T
Tom
Guest
Human cloning is evil. Abortion is murder. Embryonic stem cell research which uses aborted tissue is wrong. His mother is “ever virgin”.
What essential parts of Christianity are not found in Scripture?
- Status
J
JPrejean
Guest
Sure. In terms of actually demonstrating something useful, a meaningful contradiction is one that would demonstrate an internal fallacy or inconsistency in a system being considered. A non-meaningful contradiction is a contradiction that doesn’t invalidate that system of thought. I already gave two examples (the one under discussion, plus Thomism vs. Molinism). A third example would be concepts that are explained differently in Eastern and Western Catholicism, such as the forensic justification model versus the theosis model. Those contradictions aren’t useful for demonstrating an internal contradiction in Catholic dogma.
P
PhilVaz
Guest
Boule << It matters to Gerry Matatics and Robert Sungenis. It mattered enough for Gerry to get the boot from Catholic Answers years ago. >>
Now hold on, Matatics wasn’t booted from Catholic Answers over the “material sufficiency” vs. partim-partim position. At that point (circa 1990) both CA and Matatics agreed on partim-partim (e.g. see Keating’s 1988 book which clearly articulates the partim-partim view). It was when Akin joined CA that the “material sufficiency” view came into prominence among Catholic apologists like myself
, with the first reference to it in This Rock being his 1993 side-bar article (see the quote there from Yves Congar’s book Tradition and Traditions) within the infamous Patrick Madrid “The White Man’s Burden” hatchet job of the 1993 White-Madrid debate on sola scriptura. 
You see, I know my This Rock. So in other words, I agree “tradition” can be slippery, we need to be more precise.
That said, I would argue there are at least 5 specific Catholic doctrines received by “oral apostolic tradition” that don’t have clear and explicit reference in Scripture:
(1) infant or paedobaptism
(2) Mary as the “New Eve” (which developed into other Marian beliefs)
(3) prayers for the dead (e.g. although mentioned in 2 Macc 12)
(4) the primacy and authority of Rome (and hence, its Bishop) as the center of Christian orthodoxy
(5) apostolic succession, the Bishops inherit the authority of the apostles (but not their Spirit inspiration), with the Bishop of Rome especially called “the Apostolic See” as Peter’s seat of authority
Those are some specifics since evangelical apologists like to ask for them. These beliefs show up universally in the early-mid 2nd century Church (ubique, semper, ab omnibus = that which is believed everywhere, always, and by all).
These aren’t necessarily “essential” to “mere Christianity” but they are essential to Catholic theology and explain why we believe our later developed beliefs are apostolic.
Phil P
Now hold on, Matatics wasn’t booted from Catholic Answers over the “material sufficiency” vs. partim-partim position. At that point (circa 1990) both CA and Matatics agreed on partim-partim (e.g. see Keating’s 1988 book which clearly articulates the partim-partim view). It was when Akin joined CA that the “material sufficiency” view came into prominence among Catholic apologists like myself
, with the first reference to it in This Rock being his 1993 side-bar article (see the quote there from Yves Congar’s book Tradition and Traditions) within the infamous Patrick Madrid “The White Man’s Burden” hatchet job of the 1993 White-Madrid debate on sola scriptura. You see, I know my This Rock. So in other words, I agree “tradition” can be slippery, we need to be more precise.
That said, I would argue there are at least 5 specific Catholic doctrines received by “oral apostolic tradition” that don’t have clear and explicit reference in Scripture:
(1) infant or paedobaptism
(2) Mary as the “New Eve” (which developed into other Marian beliefs)
(3) prayers for the dead (e.g. although mentioned in 2 Macc 12)
(4) the primacy and authority of Rome (and hence, its Bishop) as the center of Christian orthodoxy
(5) apostolic succession, the Bishops inherit the authority of the apostles (but not their Spirit inspiration), with the Bishop of Rome especially called “the Apostolic See” as Peter’s seat of authority
Those are some specifics since evangelical apologists like to ask for them. These beliefs show up universally in the early-mid 2nd century Church (ubique, semper, ab omnibus = that which is believed everywhere, always, and by all).
These aren’t necessarily “essential” to “mere Christianity” but they are essential to Catholic theology and explain why we believe our later developed beliefs are apostolic.
Phil P
G
Greg_McPherran
Guest
Hello,
BouleTheou:
2 Timothy 3:14 But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it,
1 Corinthians 11:2 I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.
There is no question that Scripture makes it clear that there are teachings outside of Scripture. Therefore Scripture makes it clear that it does not contain all the truths of faith. Yes, St Paul says that Scripture equips one for every good work. Showing from Scripture that Scripture itself does not contain all the teachings is a good work. Therefore, one can never use Scripture alone to understand the fullness of the Christian faith. This is made clear from Scripture itself. So for a person to say that their Church teaches the truth and they base all their beliefs and practice only on Scripture is clearly wrong.
As far as what these traditions, letters, and oral teachings are, Catholics believe that the Catholic Church has carried on these teachings. This is a matter of faith just as belief in Jesus is a matter of faith.
Also, when the Catholic Church agreed on the Scriptures that comprise the New Testamant for the purposes of the Catholic Church, it was never intended or considered that the New Testamant would contain all the truths of the faith.
This idea that Scripture contains all the turths of the faith is nothing more than a myth, an error made up by men.
1 Timothy 4:6-7 If you will give these instructions to the brothers, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound teaching you have followed. Avoid profane and silly myths.
So you see, the idea that a Church can know the truth about Jesus from the Scriptures without the Church is a myth. St. Paul warned about believing myths. Sola Scriptura is a man-made myth - a tradition of men. Catholic Tradition is God’s revelation carried in the Body of Christ as well as Scripture. Tradition can shed light on and confirm Scripture. For example Catholics understand John 6 because our apostolic Tradition teaches us what it means and we also see the truth of it because it harmonizes with Scripture and brings light to the mind.
Greg
I think the practice of the mass, the belief in Mary’s virginity, and ordination of priests and bishops are examples of Catholic Tradition. The doctrine of Mary’s Immaculate Conception may have been formally declared until later and I am not sure to what extent the apostles reflected on this. There are several others, I am sure. Some of these are seen in Scripture, some more fully/clearly than others.
2 Timothy 3:14 But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it,
1 Corinthians 11:2 I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.
There is no question that Scripture makes it clear that there are teachings outside of Scripture. Therefore Scripture makes it clear that it does not contain all the truths of faith. Yes, St Paul says that Scripture equips one for every good work. Showing from Scripture that Scripture itself does not contain all the teachings is a good work. Therefore, one can never use Scripture alone to understand the fullness of the Christian faith. This is made clear from Scripture itself. So for a person to say that their Church teaches the truth and they base all their beliefs and practice only on Scripture is clearly wrong.
As far as what these traditions, letters, and oral teachings are, Catholics believe that the Catholic Church has carried on these teachings. This is a matter of faith just as belief in Jesus is a matter of faith.
Also, when the Catholic Church agreed on the Scriptures that comprise the New Testamant for the purposes of the Catholic Church, it was never intended or considered that the New Testamant would contain all the truths of the faith.
This idea that Scripture contains all the turths of the faith is nothing more than a myth, an error made up by men.
1 Timothy 4:6-7 If you will give these instructions to the brothers, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound teaching you have followed. Avoid profane and silly myths.
So you see, the idea that a Church can know the truth about Jesus from the Scriptures without the Church is a myth. St. Paul warned about believing myths. Sola Scriptura is a man-made myth - a tradition of men. Catholic Tradition is God’s revelation carried in the Body of Christ as well as Scripture. Tradition can shed light on and confirm Scripture. For example Catholics understand John 6 because our apostolic Tradition teaches us what it means and we also see the truth of it because it harmonizes with Scripture and brings light to the mind.
Greg
C
Catholic4aReasn
Guest
You’ve never read Scott Hahn’s The Lamb’s Supper?
In Christ,
Nancy
M
MBS1
Guest
Guys,
You should know that BouleTheou is a Protestant seminary student who goes by the name of Patrick at the Envoy magazine site. He admits on that site that he feels Catholics for the most part are not “saved” and are going to hell. You should read over there some of the stuff he writes, and the refutations he gets (even from the host - Patrick Madrid). Follow Scott Waddell’s suggestion from his post from 2:47 pm today. I did and found some interesting discussions. There are several topics on that site that can enlighten you to where he is coming from. Catholic baiting, anyone? (Seems almost like a hobby based on what I read, eh, "Patrick/BouleTheou?)
MBS1
You should know that BouleTheou is a Protestant seminary student who goes by the name of Patrick at the Envoy magazine site. He admits on that site that he feels Catholics for the most part are not “saved” and are going to hell. You should read over there some of the stuff he writes, and the refutations he gets (even from the host - Patrick Madrid). Follow Scott Waddell’s suggestion from his post from 2:47 pm today. I did and found some interesting discussions. There are several topics on that site that can enlighten you to where he is coming from. Catholic baiting, anyone? (Seems almost like a hobby based on what I read, eh, "Patrick/BouleTheou?)
MBS1
P
PhilVaz
Guest
Oh he’s that Patrick. 
His question is
Q: “What am I missing by believing that all special revelation from God about the Christian faith is in the Bible?”
Another good answer to this question (beside the excellent ones that have been given) is
A: “How to properly interpret all that special revelation from God about the Christian faith that is in the Bible.”
It can be argued Vatican II taught all special revelation is in the Bible (material sufficiency) here:
“…since they are inspired by God and committed to writing once and for all time, they present God’s own Word in an unalterable form, and they make the voice of the Holy Spirit sound again and again in the words of the prophets and apostles. It follows that all the preaching of the Church, as indeed the entire Christian religion, should be nourished and ruled by sacred Scripture.” (Dei Verbum, 21)
Although the material sufficiency vs. partim-partim is not a settled issue. I enjoy folks like Patrick (boula) and Coach McGuirk, they keep things interesting. Who else we gonna debate in here?
Phil P
His question isQ: “What am I missing by believing that all special revelation from God about the Christian faith is in the Bible?”
Another good answer to this question (beside the excellent ones that have been given) is
A: “How to properly interpret all that special revelation from God about the Christian faith that is in the Bible.”
It can be argued Vatican II taught all special revelation is in the Bible (material sufficiency) here:
“…since they are inspired by God and committed to writing once and for all time, they present God’s own Word in an unalterable form, and they make the voice of the Holy Spirit sound again and again in the words of the prophets and apostles. It follows that all the preaching of the Church, as indeed the entire Christian religion, should be nourished and ruled by sacred Scripture.” (Dei Verbum, 21)
Although the material sufficiency vs. partim-partim is not a settled issue. I enjoy folks like Patrick (boula) and Coach McGuirk, they keep things interesting. Who else we gonna debate in here?
Phil P
P
papist1
Guest
Patrick, the nail was hit on the head earlier when it was stated that the actual list of the canon of scripture, is not in scripture.
The ONLY way you have that New Testament which you hold in your hand as your sole rule of faith, is by the power of God working through the Catholic Church to protect, collect and decide which books belong in it. You need no other proof of the authority of the Church and Her Sacred Tradition that brought your Bible about. period. end of debate.
The ONLY way you have that New Testament which you hold in your hand as your sole rule of faith, is by the power of God working through the Catholic Church to protect, collect and decide which books belong in it. You need no other proof of the authority of the Church and Her Sacred Tradition that brought your Bible about. period. end of debate.
P
PhilVaz
Guest
papist1 << Patrick, the nail was hit on the head earlier when it was stated that the actual list of the canon of scripture, is not in scripture. >>
In my opinion, that’s not a very good example of oral apostolic tradition since this wasn’t something revealed by the apostles and passed on. It indeed shows the necessity for an authoritative Church to make such decisions as the extent of the canon, but the canon is not an explicit doctrine passed on from the apostles as such.
The examples I gave are more relevant in my opinion, and the others mentioned the Liturgy (although found in the Book of Relevation). But yeah, the canon issue will always be a problem for Protestants.
They’ll counter with the OT canon which supposedly wasn’t decided by the Church but by the Jewish people who had the “oracles of God” (Romans 3:2), and Jesus own recognition of the Hebrew canon, but even that wasn’t “settled” in the early Church, since some Fathers considered the deuterocanonicals inspired Scripture, if not canonical. Jerome for example called much of the deuteros “Scripture” even if he didn’t believe they were formally canonical.
Phil P
In my opinion, that’s not a very good example of oral apostolic tradition since this wasn’t something revealed by the apostles and passed on. It indeed shows the necessity for an authoritative Church to make such decisions as the extent of the canon, but the canon is not an explicit doctrine passed on from the apostles as such.
The examples I gave are more relevant in my opinion, and the others mentioned the Liturgy (although found in the Book of Relevation). But yeah, the canon issue will always be a problem for Protestants.
They’ll counter with the OT canon which supposedly wasn’t decided by the Church but by the Jewish people who had the “oracles of God” (Romans 3:2), and Jesus own recognition of the Hebrew canon, but even that wasn’t “settled” in the early Church, since some Fathers considered the deuterocanonicals inspired Scripture, if not canonical. Jerome for example called much of the deuteros “Scripture” even if he didn’t believe they were formally canonical.
Phil P
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
B
BouleTheou
Guest
Philvaz -
BouleTheou
Thank you. Glad at least one of you can see that.
BouleTheou
B
BouleTheou
Guest
papist1 -
Christians, not the Roman Catholic Church, collected and copied the Bible under the direction of the providential hand of God.
BouleTheou
[sigh]. No, the ancients who collected what books God had inspired dd not confer any status or authority upon them which they did not already possess. Also, none of the Christian people who lived during the age of Hippo and Carthage believed what you believe dogmatically today about the Papacy, the priesthood, purgatory, indulgences, and all the Marian dogmas - and your own best scholars, like Ludwig Ott, admit it.
Christians, not the Roman Catholic Church, collected and copied the Bible under the direction of the providential hand of God.
BouleTheou
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
I’m amazed that you see this. Glad to see it, Phil. You have been completely honest here. And for that, protestants 'round the world thank you. :yup:
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
He’s at least keeping you on your toes, right? I believe that’s why the forums are here. If, for instance, I was a hindu and my real name was Valakshimana, would that make a difference?
B
BouleTheou
Guest
Let’s try to stick with arguments and actually dealing with religious issues rather than personalities. And yes, please, check out the discussions I’ve had at Envoy - at least, the ones they haven’t either deleted entirely, or the ones they turned into monologues by deleting all my posts. I don’t engage in ad-hominem or rabbit trails, so I was never really given a reason that this was done other than, “This is a Catholic forum and if we feel Catholics are being mislead, we reserve the right to delete whatever we please… we know you don’t like that, but that’s just the way things are.” Read whatever you find left over there and find out what was really going on…
BouleTheou
BouleTheou
M
mark1270
Guest
I just wonder were you feel we are being mislead to?
What do you feel the church teaches that is leading us astray?
S
Sarah_Jane
Guest
These dogmas are found implicitly in Scripture.
B
BouleTheou
Guest
Mark 1270 -
Specifically: its subversion of Scripture’s authority for its own, papal infallibility, indulgences, the Marian dogmas which have led to gross forms of idolatry, the veneration of saints and images, purgatory - a frontal assault on the all-sufficiency of the cross-work of Christ to pay for all our sins.
But more than anything: It’s defective doctrine of justification which cuts people off from the kingdom of God.
BouleTheou
That’s a fair question.
Specifically: its subversion of Scripture’s authority for its own, papal infallibility, indulgences, the Marian dogmas which have led to gross forms of idolatry, the veneration of saints and images, purgatory - a frontal assault on the all-sufficiency of the cross-work of Christ to pay for all our sins.
But more than anything: It’s defective doctrine of justification which cuts people off from the kingdom of God.
BouleTheou
S
Sarah_Jane
Guest
We are justified by “faith working through love” (Galatians 5:6).
M
mark1270
Guest
Boule,
Those are common sticking points between Protestants and Catholics and are some of the things I did not understand when I was a Methodist, mainly because I had never listened to the Catholic explanation of the doctrines.
I would like to address these issues, but as I do not wish to give you an incomplete answer I need some time to do a little research. Plus my infant son is crying and I need to go grab a bottle for him .
I am sure that others will try and answer you, I only hope that they do so with the Cathecism of the Church in hand so as to not answer based on what they think the church teaches, but to answer based on what the Church actually teaches. I also pray that they remain cordial.
Peace of Christ be with you always,
Mark
Those are common sticking points between Protestants and Catholics and are some of the things I did not understand when I was a Methodist, mainly because I had never listened to the Catholic explanation of the doctrines.
I would like to address these issues, but as I do not wish to give you an incomplete answer I need some time to do a little research. Plus my infant son is crying and I need to go grab a bottle for him
.I am sure that others will try and answer you, I only hope that they do so with the Cathecism of the Church in hand so as to not answer based on what they think the church teaches, but to answer based on what the Church actually teaches. I also pray that they remain cordial.
Peace of Christ be with you always,
Mark
- Status