Why Isn't Everyone Catholic?

[SemperReformada]

Yes you do. You will not find the Trinity explicitly defined in Scripture, indeed, evidence on a surface reading runs AGAINST it. (“Father, why have you forsaken me?” et al).

No I don’t understand you.

You seem to be trying to force the Catholic view of authority on me when I don’t accept what you believe.

I don’t believe any council is infallible or any one person. It’s really that simple. So, again, I just don’t get what you are trying to illustrate here.

Since by your claim the binding and loosing authority of the Church ended with the Apostles, on what basis do you accept the Trinity—which speaks of the very nature of God—225 years after this?

The Trinity can be pulled from the scriptures because that’s the basis of the doctrine. I know your next move is going to be to challenge me to do it but whether or not I can do it is irrelevant and in fact I admitted that I am not up to that task.

Indeed, Sandusky places a high premium on apostolic succession—it’s why he foolishly tried to claim that the ECFs DIDN’T learn from the Apostles, as though they made their theology up out of whole cloth as he has done.

I quickly scanned your link and according to the dates it appears that Sandusky was correct. It looks like there were only a few…two perhaps, that lived while the apostles were alive.

I’ll go back and look at the link.

.

Do you believe that Catholics are Christians, accepting as they do the authority of the Pope as Vicar of Christ on Earth?

I believe you are mistaken but yes, I believe you can be a Christian.

 

[Teflon93]

Was Peter sitting on the chair of Peter at the time?

Yes, when he wasn’t standing on the feet of Peter.

Was there a magesterium?

Sure was—read St Paul’s, St Jude’s, St Peter’s, and St James’ epistles.

Also check out Justin Martyr, Eusebius, and Irenaeus.

Did anyone speak infallibly?

Perhaps you can show us where the Apostles made erroneous statements concerning the faith, or how the Roman Church was renowned for falling into heresy.

Why was Mary not consulted?

Who says she wasn’t? Why do you think those early Catholics gathered in catacombs?

Doesnt act like the “Catholic Church” to me.

Well, read Justin Martyr’s 1st Apology and see what the liturgy he describes resembles.

 

[SemperReformada]

Okay—let’s say the Assumption dates to 400.

Do you accept any Catholic tradition after 400?

Teflon,

The point of my post was that no one can trace the assumption back to the first century much less the apsotles…that was it…a stand alone point.

Do I accept Catholic tradition after 400? Please provide a list of all Catholic traditions that were established after the year 400 and maybe I can answer your question.

 

[Teflon93]

No I don’t understand you.

You seem to be trying to force the Catholic view of authority on me when I don’t accept what you believe.

I don’t believe any council is infallible or any one person. It’s really that simple. So, again, I just don’t get what you are trying to illustrate here.

On what basis do you accept the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit being one in being?

The Trinity can be pulled from the scriptures because that’s the basis of the doctrine. I know your next move is going to be to challenge me to do it but whether or not I can do it is irrelevant and in fact I admitted that I am not up to that task.

LOL—you cannot do it because it cannot be done. You are confounding the fact that the Trinity is not contradicted by Scripture with the notion that it is explicated within Scripture. It is not.

It does show up very, very early in Church tradition however. I have asked you many times now how that can be—the answer is “because the Apostles taught it, having learned it from Christ.”

It wasn’t dogmatically defined until Nicea simply because there was no crisis of heretics challenging the Trinity until then. That is how Catholic dogma gets defined—some heretic comes along disputing Tradition without authority and the Church codifies it using their binding and loosing authority passed down from the Apostles thru apostolic succession.

I quickly scanned your link and according to the dates it appears that Sandusky was correct. It looks like there were only a few…two perhaps, that lived while the apostles were alive.

Oh, for God’s sake!

1. 2 is infinitely more than zero even were that the case.
2. The ECFs of the period were unanimous in pointing to apostolic succession. Where is the evidence AGAINST?
3. How precisely is it that all the people the Apostles taught as indicated in Scripture evaporated in the 1st century? The whole point of the 2 Thess 2:15 discussion was St Paul passing the torch to Timothy…do you think Timothy dropped it and walked away?

But I thank you for demonstrating again why the Ethiopian was correct and the utility of Christ founding a Church rather than writing a book.

I believe you are mistaken but yes, I believe you can be a Christian.

Feel free to point out my error and provide evidence for it. I’d look at Scripture were I you for the reason the Church teaches as she does on this issue.

 

[Teflon93]

Teflon,

The point of my post was that no one can trace the assumption back to the first century much less the apsotles…that was it…a stand alone point.

Do I accept Catholic tradition after 400? Please provide a list of all Catholic traditions that were established after the year 400 and maybe I can answer your question.

Just look at any council after 400—again, your incorrect definition of “established” is when dogmatically defined. That is not the proper definition, but I am following your logic, not mine.

Since you have not made clear what precisely you believe, I cannot aid you beyond that.

There is no such thing as a standalone point—the Church is a seamless garment.

 

[Teflon93]

And because the infallible claims of Pope Sandusky I have been called into question, here is the article on apostolic succession with nice big ECF excerpts.

Apostolic Succession

The first Christians had no doubts about how to determine which was the true Church and which doctrines the true teachings of Christ. The test was simple: Just trace the apostolic succession of the claimants.

Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations (most of which do not even claim to have bishops).

The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.

The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases.

Thus the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, “[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it” (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).

For the early Fathers, “the identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . . . [A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. Indeed, the Church’s bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed ‘an infallible charism of truth’” (ibid.).

Thus on the basis of experience the Fathers could be “profoundly convinced of the futility of arguing with heretics merely on the basis of Scripture. The skill and success with which they twisted its plain meaning made it impossible to reach any decisive conclusion in that field” (ibid., 41).

Pope Clement I

“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

Hegesippus

“When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the law, the prophets, and the Lord” (Memoirs, cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4:22 [A.D. 180]).

 

[Teflon93]

Irenaeus

“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3:3:2).

“Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time” (ibid., 3:3:4).

“Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth, so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. . . . For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant conversation, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question?” (ibid., 3:4:1).

“*t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth” (ibid., 4:26:2).

“The true knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere” (ibid., 4:33:8).

 

[Teflon93]

Tertullian

“[The apostles] founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive Church, [founded] by the apostles, from which they all [spring]. In this way, all are primitive, and all are apostolic, while they are all proved to be one in unity” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 20 [A.D. 200]).

“[W]hat it was which Christ revealed to them [the apostles] can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches which the apostles founded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves . . . If then these things are so, it is in the same degree manifest that all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches—those molds and original sources of the faith must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, [and] Christ from God. Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged as false which savors of contrariety to the truth of the churches and apostles of Christ and God. It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto proceed from falsehood” (ibid., 21).

“But if there be any [heresies] which are bold enough to plant [their origin] in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [their first] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men—a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter” (ibid., 32).

“But should they even effect the contrivance [of composing a succession list for themselves], they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles [as contained in other churches], will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory” (ibid.).

“Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic Church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith” (ibid.).

Cyprian of Carthage

“[T]he Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if she is with [the heretic] Novatian, she was not with [Pope] Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop [of Rome], Fabian, by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honor of the priesthood the Lord glorified also with martyrdom, Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way” (Letters 69[75]:3 [A.D. 253]).

Jerome

“Far be it from me to speak adversely of any of these clergy who, in succession from the apostles, confect by their sacred word the Body of Christ and through whose efforts also it is that we are Christians” (Letters 14:8 [A.D. 396]).

Augustine

“[T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15–17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house” (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 4:5 [A.D. 397]).

 

[SemperReformada]

Just look at any council after 400—again, your incorrect definition of “established” is when dogmatically defined. That is not the proper definition, but I am following your logic, not mine.

I don’t think you have a clue as to what I believe but I may be wrong.

Can you please tell me what you think I believe?

There is no such thing as a standalone point—the Church is a seamless garment.

The fact that there is no evidence to tie the assumption back to anywhere with in a few centuries is an example of a stand alone point. That doesn’t make the assumption false but nevertheless it’s a fact that there is a several century gap between the apostles and the earliest evidence of the assumption.

 

[sandusky]

SemperReformada:

LOL—you cannot do it because it cannot be done. You are confounding the fact that the Trinity is not contradicted by Scripture with the notion that it is explicated within Scripture. It is not.

Yes you do. You will not find the Trinity explicitly defined in Scripture, indeed, evidence on a surface reading runs AGAINST it. (“Father, why have you forsaken me?” et al).

Amazing!!!

**SemperReformada, **you are correct.

The Trinity is explicit in the Scriptures. The Scriptures is where those who defined the Trinity gleaned the definition.

Teflon93 believes that because he cannot find the Trinity in Scripture, that it doesn’t exist. (Futhermore, he’s operating from another’s apologetic. If Teflon93 would only study scripture, but he won’t )

But, Teflon93 does believe that the IC of Mary is in Scripture, and that Mary ever sinless:**Luke 1:28
And coming in, he said to her, “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.” **It’s all right there. ( )

According to Teflon93, there’s nothing about the Trinity in the Scripture, but Lk 1:28 contains all of the info one needs to declare Mary immaculately conceived and perpetually sinless, even though many of the ECFs said she sinned.

That’s another reason why not everyone is Catholic: the true members of the Body of Christ are not gullible.

Here’s a good rule-of-thumb, SemperReformada: the pronouncements of RC councils and popes that are supported by Scripture should be embraced, those pronouncements of RC councils and popes that are not supported by Scripture must be rejected.

 

[sandusky]

Teflon93:

Sandusky never answers questions—he simply makes infallible pronouncements of his own authority.

Still patiently waiting for you to give the scriptural basis for the Assumption of Mary, papal infallibility, and Jesus instituting the sacraments.

Here’s an example of the Scriptural basis for the resurrection of Jesus:**1 Thessalonians 1:9-10

For they themselves report about us what kind of a reception we had with you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve a living and true God,

and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, that is Jesus, who rescues us from the wrath to come.**If you need a little more time, take it; I understand your difficulty navigating scripture, a difficulty you don’t share in navigating the catechism.

 

[sandusky]

And because the infallible claims of Pope Sandusky I have been called into question, here is the article on apostolic succession with nice big ECF excerpts.

I reject apostolic succession.

Nevertheless, were it true, it is not the equivalent of sitting and learning at the feet of the apostles.

It seems that I was right; namely, you were projecting your actions when you suggested I had caught the “dishonesty bug.”

It’s you who’s been dishonest all along concerning ECFs learning at the feet of the apostles. :tsktsk:

 

[sandusky]

Teflon93:

On what basis do you accept the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit being one in being?

From the testimony in Scripture.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Still patiently waiting for you to give the scriptural basis for the Assumption of Mary, papal infallibility, and Jesus instituting the sacraments.

Here’s an example of the Scriptural basis for the resurrection of Jesus:1 Thessalonians 1:9-10

For they themselves report about us what kind of a reception we had with you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve a living and true God,

and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, that is Jesus, who rescues us from the wrath to come.If you need a little more time, take it; I understand your difficulty navigating scripture, a difficulty you don’t share in navigating the catechism.

you are going in circles… no Catholics ever said that Jesus did not raise from the dead. no Catholics ever said that Jesus is not the Savior of mankind. that is not the argument here.

the argument here is who was put in charge of what Jesus taught
and who was commanded to keep and safeguard the Truth so we of today, now can know the Truth. stop being confused and stick with the subject.

you cannot use Jesus against Catholics as if you so called Bible readers know more than the Church, Jesus Himself built.

stick with the subject. now i ask of you. show us any of Bible believers churches existed on first century, third century, fifth century and so forth and their councils. again stick with the subject.
:byzsoc:

 

[sandusky]

Sandusky never answers questions—he simply makes infallible pronouncements of his own authority.

Waiting for Godot was more fruitful than waiting for Sandusky to answer a question or provide evidence—the aim is derailment of the thread.

The question was not posed to me, Teflon93.

 

[sandusky]

you are going in circles… no Catholics ever said that Jesus did not raise from the dead. no Catholics ever said that Jesus is not the Savior of mankind. that is not the argument here.

the argument here is who was put in charge of what Jesus taught.

That has nothing to do with my request that Teflon93 support his assertions.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Amazing!!!
That’s another reason why not everyone is Catholic: the true members of the Body of Christ are not gullible.

What happened to the filter that prevents a “true christian” that loves his neighbor from saying such thing about another group of brother christians?

It seem as if there is a disagreement on the teaching to the point of ones beliefs begins to resemble sin and heresy, were does the bible say we are to take this disagreement? Oh that’s right the Catholic Church!

Consider yourself informed by at least two of us. Your ideals and beliefs are not in line with Christ’s teaching nor his Church. Would you like the address for the nearest Catholic Church in your area to answer your misunderstandings as suggested by scripture?

It okay to answer “no” to the above question. Unfortunately not everyone can allow God’s grace to overcome their own pride, which leads them to misunderstanding about Christ’s Church.

One day, perhaps. with God’s Grace of course…

 

[sandusky]

stick with the subject. now i ask of you. show us any of Bible believers churches existed on first century, third century, fifth century and so forth and their councils. again stick with the subject.
:byzsoc:

I would certainly hope that the Church of the first, third and fifth centuries believed in the Bible, but perhaps they didn’t; perhaps you’re correct.

What evidence do you offer that the Church of the first, third and fifth centuries didn’t believe in the Bible, wisdomseeker?

 

[Arandur]

Was Peter sitting on the chair of Peter at the time? Was there a magesterium? Did anyone speak infallibly? Why was Mary not consulted?
Doesnt act like the “Catholic Church” to me.

Per Matthew 23:2 (IIRC), the “chair” is primarily an office and official capacity; it doesn’t have to be physical. So yes, at times Peter could well have made “ex cathedra” determination, as at the Council of Jerusalem. The “Magisterium” is essentially another word for a particular exercise of apostolic authority, so yes, it obviously existed in the Apostles and their early successors. The writers of the NT wrote infallibly, even recording instances of the Church acting infallibly–like at the Council of Jerusalem. So yes.

As for Mary, what are you getting at? She doesn’t have to be consulted, so far as I know. She is honored, and I sure bet while she was living with John she was part of many things.

 

[Arandur]

That’s another reason why not everyone is Catholic: the true members of the Body of Christ are not gullible