Why Isn't Everyone Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bubba_Switzler
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SemperReformada said:
What question and by the way, no one has answered my question on 2 Thess 2:15 yet either.

So, I guess I owe Teflon an answer and the two of you owe me one.
Click to expand...
please answer the question. read my post again and please answer the question. it is a very simple one.
 
SemperReformada said:
What question and by the way, no one has answered my question on 2 Thess 2:15 yet either.

So, I guess I owe Teflon an answer and the two of you owe me one.
Click to expand...
Asked and answered. The notes to the Catechism on Tradition posted above reference a number of documents of the Church by topic. Look for the note you want, then look up the appropriate document.

As for the traditions not recorded in Scripture, I continue to provide you example after example which at least some Protestants accept on the authority of the Catholic Church. You have yet to respond to these.

Also note my signature for Martin Luther’s perspective on where the Bible came from.
 
Teflon93 said:
  1. Christ founded the Church ~ 33 A.D.
  2. Christ gave binding and loosing authority to the apostles.
  3. Christ promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church.
  4. Protestantism was not founded until 1520 A.D, some 1,500 years AFTER Christ founded the Church.
  5. For Protestantism to be true, the gates of hell had to have prevailed against the Church.
  6. If the gates of hell prevailed against the Church, Christ had to be a liar.
  7. Lying is a sin.
  8. Christ never sinned.
  9. Therefore, Christ didn’t lie.
  10. Therefore, Protestantism is untrue.
Click to expand...
So, in my little outlined argument shared earlier, which proposition or conclusion is now in question?
 
Teflon93 said:
Asked and answered. The notes to the Catechism on Tradition posted above reference a number of documents of the Church by topic. Look for the note you want, then look up the appropriate document.

As for the traditions not recorded in Scripture, I continue to provide you example after example which at least some Protestants accept on the authority of the Catholic Church. You have yet to respond to these.

Also note my signature for Martin Luther’s perspective on where the Bible came from.
Click to expand...
I may have missed it, you did post quite a bit of information but I have seen no post detailing what Paul mean by tradition and how you arrived at that knowledge.

I have seen posts discussing “tradition” but is not an answer to my question.

What “apostolic traditions” did Paul include under the label of tradition in 2Thess2:15? Please catalog or index them for our review.

I am only interested in what Paul meant by tradition in 2Thess2:15. Since so many Catholics use that verse as a proof text it seems reasonable to me that they should be able to precisely identify what Paul meant. Apparently they can’t.
 
My priest for about 6 months kept asking me why i was a catholic, after about the 3rd time of telling him. I told him this

We are all catholic, Some of us just haven’t realized it yet.

Halos

The lord hears the cry of the poor
 
SemperReformada said:
I may have missed it, you did post quite a bit of information but I have seen no post detailing what Paul mean by tradition and how you arrived at that knowledge.

I have seen posts discussing “tradition” but is not an answer to my question.

What “apostolic traditions” did Paul include under the label of tradition in 2Thess2:15? Please catalog or index them for our review.

I am only interested in what Paul meant by tradition in 2Thess2:15. Since so many Catholics use that verse as a proof text it seems reasonable to me that they should be able to precisely identify what Paul meant. Apparently they can’t.
Click to expand...
Where do you think Trinitarian doctrine came from?
 
Do you believe that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one in being, SemperReformada?
 
Also, per wisdomseeker, do you believe that those being taught by the Apostles knew what St Paul meant by OT?
 
SemperReformada said:
I am going to be out for a day or two but wanted to comment on your post.

Please list those traditions (individually) for us that Paul was talking about. Did he (Paul) have in mind the various Marian doctrines? The treasury of merit? Indulgences?

Also, please list how you have come to the knowledge of what it is (specifically) that Paul means by tradition.
Click to expand...
I answered you. You persist in being disingenuous and dishonest. Have the courage to change that and this might become a worthwhile discussion.
 
Arandur said:
I don’t want to seem like I’m piling on,but I think a simple answer might be of benefit at this point.

Semper, you ask a question about 2 Thessalonians that you know is intended as a “gotcha” question because the way you formulate it, it is a nonsensical question. It is disingenuous. There is no written list containing all of the traditions because it was never meant to have been written (nor could it be)–the Apostle never wrote it for a reason.
Click to expand...
It certainly a “gotcha” question. The question is meant to show catholics that they shouldn’t use proof texts to prove a point when they can’t accurately define the key term which in this case is “tradition”.
Arandur said:
What this passage does show is that there is Truth that is exceedingly important that is not recorded in Scripture.
Click to expand...
You have no way of proving what “tradition” is in this instance so you don’t know if the traditions Paul speaks of were recorded or not or if they were doctrine related. You simply can’t define what tradition is in this instance. Catholics read too much into “tradition” every time they see the word in the scriptures or in the writings of the church fathers.
Arandur said:
Truth that was explicitly entrusted to the Apostle’s ordained successors, and to the faithful. Is that not evidence enough that sola scriptura is false (Scripture itself pointing to the Church additionally)? Is that not evidence that there is apostolic tradition that is important?
Click to expand...
Since you can’t prove or define what Paul meant by “tradition”, you fail to show what you claim. Were these “traditions” later recorded in scripture? Were they doctrine related? Did they involve church discipline?

I’m out of time but will try to get to the rest of your post before the end of the weekend.
 
Teflon93 said:
Here is Arandur’s excellent response (and unanswered questions for SemperReformada) from earlier.
Click to expand...
You only see it as excellent because of your bias.

2Thess2:15 is simply not a good proof text for catholic apologetics. It might hold some weight if you knew what Paul meant by “tradition”.

I haven’t been able to work my way through all of your posts but I have yet to see anywhere your church lists what Paul meant.

Arandur is certainly correct in saying that I am asking a gotcha question but it’s only mean to show you the weakness of using that verse as a prooftext.
 
SemperReformada said:
You only see it as excellent because of your bias.
Click to expand...
Really? Arandur’s post has no objective merits whatsoever?

Fo you think, perhaps, that conclusion might be a result of your bias?
2Thess2:15 is simply not a good proof text for catholic apologetics. It might hold some weight if you knew what Paul meant by “tradition”.
Click to expand...
I do know what he meant by “tradition”. As did Timothy. You seem perplexed, however.

It is not Catholics who are troubled by 2 Thess 2:15, but Protestants, as you know.

Here’s why:

catholicsource.net/articles/2thes215.html

We also see James White’s weak defense of sola scriptura in light of 2 Thess 2:15 blown away.

Here is more evidence for you as to the Early Church Fathers’ understanding of tradition and its role in the Church—surprise! It’s the Catholic understanding:

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0511frs.asp

More here:

catholic.com/library/apostolic_tradition.asp

And since your grasp of argumentation and logical reasoning has been revealed to be very poor indeed, why not see how the same topic is treated by two folks who undertand these important skills?

the-supplement.blogspot.com/search/label/2%20Thessalonians%202%3A15
I haven’t been able to work my way through all of your posts but I have yet to see anywhere your church lists what Paul meant.
Click to expand...
You obviously haven’t done your homework with the list of references provided to the Catholic Catechism on tradition. Or do you expect that we will do everything for you?
Arandur is certainly correct in saying that I am asking a gotcha question but it’s only mean to show you the weakness of using that verse as a prooftext.
Click to expand...
lol—well, just keep repeating it and perhaps repetition will make it so.

As I look around, I haven’t found anyone persuaded by your posts thus far.

And I still haven’t seen the promised responses to the many outstanding questions you’ve been asked.

Why not set a proper example by ANSWERING some of these for once?

Let’s start with an easy one: Do you believe Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be one in being?
 
Teflon93 said:
And for the record, we have in this thread provided a list of a number of traditions which were not incorporated into Scripture yet abide still. Moreover, we have demonstrated through extensive quotation from the Early Church Fathers that these traditions are indeed ancient, from the earliest days of the Church in fact.

These traditions include:
  1. Trinitarian doctrine;
  2. The Nicene Creed;
  3. The liturgy
It doesn’t stop there, of course. The sacraments of the Church themselves are a type of unwritten tradition.

Protestants today are embracing the monastic tradition long practiced by Catholic and Orthodox and stemming from the very early practice of St Anthony and others.

Did I mention saints? Many Protestants accept the Catholic list of the saints, taking for granted that the Catholic Church is able to discern who is in heaven and who is not, at least among the martyrs and other august personages.

Speaking of these personages, Protestants also accept the Catholic definition of who among the Church fathers is considered to be orthodox and who is considered to be a heretic—up to 1520 at least (their fondness for Wycliffe and Tynsdale notwithstanding). Note how few Protestants stand up to boldly proclaim the theological virtues of Arius or Nestor or Marcion. You’d think that “Here I stand; I can do no other” would apply to them as well, were Protestants consistent regarding sola scriptura.

So yet another answer to why everyone isn’t Catholic is, “Everyone is—they are simply cafeteria Catholics who practice theology by subtraction to suit The Atomic Church of Me.”
Click to expand...
Another bump, for the unwilling lurkers who might be fooled by SemperReformada’s repeated and erroneous claims that questions regarding what comprises Tradition have not been addressed.

Oh, and still waiting for a response, too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top