. I don’t see why this is necessary in the slightest. Again, the ECF’s were witnesses to the Apostolic Tradition, not Tradition itself.

 

[Redbandito]

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.

What? I have not seen one legitimate quote contradicting a Marian doctrine posted yet. How do you come to this conclusion?

And despite the “enormous consent of the Fathers for the trinity” that you claim, this is not equivalent to the “unanimous consent” you are demanding of the Marian doctrines. Why are you applying this principle inconsistently?