Why Isn't Everyone Catholic?

[SemperReformada]

So why not a simple yes or no?

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.

I am very conerned for your soul…that’s why I am here.

BTW, I answered your question on the Trinity with a clear yes so I don’t know what you are talking about…mealy mouthed?

Do you actually use “mealy mouthed” and “heresiarch” in conversation with your friends or do you reserve this for the forum?

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 faith has perservered and will eternally.

When were these “apocrypha” added?

That’s a tough question to answer. The councils of Hippo and Carthage included them but they were just provincial councils and therefore not binding…Trent was the first dogmatic declaration…I don’t know how i would argue for the time of the addition. Just for fun, let’s go with Trent with the acknowledgement that the apocrypha were in use earlier.

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

How so? Not sure what you mean here.

No way for me to give you a list of every RCC tradition that I disagree with since your church hasn’t published such a list.

 

[Teflon93]

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."

This is very true. My wife and I were discussing last night how deep the faith is and how it is the work of a lifetime to begin even to plumb its depths.

So much different than the shallowness of those communities we experienced before conversion, some of which greatly discouraged digging too deeply into history or theology.

We have several Protestant friends considering conversion at the moment with whom we’re able to share this. CAF certainly helps the journey a lot; I’m finding that studying the ECFs very much reinforces Cardinal Newman’s aphorism that to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.

Ahh—yet another reason why everyone isn’t Catholic:

They don’t know their history.

 

[SemperReformada]

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

His response was dishonest.

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.

I betcha he just went to the other link you provided…didn’t you provide two?

 

[SemperReformada]

Cardinal Newman’s aphorism that to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.

Ahh—yet another reason why everyone isn’t Catholic:

They don’t know their history.

Didn’t Newman have significant issues with papal infallibility…realizing that there was no basis for it in the early church?

 

[Teflon93]

I am very conerned for your soul…that’s why I am here.

You’ve demonstrated that concern throughout this thread, brother. Er, since your last post, anyway.

BTW, I answered your question on the Trinity with a clear yes so I don’t know what you are talking about…mealy mouthed?

Look back at the post. It a) wasn’t clearly referencing my question and b) you backed away from it moments later. And it took 151 posts and 13 reminders to get it!

Do you actually use “mealy mouthed” and “heresiarch” in conversation with your friends or do you reserve this for the forum?

They are integral parts of my vocabulary. I use them universally, as the Queen’s English is fit for both pub and publication.

The faith has perservered and will eternally.

We need a bit more definition still—what do you mean by this?

For example, let’s say the entire world was Muslim but for one Unitarian. Is the faith alive?

That’s a tough question to answer. The councils of Hippo and Carthage included them but they were just provincial councils and therefore not binding…Trent was the first dogmatic declaration…I don’t know how i would argue for the time of the addition. Just for fun, let’s go with Trent with the acknowledgement that the apocrypha were in use earlier.

Okay. When was Scripture canonized? If Trent’s the date in your view when Scripture was added to, when was Scripture properly canonized?

How so? Not sure what you mean here.

I’ll give you a for-instance—why was the Council of Nicea held?

Pick a tradition out of the Catechism.

Or, since Anti-Catholics have never been reticent on this–ask Sandusky to point you to resources listing the typically objectionable ones and subtract the acceptable if any.

 

[Teflon93]

I betcha he just went to the other link you provided…didn’t you provide two?

No, I only provided one.

For the sacramental question, I very thoughtfully provided a Scripture verse or two for each sacrament. There are more of course, but I didn’t have an exhaustive list handy and one was sufficient to debunk the allegation.

 

[SemperReformada]

Okay. When was Scripture canonized? If Trent’s the date in your view when Scripture was added to, when was Scripture properly canonized?

For your church the OT was dogmatically declared and promulgated to the church universal for the first time at Trent.

 

[SemperReformada]

No, I only provided one.

For the sacramental question, I very thoughtfully provided a Scripture verse or two for each sacrament. There are more of course, but I didn’t have an exhaustive list handy and one was sufficient to debunk the allegation.

Well, if you provided only one link then Sandusky will have to speak for himself. I betcha he wasn’t being dishonest though.

 

[Teflon93]

Didn’t Newman have significant issues with papal infallibility…realizing that there was no basis for it in the early church?

That I don’t recall. I read “Apologia Pro Vita Sua” again several months ago but thought that his issues with papal authority preceded his conversion.

There was a dispute at the time among the cardinals as to whether as a practical matter dogmatically defining it would tend to encourage or wound Church unity but that was very much not a theological argument—the Throne of St Peter having been recognized as a bulwark against heresy since the earliest days of the Church as St Paul’s epistle to the Romans demonstrates.

The infallibility issue has of course been discussed many, many times in other threads and so I won’t go too deeply into that here beyond noting that I don’t recall Newman’s stance.

Perhaps others do.

 

[Teflon93]

For your church the OT was dogmatically declared and promulgated to the church universal for the first time at Trent.

I’m asking your opinion—you obviously don’t believe that there was no official Bible until Trent, right?

So what’s the early date?

 

[Teflon93]

Well, if you provided only one link then Sandusky will have to speak for himself. I betcha he wasn’t being dishonest though.

Well, look at his post, look at the link, and judge for yourself.

 

[Teflon93]

Thanks for the info Teflon

You’re welcome.

 

[nbtb1348]

Well, if you provided only one link then Sandusky will have to speak for himself. I betcha he wasn’t being dishonest though.

As we know, there are only certain writings that are the inspired Word of God. They are alive and powerful and profitable for doctrine, correction, reproof and instruction in righteousness. And they were doing that before they were ever ‘canonized’. The official canonization of Scripture was a good thing. But all it did was formally recognize which writings were already alive and changing lives!

 

[sandusky]

Teflon93:

Caught the dishonesty bug, have we?

You said you can offer a scriptural basis for the bodily assumption of Mary, and for Papal infallibility. Here’s what you said:

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

Here are the verses you’ve offered as scriptural support for the bodily assumption of Mary: Matthew 27:52–53; Luke 16:22, 23:43; Heb. 11:1–40; 1 Pet. 4:6.

In which of those verses is Mary mentioned?

Anyone care to help out Teflon93 with that question?

You’ve offered no scriptural support for papal infallibility.

Teflon93:

The sacraments were instituted by Christ during his earthly ministry…

Where did Christ institute seven sacraments, Teflon93?

Teflon93:

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

To make you support your assertion, Teflon93—you’re always long on assertion, but short on support.

List the ECFs who were personally taught by the apostles so that we can know the number of them.

I’ve asked four times now for you to support the bodily assumption of Mary and papal infallibility and sacraments. You’ve yet to do that.

I’ve asked two times I’ve for you to support your assertion of the ECFs personally taught by the apostles. You’ve yet to do that.

Teflon93:

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

Typical Teflon93—can’t support any of his assertions, and when called to do so, breaks in to the Vatican shuffle.

You’re move 2nd Lt.

 

[Teflon93]

I have to sign off for the evening. I’ll reply to any further developments or questions tomorrow.

 

[Teflon93]

You said you can offer a scriptural basis for the bodily assumption of Mary, and for Papal infallibility. Here’s what you said:Here are the verses you’ve offered as scriptural support for the bodily assumption of Mary: Matthew 27:52–53; Luke 16:22, 23:43; Heb. 11:1–40; 1 Pet. 4:6.

In which of those verses is Mary mentioned?

The reasoning is given in the article. Changing the question doesn’t invalidate the answer.

Where did Christ institute seven sacraments, Teflon93?

To make you support your assertion, Teflon93—you’re always long on assertion, but short on support.

Check out the other threads—these have been done to death, Sandusky.

And when I see a post where you provide ANY evidence for an assertion, I’m gonna ring a bell at the cathedral.

These poor lurkers have been treated to a mountain of evidence in support of mine.

Back it up or sit it down, as they say, Sandusky!

List the ECFs who were personally taught by the apostles so that we can know the number of them.

I’ve asked four times now for you to support the bodily assumption of Mary and papal infallibility and sacraments. You’ve yet to do that.

Are you changing the question again? I’ve provided you a response—as the literate can see.

If you want to talk at length about this, go to one of the hundreds of threads on those topics, Sandusky.

No one’s getting sucked into yet another attempt by you to get a thread shut down for going astray. You’re too far from the 1000-post limit to run out the clock, either.

I’ve asked two times I’ve for you to support your assertion of the ECFs personally taught by the apostles. You’ve yet to do that.

I’ll embarrass you on that subject tomorrow.

Typical Teflon93—can’t support any of his assertions, and when called to do so, breaks in to the Vatican shuffle.

You’re move 2nd Lt.

lol—no move needed with you, Sandusky. You lose everytime you post.

 

[Teflon93]

And thanks for delaying my putting my son to bed to deal with more Sandusky derailment.

 

[sandusky]

I have to sign off for the evening. I’ll reply to any further developments or questions tomorrow.

“I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.”

 

[sandusky]

The reasoning is given in the article. Changing the question doesn’t invalidate the answer.

Check out the other threads—these have been done to death, Sandusky.

And when I see a post where you provide ANY evidence for an assertion, I’m gonna ring a bell at the cathedral.

These poor lurkers have been treated to a mountain of evidence in support of mine.

Back it up or sit it down, as they say, Sandusky!

Are you changing the question again? I’ve provided you a response—as the literate can see.

If you want to talk at length about this, go to one of the hundreds of threads on those topics, Sandusky.

No one’s getting sucked into yet another attempt by you to get a thread shut down for going astray. You’re too far from the 1000-post limit to run out the clock, either.

I’ll embarrass you on that subject tomorrow.

lol—no move needed with you, Sandusky. You lose everytime you post.

Do that Vatican Shuffle, Teflon93.

 

[sandusky]

And thanks for delaying my putting my son to bed to deal with more Sandusky derailment.

Spoken like a true liberal.

(Keep making statements like that, and you’ll become my favorite victim. :yup: )