Why Isn't Everyone Catholic?

[Arandur]

I have asked what did Paul teach the Thessalonians that he refers to as “tradition”. … They have defined tradition but they haven’t been able to illustrate what Paul meant by tradition.

I did. Let me put it again simply. You ask "What did Paul mean by ‘tradition’ in 2 Thess 2:15. He meant: “that truth which is passed on through the teaching of the apostolic office and practiced correctly (with the approval of) the apostolic body.”

He was not referring to an easily definable, finite list. Although, if you really want the list, we could just list every Tradition within the Catholic Church. So there’s your alternate explanation: he meant every single Tradition of the Catholic Church. These are basically contained within the Catechism. So Teflon has effected listed them by referring to the Catechism.

Now we get back to the real point: there are Traditions on that list that you don’t agree with. Regarding your original point with Thess, that doesn’t matter–merely that we provided what Paul meant by “tradition” is all that you requested. Now are we free to dispute it?

 

[SemperReformada]

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.

I don’t hold any creed to be the equivalent of scripture nor do I believe the church to be infallible.

It seems that you believe it’s either accept everything the church teaches or accept nothing…a very illogical position.

 

[Arandur]

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.

Most of what Teflon and I have been doing is clarifying the context! That you have ignored that is just evidence of your dishonesty. We have given everything you asked for and more many times over. And just to clarify what we mean by context, it is both in context with the rest of Scripture and with * the Church*, because this is one of the passages that states that context is not limited to a single statement or word.

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?

Yes, I do. “You’re being dishonest when you do or say x.” I have provided a reason, evidence, for every claim of dishonesty. You actually haven’t refuted any of them. All you do is say “I haven’t been dishonest” and then immediately commit the same act that I have called out as dishonest.

 

[Teflon93]

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

Yes, 151 posts after it was asked. Now that you put it this way, though, it looks like you didn’t answer it at all.

The Creedal form is that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one in being. Agree or disagree?

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.

The Catechism, which is a compendium of Church Tradition, defines it both conceptually and in its being. It further references, through the footnotes provided, Sacred Scripture and other Church documents.

Documents which you still haven’t bothered to look into.

And please note that you have yet to even glancingly come to grips with my follow up question, which was "if Protestants acknowledge no definitive list of what St Paul meant by Tradition, on what basis therefore do you eliminate certain traditions given St Paul’s clear instruction to Timothy that he was to obey both oral and written Tradition?

Since Protestants by your own admission don’t know what tradition IS, how then do they profess to know what it ISN’T?

Not to mention that no two Protestant communities posess the same tradition.

 

[SemperReformada]

I did. Let me put it again simply. You ask "What did Paul mean by ‘tradition’ in 2 Thess 2:15. He meant: “that truth which is passed on through the teaching of the apostolic office and practiced correctly (with the approval of) the apostolic body.”

You full well know that his doesn’t answer the question I asked. Who is the dishonest one now?

He was not referring to an easily definable, finite list. Although, if you really want the list, we could just list every Tradition within the Catholic Church. So there’s your alternate explanation: he meant every single Tradition of the Catholic Church. These are basically contained within the Catechism. So Teflon has effected listed them by referring to the Catechism.

Again you know full well that doesn’t answer the question. You could make a list but then you would have to somehow tie it back to Paul for it to mean anything…which you can’t.

Now we get back to the real point: there are Traditions on that list that you don’t agree with. Regarding your original point with Thess, that doesn’t matter–merely that we provided what Paul meant by “tradition” is all that you requested. Now are we free to dispute it?

No, no, no, no. Go back and re-read my posts. Even if in one request i wasn’t entirely clear you couldn’t have possibly missed what I mean since I must have asked the same question a few dozen times now and I also can’t help but believe you know full well what i wanted since you mentioned (I think it was you) that this was a gotcha question.

I am beginning to realize why you have this fetish for the word “dishonesty”…seems like you are projecting more than a little bit.

 

[Guyonthestreet]

This is a new thread to continue a discusison that went off-topic in another thread.

The question I want to pose here is twofold:

1. Why isn’t everyone Catholic? Catholic dogma, after, is true, isn’t it?

Why I’m not a catholic:

The Pope - the whole infallibility thing is daft and a matter of wild misinterpretation.

Power and Abuse and unwarranted authority - read a good history of the catholic church. Much of it still going on today from what i can see.

Idolatory - statue worship of every kind. Saw a clip on the news of folk in Manilla geting statues blessed. Crazy. If you believe in God, why do you need statues and pictures to help you pray. Ive read about these things helping people focus on God. ??? Why would I ever need a picture or a statue of someone (especially when you consider most of these statues most likely look nothing like the person they portray anyhow) to help me focus on God. Makes no sense. But I can see how it’s a good money spinner for the church.

It has also become apparent to me reading these boards that to become a catholic, you also have to accept Israel, seems like it comes as part of the package, and you must never criticise Israel - and I would never accept that. Ever.

 

[Teflon93]

I don’t hold any creed to be the equivalent of scripture nor do I believe the church to be infallible.

So to your thinking the Nicene Creed may be wrong?

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit may not in fact be one in being?

Just looking to clarify; I prefer not to waste my time arguing your acceptance of the Trinity if you are not in fact Trinitarian.

It seems that you believe it’s either accept everything the church teaches or accept nothing…a very illogical position.

Not at all—I’ve asked you repeatedly WHEN the binding and loosing authority of the Church ended. You say “ended with the apostles”, but have offered no evidence yet.

That notwithstanding, IF the binding and loosing authority ended with the Apostles, you’ll have to tell us how that does NOT constitute the gates of hell prevailing against the Church, since that would mean that the Church had no such authority between ~70 AD and at least 1522 AD when the Lutheran church was founded (although since you’re not a Lutheran you have to say some time even later).

Moreover, you have to explain how this could be given that the New Testament itself was not in place until the 2nd century and not authoritatively canonized until the 4th. At which point you then have to explain how the Church, lacking binding and loosing authority, managed to get the Bible right at all.

Then we’ll get to which of the seven ecumenical councils, if any, are valid.

All of which is prefatory to your explanation as to precisely what basis your community uses to accept or reject the tradition of the Catholic Church.

 

[wisdomseeker]

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.

you guys have been fighting St Peter’s chair for about 450 years now. is it not enough years of defeat for you? how many more years do you need to realize that Truth cannot be defeated?

**Tertullian

In the third century, “If we desire indeed to act the part of open enemies, not merely of secret offenders, would there be any lacking of strength, whether of numbers or resources?” “We are but of yesterday and we have already filled every place among you – cities, islands, fortresses, towns, marketplaces, the very camp, tribes, companies, palace, senate and forum. We have left nothing for you but the temples of your idols, for now it is the immense number of Christians which make your enemies so few, almost all the inhabitants of your various cities being followers of Christ.” **

 

[sandusky]

Teflon93:

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

You linked to an article that had a few a lines concerning the bodily assumption with no scripture references to Mary, and nothing about papal infallibility, umkay.

Teflon93:

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

You said you had Scriptural support for the institution of Sacraments, but you don’t.

The reason you have no scriptural support is that sacraments are an invention of your church.

Teflon93:

The Early Church Fathers, many of whom are saints, learned at the feet of the Apostles.

Please list all of the Early Church Fathers, and then list all who claim to have been personally taught by the Apostles, and include support for the latter.

Teflon93:

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

That’s not the point, Teflon; you said ***scriptural support—***where is it?

 

[SemperReformada]

Yes, 151 posts after it was asked. Now that you put it this way, though, it looks like you didn’t answer it at all.

The Creedal form is that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one in being. Agree or disagree?

Agree.

The Catechism, which is a compendium of Church Tradition, defines it both conceptually and in its being. It further references, through the footnotes provided, Sacred Scripture and other Church documents.

Documents which you still haven’t bothered to look into.

I have a copy of the CCC and it doesn’t answer my question either.

And please note that you have yet to even glancingly come to grips with my follow up question, which was "if Protestants acknowledge no definitive list of what St Paul meant by Tradition, on what basis therefore do you eliminate certain traditions given St Paul’s clear instruction to Timothy that he was to obey both oral and written Tradition?

My point is…I can’t believe you haven’t gotten my point yet… is that it is futile for a catholic to offer up 2Thess2:15 as a proof for “tradition” since you can’t identify what traditions Paul was referring to.

I reject the catholic attempt to read their particular theology into this verse when they can’t define the key term.

Since Protestants by your own admission don’t know what tradition IS, how then do they profess to know what it ISN’T?

Not to mention that no two Protestant communities posess the same tradition.

You still don’t get it. How can you possibly use 2Thess2:15 as a proof text when you can’t define the key term which you hope to prove?

 

[SemperReformada]

you guys have been fighting St Peter’s chair for about 450 years now. is it not enough years of defeat for you? how many more years do you need to realize that Truth cannot be defeated?

I’m not trying to defeat truth.

 

[SemperReformada]

So to your thinking the Nicene Creed may be wrong?

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit may not in fact be one in being?

Just looking to clarify; I prefer not to waste my time arguing your acceptance of the Trinity if you are not in fact Trinitarian.

I don’t hold the creeds to be the equivalent of scripture…that’s a far cry from denying the Trinity.

Do you often put words in other peoples mouths? You are coming very close with your last post and I am pretty sure that would cause you to go to confession.

Not at all—I’ve asked you repeatedly WHEN the binding and loosing authority of the Church ended. You say “ended with the apostles”, but have offered no evidence yet.

That notwithstanding, IF the binding and loosing authority ended with the Apostles, you’ll have to tell us how that does NOT constitute the gates of hell prevailing against the Church, since that would mean that the Church had no such authority between ~70 AD and at least 1522 AD when the Lutheran church was founded (although since you’re not a Lutheran you have to say some time even later).

Moreover, you have to explain how this could be given that the New Testament itself was not in place until the 2nd century and not authoritatively canonized until the 4th. At which point you then have to explain how the Church, lacking binding and loosing authority, managed to get the Bible right at all.

The faith is still alive thus the gates of hell have not prevailed.

The church did declare the canon of the NT but the RCC didn’t infallibly declare the canon of the OT until Trent. Carthage and Hippo were not ecumenical councils. Regardless, I don’t believe that the canon is infallible nor do I believe there are errors…accepting the addition of the apocrypha by the RCC.

Then we’ll get to which of the seven ecumenical councils, if any, are valid.

All of which is prefatory to your explanation as to precisely what basis your community uses to accept or reject the tradition of the Catholic Church.

The councils are valid as far as they are in accord with scripture.

Much of the tradition of the RCC I do reject because of no scriptural evidence…the assumption comes to mind.

 

[greystoke]

Thanks, but I’ll have to steer you toward Church Militant, Mikeledes, Philthy, clmowry, Br. Rich SFO, Pax, tgdesq, and others on the Apologetics Forum, not to mention CAF’s in-house apologists—they are my superiors in every fashion.

For anyone interested in argumentation, this college-level treatment of it from The Teaching Company is top-notch:

teach12.com/ttcx/CourseDescLong2.aspx?cid=4294

Thanks for the info Teflon

 

[Teflon93]

You linked to an article that had a few a lines concerning the bodily assumption with no scripture references to Mary, and nothing about papal infallibility, umkay.

Caught the dishonesty bug, have we?

From the article:

The Immaculate Conception

It’s important to understand what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is and what it is not. Some people think the term refers to Christ’s conception in Mary’s womb without the intervention of a human father; but that is the Virgin Birth. Others think the Immaculate Conception means Mary was conceived “by the power of the Holy Spirit,” in the way Jesus was, but that, too, is incorrect. The Immaculate Conception means that Mary, whose conception was brought about the normal way, was conceived without original sin or its stain—that’s what “immaculate” means: without stain. The essence of original sin consists in the deprivation of sanctifying grace, and its stain is a corrupt nature. Mary was preserved from these defects by God’s grace; from the first instant of her existence she was in the state of sanctifying grace and was free from the corrupt nature original sin brings.

When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference may be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. **The angel Gabriel said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you” (Luke 1:28). The phrase “full of grace” is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary. **

The traditional translation, “full of grace,” is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of “highly favored daughter.” Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for “daughter”). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.

and

The Assumption

The doctrine of the Assumption says that at the end of her life on earth Mary was assumed, body and soul, into heaven, just as Enoch, Elijah, and perhaps others had been before her. It’s also necessary to keep in mind what the Assumption is not. Some people think Catholics believe Mary “ascended” into heaven. That’s not correct. Christ, by his own power, ascended into heaven. Mary was assumed or taken up into heaven by God. She didn’t do it under her own power.

The Church has never formally defined whether she died or not, and the integrity of the doctrine of the Assumption would not be impaired if she did not in fact die, but the almost universal consensus is that she did die. Pope Pius XII, in Munificentissimus Deus (1950), defined that Mary, “after the completion of her earthly life” (note the silence regarding her death), “was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven.”

The possibility of a bodily assumption before the Second Coming is suggested by Matthew 27:52–53: “[T]he tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.” Did all these Old Testament saints die and have to be buried all over again? There is no record of that, but it is recorded by early Church writers that they were assumed into heaven, or at least into that temporary state of rest and happiness often called “paradise,” where the righteous people from the Old Testament era waited until Christ’s resurrection (cf. Luke 16:22, 23:43; Heb. 11:1–40; 1 Pet. 4:6), after which they were brought into the eternal bliss of heaven.

 

[Teflon93]

You said you had Scriptural support for the institution of Sacraments, but you don’t.

It’s called The New Testament, Sandusky—perhaps you’ll read it one day.

We have had separate threads for each sacrament in turn. Your amnesia is regrettable.

Since there is no danger of any lurker here being misled by your derailment attempt, I’ll simply direct them to this search feature and trust they—unlike yourself—will honestly inquire as they so desire:

forums.catholic-questions.org/search.php?searchid=2492258

The reason you have no scriptural support is that sacraments are an invention of your church.

Your lousy catechesis rears its head again!

The sacraments were instituted by Christ during his earthly ministry. We do as Christ did. Moreover, unlike Protestants, we don’t have power to change the sacraments. We cannot stop baptizing because somebody wearing an expensive Italian suit elects to stop doing so. We cannot ordain women because Christ did not do so. We cannot marry two men or two women, because Christ did not do so.

And, most importantly, Sandusky, we cannot throw apostolic succession out the window and proclaim ourselves priests of Christ by putting up a sign in an empty hall.

Please list all of the Early Church Fathers, and then list all who claim to have been personally taught by the Apostles, and include support for the latter.

Why? What’s the purpose of this particular fishing expedition, Sandusky?

I’ve got 38 volumes of Early Church Fathers’ writings on my shelf.

Most of it is available here:

newadvent.org/fathers/

You can read them for yourself and see which were taught by the Apostles. Not that you will.

What’s the point?

That’s not the point, Teflon; you said ***scriptural support—***where is it?

Yes, typical Sandusky. Ignore evidence provided without even looking at it.

Meanwhile, St Paul has already contradicted the premise of your question: although the sacraments are reflected in Scripture, instituted by Christ during his ministry and continued by the Apostles (unless you’ve hacked Acts out of your Bible as well, Sandusky), not all of Church tradition is found in Scripture.

Based on your rejection of the Eucharist and other sacraments contained therein, you clearly do not believe that Scriptural basis for Tradition matters very much, do you?

 

[Teflon93]

While we’re at it, has anyone else noticed that neither SemperReformada nor Sandusky have provided ANY evidence for their claims whatsoever, whether Scripture, links, patristic writings, anything?

I’ll tell you why everyone isn’t Catholic—not everyone wishes to READ.

 

[Teflon93]

I don’t hold the creeds to be the equivalent of scripture…that’s a far cry from denying the Trinity.

So why not a simple yes or no?

Do you often put words in other peoples mouths? You are coming very close with your last post and I am pretty sure that would cause you to go to confession.

Ahh, an insincere concern for my soul to compound the bearing of false witness!

I didn’t put words in your mouth—you keep mealymouthing your response. Why not speak clearly? What have you to fear?

It’s the best defense against misinterpretation, isn’t it?

We’ll put you down as Trinitarian, then.

The faith is still alive thus the gates of hell have not prevailed.

Okay—define your terms. What does “faith is still alive” mean? Was it continuously so—ie, was there no period of time between Pentecost and today when the faith was not alive?

The church did declare the canon of the NT but the RCC didn’t infallibly declare the canon of the OT until Trent. Carthage and Hippo were not ecumenical councils. Regardless, I don’t believe that the canon is infallible nor do I believe there are errors…accepting the addition of the apocrypha by the RCC.

When were these “apocrypha” added?

The councils are valid as far as they are in accord with scripture.

You do realize that there would be no need whatsoever for councils at all were Scripture the determinant, right? See 2 Peter 3.

Much of the tradition of the RCC I do reject because of no scriptural evidence…the assumption comes to mind.

Which precisely do you reject and which do you accept?

 

[SemperReformada]

Caught the dishonesty bug, have we?

Why do you accuse Sandusky of dishonesty? Could it possibly be he went to the other link?

You are quick to judge. Were you picked on as a child on the playground?

 

[wisdomseeker]

While we’re at it, has anyone else noticed that neither SemperReformada nor Sandusky have provided ANY evidence for their claims whatsoever, whether Scripture, links, patristic writings, anything?

I’ll tell you why everyone isn’t Catholic—not everyone wishes to READ.

no Teflon, many just stopped believing in faith and adhere to only what they see and understand. it is much easy for them to adhere to what they understand than to belief what they dont understand. for many is even embarass to believe something they dont understand.

Catholic lives by faith and not by sight. " i dont care if they believe or not, as for me and my house we will serve the Lord."

 

[Teflon93]

Why do you accuse Sandusky of dishonesty? Could it possibly be he went to the other link?

Because he claimed there weren’t Scriptural references in that article and there were, which is why I posted it.

His response was dishonest.

You are quick to judge. Were you picked on as a child on the playground?

Nope—football linemen tend not to get picked on much.

Dishonesty’s pretty easy to judge when somebody lies about a link.

It takes longer if they’re simply very evasive.