The Protestant Meltdown

  • Thread starter Thread starter OneTrueCathApos
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Contarini said:
In what sense? You can repeat this all you like, but if you have no actual argument to make I wonder why you bother?

What evidence do you have that the Pope’s authority made a decisive difference? Are you talking about the so-called “Council of Rome” under Pope Damasus, for which the evidence is very fragmentary and problematic?

If you mean the particular church at Rome, then this is clearly false. If you mean the universal Church in communion with Rome, then obviously this is true, but this does not prove that the See of Rome has the role within that Church that you claim for him, or that your present Communion is identical to the early Catholic Church in every respect just because you are in communion with Rome as they were.

I don’t dispute that.

Edwin
Click to expand...
Okay let give you a turn. You prove to me that the See of Rome does not have the role that I claim for him. Its on you now. You show me your proof.
 
rinnie said:
Okay let give you a turn. You prove to me that the See of Rome does not have the role that I claim for him. Its on you now. You show me your proof.
Click to expand...
You can’t be serious. Since when was it fair or reasonable to ask someone to prove a negative?

You made the claim–you prove it.

Edwin
 
OneTrueCathApos said:
Code: 
   **We Catholics, on the other hand, glory in having some third party to come between us and God, because God Himself has given it to us, namely the Catholic church, to teach us and to lead us to Him.  We believe in the bible interpreted for us by that church, because God entrusted to her the bible as part of His Word, and gave His church a promise that she would never err in telling us what it means and explaining to us the 'many things hard to be understood', which St. Peter tells us are to be found within it.
Though there were as many million variations as there are thousands in the different copies of the bible, we should be still unmoved, for we have a ‘Teacher sent from God’, above and independent of all Scripture, who, assisted by the Holy Spirit, speaks with Divine Authority, and whose voice to us is the voice of God.**
Click to expand...
Do you think it was just dropped down from heaven?
Click to expand...
If you had read my post you would know better.
The Old Testament was written around the year 430 B.C. under Esdras and Nehemiah resting upon Josephus.
Click to expand...
The OT was written by a dozens and perhaps more writers over 1000 years. Most of the writers are unknown, many of the books are compositions of several writings cut and pasted together.

All the rest of what you wrote…is…just the recording you throw at every poster. Thou doth protest too much.
 
rinnie said:
What are you talking about, you said that the RCC did not write the bible. I showed you that they did. Pretty much every protestant that I know 4 preachers personally I know, that agree that the Church wrote the bible. That if not for the CC there would not be a bible. I never said that protestants would agree that they cannot do SS, I know they do. Thats the problem. You can go to any RCC and you will find that same teaching’s because there can only be One truth.
Click to expand...
It’s extremely difficult when you don’t read carefully. I did say the RCC did not write the bible. It did not, as you acknowledge, it certainly did not write the OT. I have explained my position that the writers of the NT were not “Catholics” they were believers of “the way”. It was centuries later that the RCC coalesced by stamping out opposition. The reason there was a call to determine the canon is precisely because nobody was teaching the same doctrine from the same sources. I would agree that what became the centrally controlled RCC did determine the official canon of the NT. I have no clue what your reference to sola scriptura is, I merely said that I don’t believe in it. I made no reference to Protestantism vis a vis it. Nobody is arguing that the RCC teaches from the same body of doctrine (although most certainly individual parish priests do deviate a good deal (and get in trouble or don’t as their congregations like it or not.)
There was no Church or bible before Jesus Christ. The Gospels and Epistles of the N.T. were read aloud to the comgregations just like the Church still does today. For goodness sakes most of those people could not even read. (what good would a bible do anyway).
Click to expand...
There most certainly was OT scripture known as Torah. Some Gospels and some Epistles were, but until the canon was accertained, there was no uniformity. That was the reason for the canon being determined. Some churches used letters, gospels and so forth that ultimately were rejected. Nobody used by chance all the “correct” ones. I have no clue again what your reference is to who could read. I never suggested anything at all.
You asked me where the CC got the N.T. Did you not claim that you went to a Catholic College? You mean to tell me that they did not teach you that the bible only existed in manuscripts? I can not believe that you were not taught that if you have this educational background you claim.
Click to expand...
Your attempts to be snotty are not helpful. Of course all the NT books were in manuscript form. The point is they are not originals. If the RCC wrote the NT, why did it not preserve its original compositions? It had, when the canon was chosen, only copies of copies of copies. Who better to have had the originals if “they” wrote it.
Here is the best part, you contradict yourself so bad, you judge me for following my Pope and the teachings of my church, (say I follow their teaching’s which I do not deny), but then turn around and say you do go to your church (they are better versed) What does that mean? They train for it? What do you think it takes to become a Priest. Do you not think that they are taught the word of God. How can you condem my Church and it not be versed as you say, but yours is? You make no sense. You say that you do not agree with SS, then you say You must do your thinking for yourself. Is not reading the bible and doing your thinking for yourself and not learning scripture according to the teachings of your Chruch’s teachings indeed SS. Could you explain to me the difference. Thank-you.
Click to expand...
You lump all my answers to various points into one whole. That is why it is so hard to untangle what you are referring to. As best I can discern you are upset that i turn to those more versed in theology and biblical studies than myself for assistance. i did not say that I accepted their version exclusively without question. I study and read, and then discuss with them to get their imput. You are claiming that you are REQUIRED to accept what your priests and clergy tell you, even when you disagree. I have no such limitation. You don’t read carefully, and are getting so angry that you aren’t thinking clearly.

You perhaps should review sola scriptura. There is plenty online to assist you.Since I don’t adhere to the concept, I need not explain it to you. My church relies on the bible, tradition and reason. yours relies on the bible, tradition and dogma, all determined by your church for you. Reason, in my tradition is individual, though we certainly exchange views and listen to different points of view. That is the way, I find to truth, not simply accepting what one is told.
 
Contarini said:
You can’t be serious. Since when was it fair or reasonable to ask someone to prove a negative?

You made the claim–you prove it.

Edwin
Click to expand...
Because to prove a negative is to prove something is not correct. Right! Prove me wrong. You can’t. The pope had the last say in the Cannon of Scripture the same as the Pope has the last say in anything with his Church. Its his Church. Jesus left him the Church.
 
rinnie said:
Because to prove a negative is to prove something is not correct. Right! Prove me wrong. You can’t.
Click to expand...
Prove that an alien from Alpha Centauri did not come down in a purple spaceship and instruct the early Christians on which books to include.

You can’t.

Now obviously there is a lot more evidence for the bishop of Rome having a role than for my hypothetical alien. Exactly. It is your job to provide that evidence. Until you do, readers of this thread with no prior knowledge will have to assume that the bishop of Rome and the Centaurian alien are more or less on the same footing. (They aren’t, and I could discuss what Rome’s role was–the “Council of Rome,” etc.–but I don’t see why I should do your work for you just because you are unable or unwilling to make your case.)

Edwin
 
rinnie said:
Because to prove a negative is to prove something is not correct. Right! Prove me wrong. You can’t. The pope had the last say in the Cannon of Scripture the same as the Pope has the last say in anything with his Church. Its his Church. Jesus left him the Church.
Click to expand...
Rinnie, please read a book on debate or logic. Your statement appears to suggest that you have no understanding of proper debate rules. One is never required to prove a negative. That is why in the perennial debate between atheists and believers it is incumbent on the believer to prove the existence of God. It is a logical impossibilty to prove a negative on any subject whatsoever. To do so requires the impossibility of anticipating every single possible argument that is made, has been made, and could in the future be made. That is why contarini is correct in telling you that you must prove your assertion if it is down to an either or proposition.
 
SpiritMeadow said:
It’s extremely difficult when you don’t read carefully. I did say the RCC did not write the bible. It did not, as you acknowledge, it certainly did not write the OT. I have explained my position that the writers of the NT were not “Catholics” they were believers of “the way”. It was centuries later that the RCC coalesced by stamping out opposition. The reason there was a call to determine the canon is precisely because nobody was teaching the same doctrine from the same sources. I would agree that what became the centrally controlled RCC did determine the official canon of the NT. I have no clue what your reference to sola scriptura is, I merely said that I don’t believe in it. I made no reference to Protestantism vis a vis it. Nobody is arguing that the RCC teaches from the same body of doctrine (although most certainly individual parish priests do deviate a good deal (and get in trouble or don’t as their congregations like it or not.)

There most certainly was OT scripture known as Torah. Some Gospels and some Epistles were, but until the canon was accertained, there was no uniformity. That was the reason for the canon being determined. Some churches used letters, gospels and so forth that ultimately were rejected. Nobody used by chance all the “correct” ones. I have no clue again what your reference is to who could read. I never suggested anything at all.

Your attempts to be snotty are not helpful. Of course all the NT books were in manuscript form. The point is they are not originals. If the RCC wrote the NT, why did it not preserve its original compositions? It had, when the canon was chosen, only copies of copies of copies. Who better to have had the originals if “they” wrote it.
Click to expand...
You lump all my answers to various points into one whole. That is why it is so hard to untangle what you are referring to. As best I can discern you are upset that i turn to those more versed in theology and biblical studies than myself for assistance. i did not say that I accepted their version exclusively without question. I study and read, and then discuss with them to get their imput. You are claiming that you are REQUIRED to accept what your priests and clergy tell you, even when you disagree. I have no such limitation. You don’t read carefully, and are getting so angry that you aren’t thinking clearly.

You perhaps should review sola scriptura. There is plenty online to assist you.Since I don’t adhere to the concept, I need not explain it to you. My church relies on the bible, tradition and reason. yours relies on the bible, tradition and dogma, all determined by your church for you. Reason, in my tradition is individual, though we certainly exchange views and listen to different points of view. That is the way, I find to truth, not simply accepting what one is told.

Where did I say I disagree with the teaching’s of my Church. Where do I have the authority to disagree with the teaching’s of the Church. I know that any teachings in my Church are from God. Jesus promised me that. I respect my Pope and I believe that when God promised them the Advocate of the Holy Spirit to lead me into the fullness of the truth. Jesus left the Church to Peter not me. I trust God and trust his words that my CHurch will never fail. And it never has. Where have you ever heard of the RCC breaking away from another Church. It has been here from the start. It is the Church Peter started and is still going strong. Actually the more people that study the faith are finding out it does have all of the truth.

(also on another subject, why is it if I do not agree with you and everyone else disagrees with you, you always accuse them of being angry. I am not angry, I am just defending my faith. But there is never a need for anger. That is just plain silly.)
 
I notice that Spiritmeadow gets all hostile and name calling when posts don’t go her way or when it is hard for her to accept the truth from Catholics. If one time she could answer without name calling or hostility, well,…I might think she has something good to say.
Doesn’t charity apply to Protestants as well?
 
Contarini said:
Prove that an alien from Alpha Centauri did not come down in a purple spaceship and instruct the early Christians on which books to include.

You can’t.

Now obviously there is a lot more evidence for the bishop of Rome having a role than for my hypothetical alien. Exactly. It is your job to provide that evidence. Until you do, readers of this thread with no prior knowledge will have to assume that the bishop of Rome and the Centaurian alien are more or less on the same footing. (They aren’t, and I could discuss what Rome’s role was–the “Council of Rome,” etc.–but I don’t see why I should do your work for you just because you are unable or unwilling to make your case.)

Edwin
Click to expand...
 
Contarini said:
Prove that an alien from Alpha Centauri did not come down in a purple spaceship and instruct the early Christians on which books to include.

You can’t.

Now obviously there is a lot more evidence for the bishop of Rome having a role than for my hypothetical alien. Exactly. It is your job to provide that evidence. Until you do, readers of this thread with no prior knowledge will have to assume that the bishop of Rome and the Centaurian alien are more or less on the same footing. (They aren’t, and I could discuss what Rome’s role was–the “Council of Rome,” etc.–but I don’t see why I should do your work for you just because you are unable or unwilling to make your case.)

Edwin
Click to expand...
If an Alien did come down and instruct the early Christians what to include in the books I would. BUt that is not what happened. I told you That the Catholic Church under the God and the Holy Spirit with her Divine authority instructed the Church what books to include and not include.The Council of the Roman Catholic Church had settled it. I already explained this. The Church had the Power of the H,S. she accepted or rejected and decided what was what. She had evidence before her, she had tradition and the HS to help her. These books came from Rome and without the RCC they would have not gotten them. Without the RCC there would be no bible. The decrees of Carthage 397 and 418A.D. when all Christians were Roman Catholic. I said before the Church existed long before the bible.
 
rinnie said:
Where did I say I disagree with the teaching’s of my Church. Where do I have the authority to disagree with the teaching’s of the Church. I know that any teachings in my Church are from God. Jesus promised me that. I respect my Pope and I believe that when God promised them the Advocate of the Holy Spirit to lead me into the fullness of the truth. Jesus left the Church to Peter not me. I trust God and trust his words that my CHurch will never fail. And it never has. Where have you ever heard of the RCC breaking away from another Church. It has been here from the start. It is the Church Peter started and is still going strong. Actually the more people that study the faith are finding out it does have all of the truth.

(also on another subject, why is it if I do not agree with you and everyone else disagrees with you, you always accuse them of being angry. I am not angry, I am just defending my faith. But there is never a need for anger. That is just plain silly.)
Click to expand...
Rinnie, there is a quote button up top, it is to the left of the # sign. Please use it. You are not delienating my work from yours. It is very hard to define.

Show me where I claimed you did not agree with any teaching of your church? I can’t imagine that you could ever do that. You don’t have to keep repeating what you believe about your church. We all understand it perfectly well. You all seem to think it needs repeating in most every post.

I have no explanation of the strange and odd charges you make, accusing me of saying things that I have not. You never include any quotes to back up your assertion. I can only assume that your passions are running so high that you are unable to clearly read and understand, and thus misunderstand and misread what I write. When people begin to respond in a manner than is illogical, I suspect that they are angry. If you are not, then I can only conclude that your failure to read carefully is caused by something else.

Everyone else doesn’t disagree with me, at least on everything as you seem to. Defending the faith doesn’t require that your automatically oppose everything that is said by a non-Catholic you know. Then it becomes an attack. Truth needs little defense, it usually can be shown in a calm manner, and often needs no explanation at all.
 
OneTrueCathApos said:
I notice that Spiritmeadow gets all hostile and name calling when posts don’t go her way or when it is hard for her to accept the truth from Catholics. If one time she could answer without name calling or hostility, well,…I might think she has something good to say.
Doesn’t charity apply to Protestants as well?
Click to expand...
Other than calling someone angry, show me what names I have called anyone? If you don’t, then I suggest you apologize.

Your responses to me always take the same tack. Refuse to answer the question and then attack me. I have nothing to defend, having done nothing wrong.
 
rinnie said:
If an Alien did come down and instruct the early Christians what to include in the books I would. BUt that is not what happened. I told you That the Catholic Church under the God and the Holy Spirit with her Divine authority instructed the Church what books to include and not include.The Council of the Roman Catholic Church had settled it. I already explained this. The Church had the Power of the H,S. she accepted or rejected and decided what was what. She had evidence before her, she had tradition and the HS to help her. These books came from Rome and without the RCC they would have not gotten them. Without the RCC there would be no bible. The decrees of Carthage 397 and 418A.D. when all Christians were Roman Catholic. I said before the Church existed long before the bible.
Click to expand...
First of all there are several questions that must be answered.
  1. Is it really the Roman Catholic Church?
  2. if it is; is it comparable to the Catholic Church that Ignatius references or Justin?
  3. The Books of the NT were not from Rome and if you look at those councils wasn’t Rome represented by legates rather than the Pope himself?
The Orthodox would question whether you were correct that all Christians were Roman Catholic. There were several metropolitan areas where Christianity centered. Alexandria, Antioch and Rome. Later there would be Constantinople or Byzantium. The orthodox would say that the bishops were in communion (as far as that went because usually they were quareling with each other) with each other and certainly everyone was Catholic. They would deny the Episcopal Monarchy. Maybe they would hold a lead among equals but most church councils were held with only representatives from Rome (legates) rather than the Roman bishop himself. There were other councils where even Rome wasn’t represented. Most of the NT I would wager was writen in these places: Judea, Turkey, Greece, and maybe a couple were actually written in Rome like the Gospel of Mark. I will not Deny that the Holy Spirit lead the council to canonize (make a rule) of books to be included in the biblios. However, it was done in North Africa and many bishops from many areas were represented.
 
SpiritMeadow said:
Other than calling someone angry, show me what names I have called anyone? If you don’t, then I suggest you apologize.

Your responses to me always take the same tack. Refuse to answer the question and then attack me. I have nothing to defend, having done nothing wrong.
Click to expand...
**I have answered every one of your questions but you are not happy because they coincide with your own beliefs. You have stated the following:
“you have no understanding”…
“you do not read correctly”…
“you must try to read carefully”…
you are snarky Marsha"…
“you are being snotty”…**these are not very charitable comments.
 
Contarini said:
Prove that an alien from Alpha Centauri did not come down in a purple spaceship and instruct the early Christians on which books to include.

You can’t.

Now obviously there is a lot more evidence for the bishop of Rome having a role than for my hypothetical alien. Exactly. It is your job to provide that evidence. Until you do, readers of this thread with no prior knowledge will have to assume that the bishop of Rome and the Centaurian alien are more or less on the same footing. (They aren’t, and I could discuss what Rome’s role was–the “Council of Rome,” etc.–but I don’t see why I should do your work for you just because you are unable or unwilling to make your case.)

Edwin
Click to expand...
Pssh, I can. The aliens from Alpha Centauri did not have the technology to come to earth then. Everyone knows that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top