Why Isn't Everyone Catholic?

[SemperReformada]

teflon:

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

The Trinity is most certainly found in scripture. Go to your own “Ask the Apologist” forum and do a search. Whether or not I am capable of defining it in a way suitable for you is an entirely different matter.

The Nicene creed is based on scriptrue but yes it is a tradition but so what?

The liturgy?

Me thinks you are confusing solo scriptura with sola scriptura. Typical for this forum.

teflon:

It doesn’t stop there, of course. The sacraments of the Church themselves are a type of unwritten tradition.

So the sacraments have no scriptural basis…?

teflon:

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.”

You are long on polemic and short on substance.

If your point is that non-catholics accept tradition, we agree.

Do I accept such novel inventions as the assumption of Mary and accept it as dogma…heck no. Do I accept such inventions as papal infallibility…heck no. Why? Because there is no basis for such a belief either in scripture or in the early church.

 

[SemperReformada]

teflon:

the Protestant has to explain how this does not constitute the gates of hell prevailing against the Church.

Please define exactly what the gates of hell prevailing against the church means and let me know if it’s your opinion or an “infallible” decree from your church.

 

[Teflon93]

Please define exactly what the gates of hell prevailing against the church means and let me know if it’s your opinion or an “infallible” decree from your church.

Sure, just as soon as you tell me precisely when the Catholic Church lost her binding and loosing authority.

When did unwritten Tradition become non-binding?

You claim the papacy and Marian dogma to be novelties (the latter excludes Orthodoxy for you, btw, so it looks like 1054 won’t be a valid answer to the 1st question above).

So give me the year the Church lost her authority.

 

[Teflon93]

Do you believe Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be one in being?

Yes or no will be fine.

13th time, SemperReformada—or were you being less than forthcoming when promising to answer this?

 

[jblake]

BareKnuckler;:

1. I doubt anyone can match the JW’s in spreading faith though, since they are very known for door-to-door.

LDS spends more time knocking on doors than JWs do. On the flip side, a greater percentage of JWs spend time knocking on doors than LDS’s. (It is a tossup between JW and LDS, as to which spends more time per convert for discipleship.)

I don’t remember the exact statistical data on number of members per new convert, but both LDS and JW were under 50. Protestant Christianity was at least double that, with both Orthodox Christianity, and Catholic Christianity at least double that of Protestant Christianity. (Rephrased: over 200 members of a Catholic church are needed, to get one convert per year. However, a Protestant congregation only needs 100 members to get one new convert a year. Both LDS and JW congregations get one new convert per year, with only fifty members. )

jonathon

 

[Teflon93]

Do I accept such novel inventions as the assumption of Mary and accept it as dogma…heck no. Do I accept such inventions as papal infallibility…heck no. Why? Because there is no basis for such a belief either in scripture or in the early church.

Both the assumption of Mary and papal infallibility have a Scriptural basis and indeed are found within the early Church—there have been many, many threads on this over in the Apologetics Forum; if you are inquiring honestly you can pop over there and see.

And the seven sacraments of the Church, based as they are in the ministry of Christ himself, are fully Scriptural, since the New Testament is much devoted to that ministry. As to why Protestants reject at least two and as many as six of these sacraments, you shall have to tell us, since you cannot agree as to which to practice.

Of course, you shall also have to explain on what basis Protestants reject any sacrament or any Tradition. You have been asked this in many forms many times now and have only responded with the typical polemic.

Indeed, have we seen any evidence offered at all by you in this thread?

I believe you made one glancing reference to James White’s book on something or other and obliquely referenced 2 Thess 2:15 without either quoting it nor offering up the ECF take on it (I suspect because you hadn’t a clue that such takes exist—you seem to be very ignorant of the patristic tradition; no suprise as I myself was during my 30+ years as a Protestant).

You can start to turn your poor evidentiary performance around by providing us with the definition of sola scriptura, since you have accused me of taking liberties with it.

 

[sandusky]

Teflon93:

Both the assumption of Mary and papal infallibility have a Scriptural basis…

Where?

Teflon93:

And the seven sacraments of the Church…are fully Scriptural…

Where?

 

[Teflon93]

Where?

Here.

Where?

Here: (and just a start)

Eucharist: John 6
Baptism: John 3:5, Mark 16:16
Holy Orders: 2 Tim 1:6, Acts 8:17
Penance and Reconciliation: John 20:23
Confirmation: Mark 16:16
Matrimony: Mark 10:5-9
Anointing of the Sick: Acts 9:40

See also Justin Martyr’s 1st & 2nd Apologies and the “Dialogue with Trypho”.

Among other patristic writings, of course.

But Sandusky knows all this, having been told repeatedly in prior thread derailment attempts.

 

[SemperReformada]

13th time, SemperReformada—or were you being less than forthcoming when promising to answer this?

I do but I am not going to be able to defend this to your liking.

 

[SemperReformada]

Sure, just as soon as you tell me precisely when the Catholic Church lost her binding and loosing authority.

.

The binding and loosing disappeared w/ the apostles, the RCC never had it as it (the authority). The keys were given to the apostles, all of them, not just Peter.

 

[Arandur]

If I were you, I wouldn’t use 2Thess 2:15 anymore, simply because you can’t define the key term, you know the one you wish to prove. If I were to attempt to prove the existence of God, I would make darn sure that I didn’t start throwing around terms that I couldn’t define. Of course this has nothing to do with my request for you to define the key term in a common catholic proof text.

We can and have defined it. How is it not dishonest to require only the answer you want to hear and not accept another answer that more accurately responds to the question?

Surely you don’t think a single word in Scripture can be defined fully and stand alone out of context with the rest of Scripture? If you don’t, then you are being dishonest in this argument by requiring it. If you do, then you have much to learn about Scripture.

If a statement from Scripture cannot be fully explained by itself, we look to other parts of Scripture as well as the rest of the knowledge of the Church to explain it in context. That is what we have repeatedly done, and what you refuse to listen to or refute.

You continue to merely assert that your position is correct (that 2Thess 2:15 has no known meaning). You have not offered a single argument that might support your position or a single refutation of an argument against your position that I can recall. It is dishonest to pretend that you are willing to discuss something when you just want to repeat your preconceived position based on whatever assumptions you have and neither offer evidence nor proper argument against responses.

Does your church claim to know something about Jesus outside of what the scriptures teach or something about the apostles that the scriptures don’t teach?

Of course it does. Protestants claim the same thing. They have plenty of extrapolations and arguments based on claims they have about how to interpret Scripture. The Church just so happens to have Christ as its teacher on the matter, far superior to any limited collection of words. This is not to disparage Scripture, for Scripture supports all truth; it is just too limited to explain it all fully.

There are at least two views of tradition in the RCC. One is that some of revelation is found scripture and some is found in tradition (partim-partim view I think it’s called). The other view is that everything in tradition is found in scripture. If you don’t mind me asking, which view do you hold?

Scripture supports all truth. No truth contradicts Scripture, because truth cannot contradict itself. The Deposit of Truth, however, contains more than what is written in Scripture. Scripture must be interpreted in context with Tradition and the apostolic offices (through which the Spirit works in a special teaching capacity). It is all closely interwoven. To try to separate any piece is to err.

However, since the Scriptures arose over time, they were not always necessary. How else did Christianity exist before the first Gospels and letters? Scripture, then, is really just a subset of Tradition and apostolic truth, that which was written down as useful reference. Is there some other credible description of what Scripture is? I haven’t heard one.

You haven’t proved that they are “contained” anywhere at all or that they are supposed to be.

I never claimed that I inarguably proved anything. Would you care to engage in the argument, or keep just making unfounded claims?

What “truths” does the RCC have that aren’t found in scripture?

Scripture supports or further illuminates all of truth. Some things that were not written down explicitly are still true, and still supported by Scripture.

I have made a very simple request. One that would require only a dozen or less sentences and you can’t do it. Now you want to run off on more rabbit trails?

We have defined it plenty of times. The most complete and concise definition of “tradition” would go something like this: “that truth which is passed on through the teaching of the apostolic office and practiced correctly (with the approval of) the apostolic body.”

Done. Again. Now lets move on: you can try to refute that or any of my other points, but start providing some backup for your claims.

 

[Arandur]

The binding and loosing disappeared w/ the apostles, the RCC never had it as it (the authority). The keys were given to the apostles, all of them, not just Peter.

Peter was given keys separately and specially–I’ll let Teflon answer that. It seems he is pretty good at accessing resources, better than I am

Why do you think the binding and loosing authority ended with the apostles? Where is that found in Scripture?

If the binding and loosing authority was lost, what did that mean for the Church? Presumably this gift was given for a reason and it made an impact. What was the impact of losing it; why was it no longer needed?

Oddly enough, the Smithian sects have a better argument for their constitution than Protestants do, because at least they are consistent about what it would mean for such authority to be lost from the Church. So is Islam (those two are actually two sides of the same coin, another of Satan’s strategies rehashed, just like so many Protestant and evangelical heresies are just repeats of early ones that died out).

Do I accept such novel inventions as the assumption of Mary and accept it as dogma…heck no. Do I accept such inventions as papal infallibility…heck no. Why? Because there is no basis for such a belief either in scripture or in the early church.

And here we get to the crux of the matter. I will ask you to be more careful with your language here, Semper, so that you can be honest in the argument:
You claim that there “is no basis” for various Catholic beliefs “either in scripture or in the early church.” This is a patently false statement, for as soon as a Catholic picks up Scripture and the writings of the ECFs and snags some quotes that even remotely appear that they may be related (they are not non sequitur), then basis exists.

Whether that basis is convincing or proven may be a matter of argument, but it exists nonetheless.

Thus what is really at the heart of all this is that you simply do not agree with the Catholic basis for various beliefs. It is not that it is not there, just that you don’t agree with it.

That means that what we should be doing is arguing about the validity of those beliefs. For Catholics, that may include a discussion of the authority of the Church (which also does quite obviously have a basis in Scripture, whether you don’t think it’s sufficiently proven or not).

In a converse statement, were I to use the erroneous logic of your claim of “no basis,” I would simply claim that there is “no basis in Scripture of the Early Church for any non-Catholic beliefs,” at a stroke dismissing Protestantism, Evanglicalism, Smithianism, and all other belief systems. Of course, that’s false, so lets be honest and responsible and discuss the arguments for the individual beliefs without such childish attempts to just dismiss them.

 

[SemperReformada]

We can and have defined it. How is it not dishonest to require only the answer you want to hear and not accept another answer that more accurately responds to the question?

Surely you don’t think a single word in Scripture can be defined fully and stand alone out of context with the rest of Scripture? If you don’t, then you are being dishonest in this argument by requiring it. If you do, then you have much to learn about Scripture.

If a statement from Scripture cannot be fully explained by itself, we look to other parts of Scripture as well as the rest of the knowledge of the Church to explain it in context. That is what we have repeatedly done, and what you refuse to listen to or refute.

You continue to merely assert that your position is correct (that 2Thess 2:15 has no known meaning). You have not offered a single argument that might support your position or a single refutation of an argument against your position that I can recall. It is dishonest to pretend that you are willing to discuss something when you just want to repeat your preconceived position based on whatever assumptions you have and neither offer evidence nor proper argument against responses.

Of course it does. Protestants claim the same thing. They have plenty of extrapolations and arguments based on claims they have about how to interpret Scripture. The Church just so happens to have Christ as its teacher on the matter, far superior to any limited collection of words. This is not to disparage Scripture, for Scripture supports all truth; it is just too limited to explain it all fully.

Scripture supports all truth. No truth contradicts Scripture, because truth cannot contradict itself. The Deposit of Truth, however, contains more than what is written in Scripture. Scripture must be interpreted in context with Tradition and the apostolic offices (through which the Spirit works in a special teaching capacity). It is all closely interwoven. To try to separate any piece is to err.

However, since the Scriptures arose over time, they were not always necessary. How else did Christianity exist before the first Gospels and letters? Scripture, then, is really just a subset of Tradition and apostolic truth, that which was written down as useful reference. Is there some other credible description of what Scripture is? I haven’t heard one.

I never claimed that I inarguably proved anything. Would you care to engage in the argument, or keep just making unfounded claims?

Scripture supports or further illuminates all of truth. Some things that were not written down explicitly are still true, and still supported by Scripture.

We have defined it plenty of times. The most complete and concise definition of “tradition” would go something like this: “that truth which is passed on through the teaching of the apostolic office and practiced correctly (with the approval of) the apostolic body.”

Done. Again. Now lets move on: you can try to refute that or any of my other points, but start providing some backup for your claims.

I have not asked what tradition is in the broad sense…why you can’t understand this is unreal.

I have asked what did Paul teach the Thessalonians that he refers to as “tradition”. I might have missed it but I don’t think a single catholic has listed this. They have defined tradition but they haven’t been able to illustrate what Paul meant by tradition.

Paul may have taught them:
a.) papal infallibility
b.) assumption of Mary
c.) immaculate conception
d.) indulgences
…but the fact is, we don’t know.

I would hope at this time you won’t be so dishonest as to use 2Thess2:15 as a proof text for “tradition” since it should be painfully clear to you that you have absolutely no way to know what Paul was talking about. It is entirely possible that what Paul spoke of as tradition was commited to scripture.

I haven’t asked you to define anything out of context in fact it’s quite the opposite, I have asked you to clarify the context for us and demonstrate what it was Paul meant by tradition.

My position, how you have missed this is incredible, is that a catholic should not use 2Thess2:15 as a proof text for “tradition” simply because they (the catholic) is completely and utterly unable to define what Paul meant by the term “tradition”.

I suppose it’s possible that I haven’t been clear enough so just in case you don’t get it yet. Please list those traditions which Paul taught the Thessalonians or give up 2Thess2:15 as a proof text.

It’s really that simple…no dishonesty on my part.

BTW, do you make a habit of calling people dishonest in real life or are you just comfortable doing so behind the anonymity of the internet?

 

[Teflon93]

I do but I am not going to be able to defend this to your liking.

My liking doesn’t matter.

Since you believe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a Tradition from the Church only implicit in Scripture, on what basis do you reject other teachings of the same Church which formulated this one so clearly in the Nicene Creed?

Keep in mind that this was done well AFTER the Apostles had died—our earliest extant written sources trace back to the 2nd century.

 

[Teflon93]

It’s really that simple…no dishonesty on my part.

BTW, do you make a habit of calling people dishonest in real life or are you just comfortable doing so behind the anonymity of the internet?

I asked you about the Trinity back in post 97. You promised to answer shortly thereafter, but didn’t until post 248—that’s a full 251 posts later. It took 13 requests to get an answer to a simple question so that we could have more fruitful discussion as to how precisely you determine which Catholic tradition to adopt and which to reject, which is enormously relevant to the question as to why people aren’t Catholic.

Since you’ve been cherrypicking questions to respond to throughout, and since you’ve flat out ignored virtually all of my responses to your 2 Thess 2:15 question, can you look at your performance objectively and say it is the epitome of the honest interlocutor?

Do you do this in personal conversation as well?

If so, it would be extremely rude and reflect poorly upon you.

 

[Teflon93]

And have you bothered, SemperReformada, to look up any of the footnotes from the Catechism passage I posted earlier?

Again, you say you want to know what the Church teaches in this regard, but you don’t seem to be interested enough to look into it.

 

[Teflon93]

Meanwhile, I continue to answer your questions despite you ignoring most of mine.

As to what the Church understands “gates of hell prevail” to mean in Matthew 16:18, a good resource is the Haydock Bible Commentary (1859):

Ver. 18. Kago. And I say to thee, and tell thee why I before declared, (John i. 42.) that thou shouldst be called Peter, for thou art constituted the rock upon which, as a foundation, I will build my Church, and that so firmly, as not to suffer the gates (i.e. the powers) of hell to prevail against its foundation; because if they overturn its foundation, (i.e. thee and thy successors) they will overturn also the Church that rests upon it. Christ therefore here promises to Peter, that he and his successors should be to the end, as long as the Church should last, its supreme pastors and princes. (Tirinus) — In the Syriac tongue, which is that which Jesus Christ spoke, there is no difference of genders, as there is in Latin, between petra, a rock, and Petrus, Peter; hence, in the original language, the allusion was both more natural and more simple. (Bible de Vence) — Thou art Peter;[2] and upon this (i.e. upon thee, according to the literal and general exposition of the ancient Fathers) I will build my church. It is true St. Augustine, in one or two places, thus expounds these words, and upon this rock, (i.e. upon myself or upon this rock, which Peter hath confessed: yet he owns that he had also given the other interpretation, by which Peter himself was the rock. Some Fathers have also expounded it, upon the faith, which Peter confessed; but then they take not faith, as separated from the person of Peter, but on Peter, as holding the true faith. No one questions but that Christ himself is the great foundation-stone, the chief corner-stone, as St. Paul tells the Ephesians; (Chap. ii, ver. 20.) but it is also certain, that all the apostles may be called foundation-stones of the Church, as represented Apocalypse xxi. 14.** In the mean time, St. Peter (called therefore Cephas, a rock) was the first and chief foundation-stone among the apostles, on whom Christ promised to build his Church. (Witham)** — Thou art Peter, &c. As St. Peter, by divine revelation, here made a solemn profession of his faith of the divinity of Christ, so in recompense of this faith and profession, our Lord here declares to him the dignity to which he is pleased to raise him: viz. that he, to whom he had already given the name of Peter, signifying a rock, (John i. 42.) should be a rock indeed, of invincible strength, for the support of the building of the church; in which building he should be next to Christ himself, the chief foundation-stone, in quality of chief pastor, ruler, and governor; and should have accordingly all fulness of ecclesiastical power, signified by the keys of the kingdom of heaven. — Upon this rock, &c. The words of Christ to Peter, spoken in the vulgar language of the Jews, which our Lord made use of, were the same as if he had said in English, Thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build my church. So that, by the plain course of the words, Peter is here declared to be the rock, upon which the church was to be built; Christ himself being both the principal foundation and founder of the same. Where also note, that Christ by building his house, that is, his Church, upon a rock, has thereby secured it against all storms and floods, like the wise builder. (Matthew vii. 24, 25.) — The gates of hell, &c. That is, the powers of darkness, and whatever Satan can do, either by himself or his agents. For as the Church is here likened to a house, or fortress, built on a rock; so the adverse powers are likened to a contrary house or fortress, the gates of which, i.e. the whole strength, and all the efforts it can make, will never be able to prevail over the city or Church of Christ. By this promise we are fully assured, that neither idolatry, heresy, nor any pernicious error whatsoever shall at any time prevail over the Church of Christ. (Challoner) — The gates, in the Oriental style, signify the powers; thus, to this day, we designate the Ottoman or Turkish empire by the Ottoman port. The princes were wont to hold their courts at the gates of the city. (Bible de Vence)

 

[sandusky]

Teflon93:

Here.

None of the verses you offer as Scriptural bases for Mary’s assumption mention Mary; neither does what you offer mention papal infallibility.

Teflon93:

Here: (and just a start)

Eucharist: John 6
Baptism: John 3:5, Mark 16:16
Holy Orders: 2 Tim 1:6, Acts 8:17
Penance and Reconciliation: John 20:23
Confirmation: Mark 16:16
Matrimony: Mark 10:5-9
Anointing of the Sick: Acts 9:40

Sacrament is a latin word, and sacraments are an invention of your church. There’s no scriptural basis for the institution of sacraments, as you wrongly claim.

Teflon93:

Among other patristic writings, of course.

Your assertion was that sacraments have a scriptural basis. Patristic writings are not scripture.

 

[Teflon93]

None of the verses you offer as Scriptural bases for Mary’s assumption mention Mary; neither does what you offer mention papal infallibility.

I linked to an article which walks through them; did you even bother to read it?

Sacrament is a latin word, and sacraments are an invention of your church. There’s no scriptural basis for the institution of sacraments, as you wrongly claim.

Sola Sandusky again? Statement of one man’s dogma with no evidence provided—again.

You’ll also note that “church” is not a Greek word. Do you not belong to a church, Sandusky?

Silly.

Your assertion was that sacraments have a scriptural basis. Patristic writings are not scripture.

The Early Church Fathers, many of whom are saints, learned at the feet of the Apostles. They were involved in the councils which combatted heresy and defined the canon of Scripture.

Shall we burn all 38 extant volumes of patristic theology to comfort you, Sandusky?

Will you burn Calvin’s Institutes, “The Fundamentals”, Luther’s various catechisms, polemics, and other writings, likewise?

I mention the ECFs because some Fundamentalists evince to fetishize the early Church.

 

[SemperReformada]

And have you bothered, SemperReformada, to look up any of the footnotes from the Catechism passage I posted earlier?

Again, you say you want to know what the Church teaches in this regard, but you don’t seem to be interested enough to look into it.

a.) I admitted several posts ago that I won’t be able to define the Trinity in a way that you will find suitable.

b.) Some of the footnotes I read some I didn’t. If we are still on the 2Thess2:15 issue, just come out and either admit you don’t know exactly what Paul meant or precisely define for us what Paul meant by tradition in that verse. BTW, your catechism doesn’t define Paul’s words.