Where to begin?

[jmcrae]

If you are suggesting that this belief (Peter’s infallibility) was not held at first but developed over time, then I would certainly agree with that. But if that is the case, then it stands to reason that this was not really a tradition passed down by the Apostles.

The understanding of it took time. The fact of it was always there. Nobody ever thought that St. Peter or any of his successors were “nobodies” or not very important. They always understood that the Bishop of Rome was the pre-eminent Bishop, and he was the one they always went to for final decisions, because he was the successor of Peter, and they knew that in some way, his successor carried the same authority that he had had. They may not have been able to explain it in words, any more than they could explain the Trinity in words, but they definitely behaved as if it were true, in both cases.

 

[Tomb54]

Yes, it is by faith. But this much, at least, is also a well-reasoned and informed faith. Let me explain what I mean using just one of many available examples: Non-believers often question whether the disciples did not just make up the resurrection. The Christian’s faith on this matter, however, is well-founded. Since the non-believer does not accept Scripture as authoritative we can point out, for example, that many of the apostles faced imprisonment and death for their convictions, and no one is willing to die to protect something they know to be a lie. In addition, the historicity of the resurrection is well attested to in the gospel accounts which are better preserved than any other historical documents such as, say, Homer’s Illiad. No one contests the legitimacy of the extent copies of the Illiad. For these reasons and many more, we have a well-reasoned faith in the historicity of Christ and His resurrection.

I would have to disagree with you on the part that no one is willing to die for a lie, history has shown many times that people have died for a lie. Yes the gospel accounts are well preserved but would you answer WHO preserved them? Protestant religions, or the Catholic Religion, or do you know of someone else that did?

Actually, that is precisely my contention. The Catholic believes he/she is placing their faith in God by relying on the RCC to teach them what to believe concerning God. The Catholic believes this because the RCC teaches them that this is God’s plan (and the RCC accuses Protestants of circular reasoning!).

I know Protestant have trouble trusting in someone else because they have always been told to trust in their own interpretation but we trust in the CC because scripture tells us to do this as it states the church is the bulwark of Truth and not my private interpretation

I am not attempting to say that you cannot trust someone and trust God at the same time (i.e. I am not attempting to setup a dichotomy). I am saying a clear instruction from God (i.e. not requiring an extrapolated interpretation of Scripture) is needed to assure believers that all the RCC claims about itself is true. The reasons provided from Scripture up to this point involve extrapolations (i.e. the rock Jesus spoke of refers to Peter THEREFORE Jesus was saying that He was building His Church on Peter THEREFORE the Church is a visible Church THEREFORE Peter’s position had to be passed on via apostolic succession, etc. etc.). In fine, all of the RCC’s claims about itself are predicated on inferences made from Scripture. There are no explicit declarations in the Bible supporting these claims. Why is this?

There is also nothing in the bible that said Jesus waited 1500 years to start establishing His church. Why is that? I would like to know how Protestant get around their extrapolation that if I read Scripture I will understand it completely THEREFORE I am guided by the Holy Spirit THEREFORE I am right and THEREFORE everyone else is wrong.

 

[fbl9]

snip…Actually, that is precisely my contention. The Catholic believes he/she is placing their faith in God by relying on the RCC to teach them what to believe concerning God. The Catholic believes this because the RCC teaches them that this is God’s plan (and the RCC accuses Protestants of circular reasoning!).

chop…

scripture is accepted as scripture, why do we accept those words as scripture?

 

[Tomb54]

You and Randy are both Catholics and yet you provided me with different answers. I believe their is unity among you, I am not questioning that, but I would like to point out that there is not uniformity.
.

Actually you are wrong they both are in unity and there is uniformity if you understand what they are trying to get across. Randy is right in that Jesus is talking at this point that in John 6 He was talking about His body and He said MY body or MY flesh but at the part were you quoted He says the body and the spirit meaning your/our body and your/our spirit. Randy is saying along this line and those there were looking as in their worldly views and Jesus is feeding us spiritually with this food or the Eucharist (which is what jmcrae is saying) which unless you have faith in what He says you can’t see

Jesus gave us the new covenant (which He says) in the last supper but what most people do not realize is He joined the last supper to His passion and made them one. Thus fulfilling the Passover meal and bringing in a new Passover. In doing this we renew our covenant each and every day that we go to Mass and eat the Lamb’s Body just as what was required in the Old Passover meal only this Lamb is the Lamb of God (the Manna from heaven, the Bread of life, Jesus’ Flesh).

 

[Randy_Carson]

I am not sure whether this was said in sarcasm, but if I missed something I apologize. That said…the RCC can be so long winded. Seeing as how I am so far behind in the thread, could you kindly point me to the most pertinent sections of the document to which you linked?

I was not being sarcastic…I have the impression that you’re actually reading and responding to the material we offer when answering your questions. Are you now hinting otherwise?

As for the pertinent sections in Dominus Iesus, here’s the problem that I see: You ask a question concerning the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, purgatory, or the basis for papal infallibility. What you really want is a verse. Period.

But the questions require lengthy, extensive answers to do them justice. I might post a few paragraphs, or give you a link to an article, but some questions (most, I suspect) have had whole BOOKS written about them.

So, for context, read the whole document. If you must read only a portion, go to paragraph 17.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Solus-

Regarding some of your other questions and responses to me, jmcrae has done a great job answering, so I won’t repeat his comments.

I think we have a lot of issues on the table, at present - too many topics for a single thread to remain coherent. Therefore, I propose we prune off a few branches of this discussion and work on them later.

What is the single, most important issue that you would like to discuss with a group of Catholics?

 

[Randy_Carson]

test

Solus-

Regarding some of your other questions and responses to me, jmcrae has done a great job answering, so I won’t repeat his comments.

I think we have a lot of issues on the table, at present - too many topics for a single thread to remain coherent. Therefore, I propose we prune off a few branches of this discussion and work on them later.

What is the single, most important issue that you would like to discuss with a group of Catholics?

 

[Tomb54]

When you are dialoguing with a non-Catholic Christian and you want to argue for the truth of Catholicism (as opposed to Mere Christianity), what verse(s) do you like to begin with, and how do you build your argument?

Getting to the OP I guess I would ask “Do you believe in the whole Bible?” I usually would get a yes on this question. So I then ask " Good, Do you offer a pure/perfect offering / sacrifice to God every day all over the world which is what the Bible says the gentile believer will do?" This usually opens up allot of questions from them but there is allot of stuff in the Bible to support this as well as this quotes from the bible is used by many ECFs as they describe the Church Christ started.

 

[Solus_Christus]

Does your denomination practice infant baptism? Is it essential? What happens when your pastor’s study leads him to the position opposite of your own?

Yes, my denomination practices infant baptism. No, the timing is not essential. If someone joins the church who practices “believer’s baptism” (i.e. baptism only after receiving Christ as his Lord and Savior), then his baptism is accepted as valid.

To the contrary, Jesus established a visible church, and this is demonstrated as follows:

In Matthew 16:17-19, Christ promised the gates of hell would never prevail against his Church (meaning that it would always exist). Several factors in the text show he was talking about a visible communion.

This is central to our disagreement. I read this when you posted it the first time, but since we still disagree on the significance of Matthew 16:18, restating the argument does not advance the discussion. I am trying to figure out how to get beyond this impasse, but am drawing a blank at this point. You contend Jesus bestowed on Peter a special and unique role in this passage. I contend that there was nothing particularly unique bestowed on Peter when passages such as Matthew 18:18 and the Jerusalem Council are considered. Since this is not resolved, we really can’t make any headway on the necessity of a visible Church using this passage as the basis.

 

[Solus_Christus]

This is a bit confusing, but Tradition is composed of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

Thanks Randy, this was helpful. A couple of follow-on questions:

"And [Holy] *Tradition *transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

Does this mean that the source of all Tradition is ultimately the Apostles, though much of the body of Tradition consists of subsequent expoundings upon that original “seed” of Tradition? In other words, are there portions of Tradition that were introduced subsequent to the Apostles? I note the differentiation made between Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial tradition, and so I understand that ecclesial traditions would be subsequent introductions, but I am specifically asking about non-ecclesial traditions here.

B]Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions

[83](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/83.htm’) The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.
Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a2.htm#83

Is it correct to say that big “T” Tradition is synonomous with Apostolic Tradition? Also, are ecclesial traditions understood to be indefectible?

 

[Solus_Christus]

Wow. That sounds great! So, you never make errors when interpreting scripture! Amazing!

I specifically said that I have made mistakes. Why the need to place words in my mouth?

Ah, well…that makes more sense. You and all the other non-Catholics are simply not yet mature enough to have arrived at the same conclusions about certain doctrines and practices. But after 500 years of prayer, study and reflection, you’re coming to some consensus, right? The number of Protestant denominations is decreasing as you arrive at common understandings, aren’t you? Maturity is producing unity, isn’t it?

I haven’t been alive for 500 years (I’m old, but not that old).

Do you hear yourself, Solus?

If you acknowledge that divisions within Protestantism are the result of Satan’s work, how much more should you consider the possibility that Protestantism itself is a work of the Devil? It’s the same principle but on a grander scale.

My goodness, this is one of the most amazing admissions I think I have ever read in this forum.

Luther and the other reformers did not desire to split from the RCC. Luther repeatedly requested an ecumenical council and the chance for a fair debate. At the Diet of Worms he was denied the chance to defend himself and given a choice to renounce what he had written or face execution. If that Diet had been more diplomatic, as you suggest St. James was during the Council of Jerusalem, perhaps there never would have been a Protestant Reformation. It was only after repeated requests from multiple reformers fell on deaf ears that the reformers resigned themselves to the unfortunate inevitability that the split was permanent. Since the confrontation involved essential matters of faith, involving as it did the very question of how we are saved, it was not possible to maintain the unity the reformers desired.

 

[Solus_Christus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solus Christus
This certainly is not true universally. The scandal of it all is that there are a number of politicians who openly support abortion. While there are some bishops who should be commended in denying these individuals the eucharist, most are not excommunicated. Moreover, there are plenty who continue to receive the eucharist. There seems to be a remarkable lack of uniformity concerning the response to this challenge within the RCC.

I would love for the Bishops to act more forcefully and quickly, but be honest…how much uniformity is there on this issue outside the Catholic Church?

Uniformity outside the Catholic Church? Why do you ask me this? It is the RCC that requires this uniformity, not anyone else. It seems the proper place to look for uniformity is where it is demanded.

 

[Solus_Christus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solus Christus
Paul seems to be very clear about how he came to his understanding of Christ’s person and work. See the first nine verses of chapter 2 of Galatians. He does not mention tradition, but we see instead something miraculous that could only have been brought about by God’s providence.

Paul went to Jerusalem twice to confer with Peter. What do you suppose he learned during those meetings?

Gal 1:15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace,
Gal 1:16 was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone;
Gal 1:17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.
Gal 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days.

 

[Solus_Christus]

Someone has just pointed out to me that Jamnia was not a Council, but rather, a rabbinical school, and even as such, only had authority over itself. So, even the “Jewish Canon” never actually existed, so when the Protestants came up with the shorter canon (supposedly basing it on Jewish scholarship) they really were building their house on the wind - it never really existed, to begin with - they just made it up, themselves.

Regardless of whether there was a council held at Jamnia, it was understood by the Jews what constituted Scripture. I know you and I have gone back and forth on this a little, but I still maintain that Christ made the bounds of that OT Scripture clear by His statement in Matthew 23:34-35. Earlier, you absurdly stated that the Jews did not consider the writings of David to be inspired. Consider, however, Matthew 22:41-46. Christ argues against the Pharisees based on something David had written “in the Spirit” (vs 43). Jesus next quotes from the Psalms. Compare verse 44 in this passage with Psalm 110:1. Did the Jews understand the Psalms were inspired Scripture? You bet!

 

[Solus_Christus]

You hold to a double standard, then, because you say that Catholics have to remain in unity with people who disagree with the things that we consider essential, or else we aren’t “loving” or “Christ-like” - even though we know for a fact that Jesus never wanted people to believe in those things.

Provide me with a post number where I said Catholics have to remain in unity with people who disagree with the things that you consider essential, and I will repent of my double standard. You are shoving words into my mouth which I did not utter.

The United Church of Canada accepts divorced/remarried persons without any investigation into the circumstances of the situation - people can be married to several people all at the same time, since we know that God does not recognize legal divorce - thus, adultery and marital infidelity.

Do you expect me to defend them? The UCC is the epitome of those who hold to theological liberalism. That they and those like them don the name “Protestant” is the reason I have listed my religion as “Evangelical” in this forum.

There are some forms of Mormonism in which fathers “marry” their daughters - incest.

Are you suggesting Mormons are Protestants? They are not Christian let alone Protestant.

And of course every Christian who thinks abortion is okay under any circumstances at all, is okay with murder under certain circumstances, since the unborn child is a human person in the eyes of God.

I don’t think any of us should be blamed for separating ourselves from them, and reaching for a higher standard - even though they consider themselves Christians, and accuse us of disunity when we don’t include them in our Holy Communion.

Amen brother! At last we have found something upon which we agree.

 

[Solus_Christus]

Who determines what is essential and non-essential? Scripture doesn’t differentiate.

I beg to differ. Scripture does make this clear. Consider the following:

Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Gal 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
Gal 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

By saying these preclude us from inheriting the kingdom, the Scripture is saying that abstaining from these thing is not optional.

Gal 5:4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

Certainly it is requirement that we are not severed from Christ or fallen from grace, so we must not believe that we will be justified by the law.

 

[Solus_Christus]

Misconstrue according to whom? I construe the doctrine of Purgatory from Scripture. Am I misconstruing Scripture? If you and I disagree on this, where do we take our dispute? Surely the Holy Spirit doesn’t tell you one thing and me the exact opposite.

Misconstrue according to God. Who else will know better whether their words were misconstrued than the One who spoke them? Are you mistconstruing Scripture? Seek God for the answer. Why do you ask me? No Lampo, the Holy Spirit is not the author of error, and so He would not instruct us differently. To whom do we take our dispute? If the underlying theological implications of Purgatory were not so wide ranging and problematic I would posit this is a non-essential matter and one in which we are at liberty to disagree with one another while still maintaining Christian fellowship. Since it is an important matter, however, the result is the Protestant Reformation. We will certainly know for sure who was in error on that day we stand before our Creator.

 

[Randy_Carson]

This is central to our disagreement. I read this when you posted it the first time, but since we still disagree on the significance of Matthew 16:18, restating the argument does not advance the discussion. I am trying to figure out how to get beyond this impasse, but am drawing a blank at this point. You contend Jesus bestowed on Peter a special and unique role in this passage. I contend that there was nothing particularly unique bestowed on Peter when passages such as Matthew 18:18 and the Jerusalem Council are considered. Since this is not resolved, we really can’t make any headway on the necessity of a visible Church using this passage as the basis.

The question of authority is indeed the crux of the matter.

However, since even some Protestant scholars admit that Mt 16:18 echoes Is. 22:22, there is no question that Peter’s reception of keys WAS unique. Even Luther, no friend of the papacy, acknowledged this.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Does this mean that the source of all Tradition is ultimately the Apostles, though much of the body of Tradition consists of subsequent expoundings upon that original “seed” of Tradition? In other words, are there portions of Tradition that were introduced subsequent to the Apostles? I note the differentiation made between Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial tradition, and so I understand that ecclesial traditions would be subsequent introductions, but I am specifically asking about non-ecclesial traditions here.

Public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. Consequently, nothing new would be introduced later that was not present from the beginning. At the same time, it is reasonable to suggest that some implications of the Gospel were not fully grasped during the lifetimes of the Twelve…or even for some time thereafter. Heck, we’re still probing the depths of what God has revealed.

I might use the analogy of chemical elements of the periodic table. All of the elements have been present on earth from the beginning, but it took man awhile to discover them. Now, we’re experimenting with different combinations of these basic elements. Applying this to doctrine, all of the truths of the Gospel are contained in public revelation. However, as we mull that revelation over, certain combinations of truths result in the conclusion that other things must be true, also. Here is one example from early church history:

1. Mary is the mother of Jesus.
2. Jesus is God.
   Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God.

This “combination” or development of doctrine is not found explicitly in scripture, but each of the pieces is obviously true, and the resulting combination is true, also.

Is it correct to say that big “T” Tradition is synonomous with Apostolic Tradition? Also, are ecclesial traditions understood to be indefectible?

Tradition is composed of two elements: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. While it may be possible to trace a specific doctrine directly to the Apostles, it may also be the case that an Apostle or a Father was not conscious of the implications of certain revealed truths and combinations thereof.

As for the second question, define and give examples of “ecclesial traditions” that you have in mind, and I’ll go from there.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I haven’t been alive for 500 years (I’m old, but not that old).

I agree with you completely. You are not 500 years old.

However, that doesn’t really address my point which was that Protestantism as a whole exhibits LESS unity today rather than MORE. One would think that the guidance of the Holy Spirit would be leading all non-Catholics toward a common mind. This doesn’t seem to be the case.

Does this suggest to you that perhaps individuals and denominations are NOT led by the Holy Spirit into all truth as many Protestants frequently claim?