7
7_Sorrows
Guest
could be. I haven’t seen any debates but this one. and I only heard part of one side.
- Status
M
Micosil
Guest
Are you sure you don’t mean Fr. Pacwa’s debate with Dr. Walter Martin on the John Ankerberg Show? Fr. Pacwa seemed rather young there, and the host frequently kept interrupting Fr. Pacwa, often going into breaks after a purported “gotcha!” moment.
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
It was with White, and it was on an audio tape. I don’t remember the topic, although I could dig through my tapes and find out. Since it was strictly audio you can’t tell whether the speakers were reading from notes, sitting or standing.Are you sure you don’t mean Fr. Pacwa’s debate with Dr. Walter Martin on the John Ankerberg Show? Fr. Pacwa seemed rather young there, and the host frequently kept interrupting Fr. Pacwa, often going into breaks after a purported “gotcha!” moment.
S
Sarah_B_Good
Guest
I don’t understand your point. How would the fact that the belief in papal infallibility preceded its dogmatic formation be at all relevant? Is that not the case with any dogmatic constitution of beliefs? The question of fundamentalism is not based upon timing, but rather on the strict and literal adherence to the belief in the inerrancy of ex cathedra decree. Sola scriptura Protestants believe in the inerrancy of a book. Catholics believe in the inerrancy of an institution.Except Papal infallibility was understood by the early Church to be as such, even before it became dogmatically defined. Even as early as 110 AD, Ignatius of Antioch spoke “to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father”.
As far as Peter’s Roman residency is concerned, Ignatius of Antioch, Dionysius of Corinth, Irenaeus, all affirm that Peter was at Rome; all of them wrote before the canon of the Bible was even officially pronounced closed. Christians perhaps understood the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome earlier than what they exactly understood to be inspired scripture.
So, no. Papal infallibility isn’t a form of “fundamentalism”.
M
Micosil
Guest
More than believing in the “inerrancy of an institution”, I’d say Catholics believe in the contents of a specific Deposit of Faith (Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, the latter being the Bible), in turn interpreted by a Magisterium, the Pope and the College of Bishops in union with the Pope. Catholics also do believe in Biblical inerrancy, in the sense that the Bible is indeed the word of God, written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit, but it is the Magisterium that is in charge of properly interpreting Sacred Scripture.
Not everyone can legitimately and properly interpret the Constitution. Ultimate, it is the Supreme Court that does this with full power – the same applies to Sacred Scripture (the Bible) and the Magisterium.
E
ericc
Guest
Which didn’t exist for about 400 years from Pentecost
Since Pentecost, Catholics actually believe Christ personal warranty on his Church he built on Peter. Initially it was all Oral Tradition. The Book came later. No, not everything is in the Book.
If one were to based their fundamental beliefs based on a book that was 400 years late and compiled by Catholics, it make more sense to check with them what they meant rather than invent new explanations?
D
Deconi
Guest
People get enamoured with WHITE because he speaks assertively and sound knowledgeable, but he has fatal flaws in his material which he hides with debating tricks and distracting aspects of his presentations.
If I was his opponent I would make him close his Bible and not allow reference to it unless he can ‘prove’ to me WHO selected the books in it, who said it was the Holy Scriptures and WHY should they be accepted as authentic.
When he cites ANY of the ECFS during debates, I require the name of ANY, ONE, ECF that was not Catholic!
His party trick is to ‘trap’ an opponent into his viewpoint of understanding and waste time ‘answering’ him rather than stick on point to the subject matter and substance of a point as understood from antiquity and deposited through history!
When he answers a rebuttal, he always accuses his opponent of not ‘answering his points’ and I’d correct him to stay focused that answering his errors is not the debate but sticking to answering the subject matter.
The fact the the Catholic Church is still here, practicing and sojourning through this time period and she did when she imparted the matters being debated is a deathblow to him and ALL his ilk.
Papal Infallibility is matter that only Catholics and Orthodox can DEBATE because they’re the only ones with the pedigrees that can touch authenticity of a dogma declared ‘from’ among their ranks! They’re the only ones that can appeal to external sources from their time periods to reference Scriptural passages being discussed on any given point.
WHITE (and anti-Cs) can only rant and rail from the alleyways of life trying to decipher the something ‘incomprehensible’ to them from notes with the ink still wet on their napkin paper of ‘history.’
If I was his opponent I would make him close his Bible and not allow reference to it unless he can ‘prove’ to me WHO selected the books in it, who said it was the Holy Scriptures and WHY should they be accepted as authentic.
When he cites ANY of the ECFS during debates, I require the name of ANY, ONE, ECF that was not Catholic!
His party trick is to ‘trap’ an opponent into his viewpoint of understanding and waste time ‘answering’ him rather than stick on point to the subject matter and substance of a point as understood from antiquity and deposited through history!
When he answers a rebuttal, he always accuses his opponent of not ‘answering his points’ and I’d correct him to stay focused that answering his errors is not the debate but sticking to answering the subject matter.
The fact the the Catholic Church is still here, practicing and sojourning through this time period and she did when she imparted the matters being debated is a deathblow to him and ALL his ilk.
Papal Infallibility is matter that only Catholics and Orthodox can DEBATE because they’re the only ones with the pedigrees that can touch authenticity of a dogma declared ‘from’ among their ranks! They’re the only ones that can appeal to external sources from their time periods to reference Scriptural passages being discussed on any given point.
WHITE (and anti-Cs) can only rant and rail from the alleyways of life trying to decipher the something ‘incomprehensible’ to them from notes with the ink still wet on their napkin paper of ‘history.’
S
spedteacherita
Guest
He’s looking for people to debate.People get enamoured with WHITE because he speaks assertively and sound knowledgeable, but he has fatal flaws in his material which he hides with debating tricks and distracting aspects of his presentations.
If I was his opponent I would make him close his Bible and not allow reference to it unless he can ‘prove’ to me WHO selected the books in it, who said it was the Holy Scriptures and WHY should they be accepted as authentic.
When he cites ANY of the ECFS during debates, I require the name of ANY, ONE, ECF that was not Catholic!
His party trick is to ‘trap’ an opponent into his viewpoint of understanding and waste time ‘answering’ him rather than stick on point to the subject matter and substance of a point as understood from antiquity and deposited through history!
When he answers a rebuttal, he always accuses his opponent of not ‘answering his points’ and I’d correct him to stay focused that answering his errors is not the debate but sticking to answering the subject matter.
The fact the the Catholic Church is still here, practicing and sojourning through this time period and she did when she imparted the matters being debated is a deathblow to him and ALL his ilk.
Papal Infallibility is matter that only Catholics and Orthodox can DEBATE because they’re the only ones with the pedigrees that can touch authenticity of a dogma declared ‘from’ among their ranks! They’re the only ones that can appeal to external sources from their time periods to reference Scriptural passages being discussed on any given point.
WHITE (and anti-Cs) can only rant and rail from the alleyways of life trying to decipher the something ‘incomprehensible’ to them from notes with the ink still wet on their napkin paper of ‘history.’
S
Sarah_B_Good
Guest
True, but there’s a big difference. No one considers the Supreme Court to be infallible. A Supreme Court decision can be overturned by a subsequent court. Not so with the Magisterium.More than believing in the “inerrancy of an institution”, I’d say Catholics believe in the contents of a specific Deposit of Faith (Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, the latter being the Bible), in turn interpreted by a Magisterium, the Pope and the College of Bishops in union with the Pope. Catholics also do believe in Biblical inerrancy, in the sense that the Bible is indeed the word of God, written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit, but it is the Magisterium that is in charge of properly interpreting Sacred Scripture.
Not everyone can legitimately and properly interpret the Constitution. Ultimate, it is the Supreme Court that does this with full power – the same applies to Sacred Scripture (the Bible) and the Magisterium.
M
Micosil
Guest
I’ll admit I’m not up to speed on the legal processes involved in SCOTUS decisions, so if you say they can be overturned, I’ll take your word for it; but the thing is, the SCOTUS doesn’t need to be infallible because it doesn’t deal with things that are truths from God and relevant to the salvation of mankind.
And here lies the crux of the question, then – who put the Magisterium in charge?
P
paulrxp
Guest
Strangely enough this was the beginning of my return to the Church. I actually thought at one time civil laws and politics could preserve moral truths.
G
Gorgias
Guest
I don’t think that word means what you think it means…
I’d be interested in hearing what your definition of ‘fundamentalism’ is. Is it merely “a willingness to have faith in” an institution or body of knowledge?
Probably because you’re mis-defining ‘fundamentalism’ and therefore, conflating two sets of beliefs that are quite different.
E
ericc
Guest
Yes, Supreme Court decisions can be overridden. That’s why Presidents would like to put like minded Judges in there when a vacancy becomes available. Like Scalia.I’ll admit I’m not up to speed on the legal processes involved in SCOTUS decisions, so if you say they can be overturned, I’ll take your word for it; but the thing is, the SCOTUS doesn’t need to be infallible because it doesn’t deal with things that are truths from God and relevant to the salvation of mankind.
And here lies the crux of the question, then – who put the Magisterium in charge?
On the other hand the Magisterium with the Pope is the earthly mouth piece for God who has guaranteed non-error teaching. And since God doesn’t change, there is nothing to override.
M
Micosil
Guest
S
steve_b
Guest
Do you mind me asking, how did you happen to come across that debate from White? What exactly were / are you looking for anyway?
White is a member of an organization that is a 100% tradition of men, NOT God…
have a look at the following
catholic.com/blog/jon-sorensen/the-debate-we-don%E2%80%99t-want-you-to-hear
From that site,
“Anyway, as a show of good faith (and to kill the idea that we don’t want anyone to hear this debate) we are offering it on our shop for ninety-nine cents. Click here and download your copy now.”
as it says, the cost to download the debate is only .99¢ for the MP3
Is it worth a buck to find out the results? If you don’t know Tim Staples, he’s a great apologist.Oh, btw if you don’t know this, White’s sister converted to Catholicism. I’m sure he did everything he could to keep THAT from happening.
catholic-convert.com/blog…r-james-white/
P
ProdigalSun
Guest
HAHAHA! So instead of going for Papl infallibility you went for James White infallibility… ahhaha that is rich
:thumbsup:
A
Arizona_Mike
Guest
As I wrote on a related post, I’ve heard some very good Catholic debaters on the weekly British apologetics debate radio show/podcast “Unbelievable”. It’s always worth listening to, and covers a broad range of topics, often atheist vs. Christian, but also other faiths, Catholic and Protestant issues. etc. Very well moderated by the host. It’s available on iTunes and other sources.
I would recommend looking through the archives for the October 12, 2013 episode, “Catholic v. Protestant Debate on Sola Scriptura”, in which the British apologist Peter D. Williams of Catholic Voices quite ably defends the Faith against James White;
October 13, 2012 “Is the Catholic Church the One True Church”; Peter Williams again, debating Protestant Pastor David Robertson;
September 18, 2010 “Roman Catholicism: Is the Papacy Biblical?” with William Johnstone, a Catholic revert from Anglicanism debating Duncan Boyd of the Protestant Truth Society.
I would recommend looking through the archives for the October 12, 2013 episode, “Catholic v. Protestant Debate on Sola Scriptura”, in which the British apologist Peter D. Williams of Catholic Voices quite ably defends the Faith against James White;
October 13, 2012 “Is the Catholic Church the One True Church”; Peter Williams again, debating Protestant Pastor David Robertson;
September 18, 2010 “Roman Catholicism: Is the Papacy Biblical?” with William Johnstone, a Catholic revert from Anglicanism debating Duncan Boyd of the Protestant Truth Society.
- Status