Why won’t the Protestant non-Catholic Christians here, argue with the real Catholic Apologists at CAF?

[sambos671]

And nobody but Catholic Apologists know Latin or Greek, of course!

I was of course kidding. But you can be serious.

 

[ckempston]

And there is the rub. I would agree that humans will mess things up. Sometimes, intentionally, more often by accedent. So, how do we resolve them? How do we maintain “consistancy”

Probably by being humble and seeking understanding, which is admittedly not the way this discussion has gone.

Then perhaps this is where we should start

I’m afraid this would be an exercise in futility. Catholics can’t change and Protestants won’t accept the exact Catholic definition.

I do not disagree. However, if there is a “visible” church, what does it mean to be visible?

If a bunch of people come to my house to have a Bible discussion, that is certainly visible. When we meet on Sundays we are certainly visible. Likewise when we serve the community together or any number of other things. I would tend to stop there. I imagine you would add a figurehead or hierarchical structure, which I would reject.

Yes and no. It is possible to have an authoritative church without a Magisterium. I guess my question is if Jesus intended his church to have authority

He surely did. He said as much. The difference seems to be the nature of that authority, who “wields” it, and whether it is “divine” in its operation (can it come up with new things), or simply administrative (maintaining).

I would make the following claims about that authority:

1. It could never contradict Christ or an Apostle.
2. It is a servant, not an authoritarian (e.g. the Nicolaitians).
3. Explicit Christ/Apostolic commands/administration would obviously be followed (taking care of poor/widows, expelling immoral brothers, collections, appointments, etc.)

I’m sure that list could be expaned, but that’s what I would start with.

 

[Steadfast]

Everyone’s faith is a matter of personal interpretation of something. Otherwise, it would not be personal at all.

What can be discussed is if personal interpretation of Scriptures is supposed to lead to different faith systems. It should also be discussed if Jesus founded a Church, if so which one, and if that CHurch has authority over anything.

But that is the point…what is really remarkable is not that Christians disagree over the nature of election or the end times, but that we agree on so much…far more than we disagree about and this is because the Bible is “not all alike clear” and where it is unclear there ought to be liberty.

 

[ralphinal]

But that is the point…what is really remarkable is not that Christians disagree over the nature of election or the end times, but that we agree on so much…far more than we disagree about and this is because the Bible is “not all alike clear” and where it is unclear there ought to be liberty.

This is always one of my biggies.

So, is infant baptism acceptable? You know good and well some say NOT AT ALL.

How many times can a person be baptised?

Real Presence?

The problem with liberty is that humans will not allow for different views.

 

[happilycatholic]

I know it’s Catholic doctrine, the problem is whether or not it’s true.

So, you’re admitting that your argument about personal interpretation is circular? I’m not following.

No the circular argument is trying to prove Scripture with Scripture. I believe the Church is infallible because it IS the Word of God handed down through Apostolic Tradition and does not stand on its own. It says so in scripture. I showed you that. There is no way to “prove” the argument unless you believe “the argument”. Thus a “circular argument” is created. So no again. I don’t need Scripture to prove to me that the Church is correct in its authority on faith and doctrine. The fact that you say me hearing the words and interpreting them is the same is elementary. Hearing is not interpreting.

I can’t prove to you that the Catholic Church holds The Deposit of Faith even with Scripture because you don’t believe Scripture says what the Church believes it says.

Moot point no matter what.

My point all along has been that it is a matter of personal faith/belief/interpretation for both Catholics and Protestants as to what is Truth. Therefore, either group attacking the other using this approach is special pleading.

Okay, who would you believe if the Bible didn’t exist? Would you believe a magesterium such as the Church’s or a minister such as one who is Baptist, Methodist, or the like? Or maybe a non-denominational church or an individual.

Remember, you don’t have the Bible. All you have is Luther nailing his discontent to the church door in rebellion. Or the Church who has the knowledge of The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. If it weren’t for the magesterium using their benefit of infallibility, you wouldn’t have the Bible that Catholics canonized to prove them wrong.

Of course again, a moot point.

I respect your opinion, but it is nontheless an opinion.

 

[ckempston]

Okay, who would you believe if the Bible didn’t exist? Would you believe a magesterium such as the Church’s or a minister such as one who is Baptist, Methodist, or the like? Or maybe a non-denominational church or an individual.

Remember, you don’t have the Bible. All you have is Luther nailing his discontent to the church door in rebellion. Or the Church who has the knowledge of The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. If it weren’t for the magesterium using their benefit of infallibility, you wouldn’t have the Bible that Catholics canonized to prove them wrong.

Of course again, a moot point.

I respect your opinion, but it is nontheless an opinion.

With or without the Bible, the Catholic church is still inconsistent and contradictory in its doctrines, and I would also have a hard time reconciling the atrocities against humans that were instigated by the church while it claims to follow someone who said to “turn the other cheek” and “love your enemy.” The problem with the Catholic church is not the Bible, but itself.

 

[happilycatholic]

With or without the Bible, the Catholic church is still inconsistent and contradictory in its doctrines, and I would also have a hard time reconciling the atrocities against humans that were instigated by the church while it claims to follow someone who said to “turn the other cheek” and “love your enemy.” The problem with the Catholic church is not the Bible, but itself.

That is precisely why you should go to an apologist for answers to these concerns. They are ligitimate questions and there are answers within the Church.

I think it would make an excellent question for an apologist.

 

[Peter_J]

It should also be discussed if Jesus founded a Church, if so which one,

Although, since this is more of a Catholic-Protestant discussion than a Catholic-Orthodox discussion, it’s therefore less a question of “which one” and more a question of “Branch Theory”.

 

[Peter_J]

Is it appropriate to point to one and say “that’s it!” I think that is the heart of the matter. The church is visible in the sense that it is made up of all Christians, but invisible because you cannot define a Christian on the basis of church membership, especially if said Christian is not living out the gospel.

When we (Catholics) speak of “one visible Church” we generally mean a Church that is visible united (as in full communion).

 

[Steadfast]

This is always one of my biggies.

So, is infant baptism acceptable? You know good and well some say NOT AT ALL.

How many times can a person be baptised?

Real Presence?

The problem with liberty is that humans will not allow for different views.

As with much in life, I think you have to pick your battles and the resources you are going to commit to fighting them.

These are matters over which you and I have far more agreement than either of us would have with many others and I am not saying that these things are unimportant or that we can fudge on them.

What I am saying though, to use another stupid metaphor, is that we shouldn’t miss the forest for the trees and behave as though because these things are important, even essential, our differences are greater than they really are.

In short, I don’t think these should be the measure by which we gauge the family likeness.

And my point really was that with the data we have: Scripture, tradition, history, language, etc. we have done a very good job of staying close. I attribute this to the Holy Spirit.

Where some would decry our divisions, I am, instead, continually amazed and humbled by our unity.

Which is why the thread about how one Catholic poster prefers atheists and pagans to Protestants really galled me.

Your point about humans not allowing for divergent views is well taken and speaks to something deep inside us which is out of balance with what we see in the world we live in.

We want absolute monolithic unity, or we think we do; we try to insist on it anyway and we always measure others by our own standard. But this is wrong. For us, Christ is the standard and He is the one who imposes it.

This is eschatological though; and until he does so, it would be better for us to deal more gently with one another than is our wont, poor sinners that we are.

 

[ckempston]

That is precisely why you should go to an apologist for answers to these concerns. They are ligitimate questions and there are answers within the Church.

I think it would make an excellent question for an apologist.

Concern? Is that what you call putting people to death for disagreeing? A “concern”?

If the Catholic church’s political influence hadn’t been marginalized by the Reformation and the Enlightenment in general (I am not necessarily endorsing either of these), it would still be putting people to death.

 

[happilycatholic]

Concern? Is that what you call putting people to death for disagreeing? A “concern”?

If the Catholic church’s political influence hadn’t been marginalized by the Reformation and the Enlightenment in general (I am not necessarily endorsing either of these), it would still be putting people to death.

**How simplistic of you. EDIT Maybe a little dramatic as well. **

---

No, that’s what I call you harboring discontent over something that’s not even remotely representative of the Church in current time.

But since you seem “hell-bent” on keeping this all to yourself to fester go right ahead. Do you have room in your heart for all the spoil that seems to reside there?

**Don’t forget to persecute romans, whites and many more for slavery, Germans for the persecution of Jews and other unfortunate groups of people they decided were not worthy of breathing air, oh and there’s the Puritans for burning all those witches. Do you have disdain for all whites because they persecuted, killed blacks? I could go on and on. **

**The current should not be defined by the past. If you believe that it can, then you don’t believe in forgiveness of sins. Nowhere in the Church’s doctrine (the Catechism) will you find that persecution or death of anyone is called for upon any reason. **

It’s really strange that you choose the catholic Church to persecute yourself for wrongs done. Maybe because it is so visible and that gives you an easy target. Maybe you are more like the Early Church than you think. You are persecuting people who had absolutely nothing to do with any of it. Maybe you should look at your past and be glad you are not defined by your sins.

**Persecute: **To oppress or harass with ill-treatment, especially because of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs.

You are incapable of seeing the splinter in my eye for the log in your own dear brother in Christ.

 

[happilycatholic]

Concern? Is that what you call putting people to death for disagreeing? A “concern”?

If the Catholic church’s political influence hadn’t been marginalized by the Reformation and the Enlightenment in general (I am not necessarily endorsing either of these), it would still be putting people to death.

---

---

You know, now that I think about it, this seems a lot less about what the Church has done in the past to anyone and more about what the Church may have done in the present to you.

---

What did the Catholic Church “do to” you?

 

[jim1130]

Concern? Is that what you call putting people to death for disagreeing? A “concern”?

If the Catholic church’s political influence hadn’t been marginalized by the Reformation and the Enlightenment in general (I am not necessarily endorsing either of these), it would still be putting people to death.

I presume you are talking about the inquisition. So, how many people were killed during the inquisition? Enough to shame even Adolf, Josef, and Mao combined? Do you also think that we store firearms and ammunition in our basements so that when the Pope storms the shores we will be ready to rise and overthrow the government?

I do not make excuses for sinful people for I am sinful myself, but blanket generalizations such as yours are inappropriate and truly without merit.

 

[ckempston]

**How simplistic of you. EDIT Maybe a little dramatic as well. **

---

No, that’s what I call you harboring discontent over something that’s not even remotely representative of the Church in current time.

Fact: Jesus’ church wouldn’t murder people. The Catholic church did. Historical fact. Sorry if the truth hurts.

But since you seem “hell-bent” on keeping this all to yourself to fester go right ahead. Do you have room in your heart for all the spoil that seems to reside there?

The spoil?

**Don’t forget to persecute romans, whites and many more for slavery, Germans for the persecution of Jews and other unfortunate groups of people they decided were not worthy of breathing air, oh and there’s the Puritans for burning all those witches. Do you have disdain for all whites because they persecuted, killed blacks? I could go on and on. **

None of these groups claim to be infallable representatives of Christ on earth. Big difference. Should the church not be held to a higher standard than the world?

**The current should not be defined by the past. If you believe that it can, then you don’t believe in forgiveness of sins. Nowhere in the Church’s doctrine (the Catechism) will you find that persecution or death of anyone is called for upon any reason. **

The Catholic church hasn’t changed for a couple thousand years, or at least that’s what Catholics claim, except when it becomes inconvenient (like in this context).

It’s really strange that you choose the catholic Church to persecute yourself for wrongs done. Maybe because it is so visible and that gives you an easy target. Maybe you are more like the Early Church than you think. You are persecuting people who had absolutely nothing to do with any of it. Maybe you should look at your past and be glad you are not defined by your sins.

No other church that I know of claims to be an infallable representative of Christ. Of course the Catholic church is in a league of its own.

**Persecute: **To oppress or harass with ill-treatment, especially because of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs.

You are incapable of seeing the splinter in my eye for the log in your own dear brother in Christ.

I’m not harassing you because of your beliefs, I’m simply pointing out that they are sometimes wrong, inconsistent, and contradictory to the Bible.

 

[ckempston]

I presume you are talking about the inquisition. So, how many people were killed during the inquisition? Enough to shame even Adolf, Josef, and Mao combined? Do you also think that we store firearms and ammunition in our basements so that when the Pope storms the shores we will be ready to rise and overthrow the government?

I do not make excuses for sinful people for I am sinful myself, but blanket generalizations such as yours are inappropriate and truly without merit.

Please, stop feigning outrage at someone for stating historical facts. I’m sorry if they’re inconvenient for you, but they happened. The point is that I, and many others, cannot, will not, and refuse to believe an infallable “Vicar of Christ” on earth had people murdered who disagreed. Somewhere along the way, things went terribly wrong. The world of denominationalism is as much a fault of the Catholic church and its wrongs as it is the fault of the individuals who led the Reformation, and those who continue to create new denominations.

 

[ckempston]

---

---

You know, now that I think about it, this seems a lot less about what the Church has done in the past to anyone and more about what the Church may have done in the present to you.

---

What did the Catholic Church “do to” you?

That is some wacky speculating. The Catholic church never “did” anything to me personally. This is a Catholic forum, so obviously the topic is going to be Catholicism, and you know absolutely nothing about any of my other activities. So how you could conclude that I’m somehow singling out the Catholic church is ridiculous. Go look at the early posts in the OSAS thread, you will see that I “attacked” Protestants who hold this belief.

 

[jim1130]

Please, stop feigning outrage at someone for stating historical facts. I’m sorry if they’re inconvenient for you, but they happened. The point is that I, and many others, cannot, will not, and refuse to believe an infallable “Vicar of Christ” on earth had people murdered who disagreed. Somewhere along the way, things went terribly wrong. The world of denominationalism is as much a fault of the Catholic church and its wrongs as it is the fault of the individuals who led the Reformation, and those who continue to create new denominations.

I was not outraged at all. In fact, I found what you said rather amusing because “Gee, I’ve never heard THAT before.” So, rather than eleborate you provide no historical facts except to say that there are historical facts. Okay, then, what are they. Please educate us. How many people has the Catholic Church killed? You obviously have the information at your fingertips or you would not have made such a statement. Are we talking hundreds? Thousands? Millions? Billions? I mean, sure Henry the VIII lopped off the head of Saint Thomas More because of a disagreement over divorce, but that is only one so we have some catching up to do, right?

 

[happilycatholic]

Fact: Jesus’ church wouldn’t murder people. The Catholic church did. Historical fact. Sorry if the truth hurts.

Jesus said the gates of hell would not “prevail” against His Church. I believe the current Church proves Jesus correct, unless of course you think Jesus incorrect.

---

The spoil?

The rotting discontent sitting in judgement of the catholic Church. Are you really this dense?

None of these groups claim to be infallable representatives of Christ on earth. Big difference. Should the church not be held to a higher standard than the world?

Oh so you only resent Churches, awesome. Further I believe once again, the current state of the Church proves that it IS held to a higher standard.

The Catholic church hasn’t changed for a couple thousand years, or at least that’s what Catholics claim, except when it becomes inconvenient (like in this context).

Doctrine. Doctrine. Doctrine. Lot’s of things change at least I hope even a church has the option of changing basic wrongs. Again, that’s just simplistic.

No other church that I know of claims to be an infallable representative of Christ. Of course the Catholic church is in a league of its own.

You get 100 points for that one We are unique, but not in the respect that we as Christians are in one family, Catholics just practice our faith in a more orthodox manner. Unlike you, we no longer persecute those who practice their faith the way they choose.

But I digress… I’m sorry, I missed the part in Scripture where Christ gave the keys to Heaven and the responsiblity of His Church to a “denomination” that exsists today. Can you tell me which denomination that would be?

I’m not harassing you because of your beliefs, I’m simply pointing out that they are sometimes wrong, inconsistent, and contradictory to the Bible.

I would challenge you to find one single church who does not suffer from the same afflictions you mentioned above. That does not mean that it is the doctrine of the church. It means that someone along the way misinterpreted the doctrine and responded accordingly.

---

**Yes, the Church has made mistakes and likely will continue to do so. You’d better watch out, the Church has eyes everywhere and they may be on you **

---

You are rediculous.

 

[happilycatholic]

That is some wacky speculating. The Catholic church never “did” anything to me personally. This is a Catholic forum, so obviously the topic is going to be Catholicism, and you know absolutely nothing about any of my other activities. So how you could conclude that I’m somehow singling out the Catholic church is ridiculous. Go look at the early posts in the OSAS thread, you will see that I “attacked” Protestants who hold this belief.

---

**Okay, okay. Wow, you are sensitive. I asked a simple question. The simple answer is “nothing”. **