Why Isn't Everyone Catholic?

[SemperReformada]

1. What sort of argument would you envision coming from Catholics that would lead you toward (if not to) the conclusion that Catholic dogma was inerrantly true?

Bubba,

That is an excellent question. I don’t know how to answer that right now…

This is one I am going to have to think about for a while.

 

[SemperReformada]

Semper,

Two questions come to mind:

1. What would lead you (and those listed above) to the conclusion that scripture was inerrant but that tradtion was not? What is the special property of recording tradition (which is essentially what scripture is) that leads to inerrancy?

My first reaction is because scripture is God breathed…which of course is circular in nature…this is another one I’ll have to think about.

 

[Arandur]

Wow, this thread has exploded.

Sorry, guys, but I just don’t think I can keep up with this thread. I’ll try and see if I can find time to read through and contribute something, but as it has grown several pages since I checked in yesterday, I just don’t think I have the time.

I will try to respond to anyone who has responded to me directly.

Sorry.

 

[Arandur]

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

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.

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.

You wanted a list. I offered a reference that is essentially a list. You just don’t accept it.

You wanted us to “somehow tie it back to Paul to mean anything.” We explained to you how we make the connection between what Paul stated and the “list.” It involved the context of the rest of the Scriptures and history. That is EXACTLY what you were requesting. You don’t agree with the connection. So the honest thing to do is discuss the connection–which is exactly what we’ve been trying to do.

One line of Scripture taken wholly out of context cannot be used to say much of anything; I believe that you understand this, and so attempting to force us to take one line of Scripture out of context to say something can’t be described as anything other than “dishonest.”

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

You want us to define a term out of context. That would be like saying the first time you ever came across the word “tradition,” in one sentence, trying to figure out what it means. That’s what you’re asking. Would you know what it meant “to Google something” entirely apart from any other frame of reference?

That’s why your demand is fundamentally absurd.

We have provided the context and frame of reference by which we define “tradition.” Just as we would have to provide context and frame of reference (computers, search engines, companies, development of the English language) to explain what “to Google” meant.

 

[Arandur]

Why I’m not a catholic:

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

If you believe that it is possible for you to be wrong, there are many Catholics willing to discuss this issue and explain why it is a proper interpretation–and to define the charism of infallibility correctly (most objections to it have to do with a misunderstanding of what it means).

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.

Read some history by scholars in the past few decades. You’ll likely find the Church comes off much better than the Protestant propagandists who wrote English histories (in particular) would have you belief. Not faultless, but comparing favorably against any other long-lived organization. Start with the Teaching Company’s audio courses, usually available at your local library. www.teach12.com

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.

I suppose you worship your pictures of your family? No? What are they good for, then? When you see a picture of your wife/child/father/good friend, does it remind you of them? Hmmmm…

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.

These are political views, not theological ones. CAF probably has more conservatives on it than liberals, but it is not hard to find disturbingly liberal Catholics (I’m conservative, so I find them disturbing )

 

[sandusky]

Regarding the ECFs taught by the Apostles…

Looking at the links provided by Teflon93 we see confirmed two men who were taught by the apostles.

For all of you lurkers out there who Teflon93 likes so much to address, as of this time, when Teflon93 says many of the ECFs learned at the feet of the apostles, MANY = TWO.

There are names Teflon93 offered without the dates of their existence, so perhaps he’ll find more, I don’t know, I didn’t look at the names, but at the dates of their births and deaths.

 

[Philthy]

SemperReformada:

I don’t believe that all of scripture is equally plain nor alike clear to everyone.

Agreed.

SemperReformada:

So I don’t see why having a council is a problem nor do I think the councils are a bad thing. They can clarify issues so why would they be bad?

Your turn: please provide an example of a “clarification” produced by any non-C council which is binding upon the faithful. Talk is cheap, friend!

semperreformada:

All of these men, to a man, believe in sola scriptura but yet saw a need to gather to clarify a position. So…I don’t see a problem with having a council.

One of the doctrines surrounding sola scriptura is the inherent clarity of Scripture. Some Protestants maintain that Scripture is perfectly clear on the “essentials” and requires no interpreting that the average person couldnt accomplish independent of a teaching authority.
One of the problems Catholics have in discussing such issues is the lack of uniformity in the Protestant communities. Apparently the group above has a more liberal understanding of sola scriptura. Does anybody have a universal definition of what Sola Scriptura actually means?

 

[nbtb1348]

Mother Teresa certainly didn’t think everyone needed to become Roman Catholic. She didn’t even think they needed to become Christians! Time magazine ran the article on her where it was documented that she told many dying patients who were not Christian to simply look to their own god for strength. What do you think about that??

 

[Pax]

Mother Teresa certainly didn’t think everyone needed to become Roman Catholic. She didn’t even think they needed to become Christians! Time magazine ran the article on her where it was documented that she told many dying patients who were not Christian to simply look to their own god for strength. What do you think about that??

I think that you have misunderstood Mother Teresa and you need to do much more research in order to get the whole picture. Mother Teresa’s mission was to help the poor and she had a special calling to help the dying do so with dignity. Please keep in mind that those that she and her sisters attended to are most often not only non-Christians, but are also hostile to Christianity.

She never brow beat the dying in an effort to get them to convert, but she was not passive either. There are many sides and aspects to her story that differ from the one sided view that you have presented. Did you realize for example that various individuals, including Christopher Hitchens, Michael Parenti, Aroup Chatterjee, Vishva Hindu Parishad, railed against the proselytizing focus of her work including death bed baptisms?

Skip the cursory looks at Mother Teresa and check out everything she did. She was an amazing missionary for the Lord.

 

[Teflon93]

You only asked me to pick a tradition…I picked the assumption. I don’t recall you asking me about a tradition that was dogmatized after a particular debate.

I don’t know when your church infallibly declared every tradition so I would rather stick w/ the assumption.

We are trying to determine the basis for your acceptance or rejection of Church tradition.

You claim—without offering any evidence whatsoever—that binding and loosing authority ended with the Apostles. That would have been no later than 100 AD.

Yet you accept the dogma of the Trinity from the Catholic Church, which while it appeared from the earliest times was not defined by your mistaken understanding until 325 AD. How was this so, since apostolic authority ended 225 years previously?

And if the authority was withdrawn in 100 AD yet Protestantism of whatever stripe you profess die not come along until 1522 at the earliest, how does 1,422 years of darkness not equate with the Gates of Hell prevailing against the Church?

 

[Teflon93]

SemperReformada;4716395:

What you are really saying is that Scripture is insufficient to let you know whether you have the entirety of the Apostolic faith.

This is an excellent point!

 

[Teflon93]

The heresies above occured under the watchful eye of the infallible magesterium. How could a heresy ever develop under a body that was infallbile and could guide believers to all truth. Why call a council, why not just have the pope make a ruling. Since he is infallible and everyone in the early church understood this, why not just ask him, why have a council?

Why don’t you ask St Paul? Are you questioning St Paul’s apostolic authority because the Corinthians chose to listen to heretics?

The fact is people ignore and misunderstand what your church teaches and also do the same with scripture.

Yes—finally an answer to the OP! And unlike the Ethiopian, their pride does not allow them to recognize that they do not individually possess all the answers. That’s why they’re not Catholic.

I don’t believe that all of scripture is equally plain nor alike clear to everyone. So I don’t see why having a council is a problem nor do I think the councils are a bad thing.

It is a question of formal or material sufficiency. Many Protestants however disagree with you.

They can clarify issues so why would they be bad? Not to many years ago a group of evangelical scholars gathered in Chicago to defend biblical inerrancy. This group included men such as Boice, Norman L. Geisler, John Gerstner, Carl F. H. Henry, Kenneth Kantzer, Harold Lindsell, John Warwick Montgomery, Roger Nicole, J.I. Packer, Robert Preus, Earl Radmacher, Francis Schaeffer, R.C. Sproul, and John Wenham. All of these men, to a man, believe in sola scriptura but yet saw a need to gather to clarify a position.

And what authority had they? Surely none to compare with the bishops at Nicea!

So…I don’t see a problem with having a council.

A Council of bishops of the Church in communion with the Vicar of Christ on Earth is part of Church tradition. It is also found within Scripture, in Acts when the Council of Jerusalem was held.

The problem is when men who have no authority—who cannot point to their apostolic succession, as St Paul and St Peter called for and as the ECFs—especially Irenaeus—demanded in order to demonstrate that the traditions one taught were valid. The trouble is you can’t tell heretic from orthodox without authority.

Otherwise a bunch of Word of Faithers getting together to defend “name it and claim it” is just as valid as the example you provided.

 

[Teflon93]

You wanted us to “somehow tie it back to Paul to mean anything.” We explained to you how we make the connection between what Paul stated and the “list.” It involved the context of the rest of the Scriptures and history. That is EXACTLY what you were requesting. You don’t agree with the connection. So the honest thing to do is discuss the connection–which is exactly what we’ve been trying to do.

Apostolic succession is of course the tie, as St Paul, St Peter, and ECFs like Irenaeus explained. SemperReformada really ought to read “Against Heresies” by the latter to get a better feel for how this worked in the early Church.

Since he currently rejects apostolic succession, there is a several century gap in his understanding of tradition.

 

[Teflon93]

Mother Teresa certainly didn’t think everyone needed to become Roman Catholic. She didn’t even think they needed to become Christians! Time magazine ran the article on her where it was documented that she told many dying patients who were not Christian to simply look to their own god for strength. What do you think about that??

I think Mother Theresa is a saint who succored the dying as best she could.

She was also not Pope, so one must not take her comforting the afflicted to be a theological disquisition on salvation outside the Church. If you were dying and one of our very orthodox bishops was on hand, he would attempt to comfort you in a similar fashion without requiring you to attend RCIA first. It is an act of mercy.

The Time article was also terribly biased against the Blessed Mother. Read her biography instead.

My retired bishop happened to be her confessor for many years and I can assure you that Mother Theresa’s views on Catholicism were quite orthodox. For example, she didn’t just run out and start the organization which would make her famous. After being told to do so by Christ, Mother Theresa patiently requested permission of the Church to do so, a process of discernment which takes some time.

But this is of course not a Mother Theresa thread. I suspect you’re not claiming that she wasn’t Catholic!

 

[Aaron409]

Spot on. Time magazine is a hard core liberal left slanted magazine. They’ll do anything to bring down the christian, and more specific the catholic faith. But thats how most major new mediums are. God doesn’t exist to them, so they’ll do anything to cut us down and try to prove that one of ours really doesn’t believe.

 

[IrishJoe]

I doubt that makes Him a pathetic evangelist, it’s just a natural result of human stubbornness. It’s part of the joy of being human that some will add two and two, get five, and persist in thinking the correct answer is five no matter how many times you try to show them otherwise.

I’m yet to meet anyone who claims that.

I wouldn’t call over 1.1 billion Catholics losing ground.

Visit here, you are loosing ground. Badly.

The judgment on this thread speaks VOLUMEs.

My GF is anglican and doesn’t belive in birth control as that is actually only allowed in specific circumstances.

Of course, the notion that children can be raised “baptist/methodist” rather proves my point, right? No such denomination exists according to my research.

well ‘traditional catholic’ ‘Chrismas, easter, wedding and funeral-catholic’ isnt a denomination either. But they exist.

She never brow beat the dying in an effort to get them to convert, but she was not passive either. There are many sides and aspects to her story that differ from the one sided view that you have presented. Did you realize for example that various individuals, including Christopher Hitchens, Michael Parenti, Aroup Chatterjee, Vishva Hindu Parishad, railed against the proselytizing focus of her work including death bed baptisms?

yeah unless you gave explicit consent (difficult if you are dying) then its a rights violation.

And if the authority was withdrawn in 100 AD yet Protestantism of whatever stripe you profess die not come along until 1522 at the earliest, how does 1,422 years of darkness not equate with the Gates of Hell prevailing against the Church?

As long as there are chrisitans there is the church, ergo no prevailing by the devil.

 

[Teflon93]

Visit here, you are loosing ground. Badly.

I honeymooned in southern Ireland and got to journey all over the place. Just before leaving Bunratty to head to Shannon for our return flight, our host sprinkled us with holy water from a font mounted to her door to bless our journey. (We weren’t Catholic then).

Perhaps she didn’t get your memo.

The judgment on this thread speaks VOLUMEs.

Well, Christ was indifferent to belief or conduct, right? “Do as thou wilt” being his greatest commandment…er, wait, that wasn’t it…

My GF is anglican and doesn’t belive in birth control as that is actually only allowed in specific circumstances.

Good—follow her lead.

well ‘traditional catholic’ ‘Chrismas, easter, wedding and funeral-catholic’ isnt a denomination either. But they exist.

Another one forcefully missing the point!

That post was an attempted rebuttal to my claim that Protestants simply split whenever the going gets tough and form their own denomination. Look at the founding dates and where they split from and you’ll see it to be true.

yeah unless you gave explicit consent (difficult if you are dying) then its a rights violation.

What, will Brussels come down on Mother Theresa?

Funny how Europeans have lost any notion of what rights are or where they come from. Hint: they’re not manufactured by government bureaucrats. Regardless of the proliferation of street signs in Ireland since the EU business began.

As long as there are chrisitans there is the church, ergo no prevailing by the devil.

Then you shall have to define “Christian”, won’t you?

 

[sandusky]

Looking at the links provided by Teflon93 we see confirmed two men who were taught by the apostles.

For all of you lurkers out there who Teflon93 likes so much to address, as of this time, when Teflon93 says many of the ECFs learned at the feet of the apostles,
MANY ECFs taught at the feet of the apostles = TWO.

bump

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Looking at the links provided by Teflon93 we see confirmed two men who were taught by the apostles.

For all of you lurkers out there who Teflon93 likes so much to address, as of this time, when Teflon93 says many of the ECFs learned at the feet of the apostles, MANY = TWO.

There are names Teflon93 offered without the dates of their existence, so perhaps he’ll find more, I don’t know, I didn’t look at the names, but at the dates of their births and deaths.

I can think of five: Polycarp, Ignatius,Barnabas, St. Papias and Clement. I bet there are more.

 

[sambos671]

Why would the church allow Jerome’s prologues to remain in the vulgate since they denied the canonocity of the deutero’s?

I guess I’m not sure what you are saying. Could you re-phrase it…sorry for asking you to do more work but I don’t think I quite get you here.

Those were the views he held and explained them as he saw it. Keep in mind that under obedience to the Pope, Jerome still included those works and did not leave them out as he wanted. You have to view those notes like commentary. They are not on the same level as scripture nor do they overide the Papal insistance that these book in the LXX were included.

As a side note, I have noted in my professional life that technical people have the issue of being short sited. Or not always noting the bigger picture. IT guys always see issues from their end not understanding how it translates to operations usage. Its the problem of not seeing the forest for the trees. Jerome spent his life studing scriptures and agreed with the Jewish view for the Tanakh trying as hard as he could to get to the most original source he could. However, in light of tradition and writings of usage from the ECF it is clear that the LXX played a formative role in the Early Church and is referrenced with Tradition. The Pope playing an executive role (using my modern context) took a decisive decision to include the books despite Jerome’s view due to his larger view. The key to note is Jeromes willingness to submit to his authority.