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

[joshua_b]

Then the Apostles disobeyed Jesus. The Pharisees, who you correctly point out above, Jesus claimed sat in Moses’ seat, ordered the Apostles to stop preaching in Jesus’ name. What was the Apostles response? “We will obey God rather than man.”

You see what Jesus said as a blanket endorsement of authority, regardless of its level of corruption. It seems impossible to me to interpret the verse in that way. There are obvious caveats here, even if the rule exists. The same goes for Romans 13, which says to submit to the earthly authorities. If the earthly authorities say, “Denounce your belief in Christ,” Christians are obliged to answer, “We will obey God rather than man.”

No, you’re taking this too deep. I never meant to imply that Jesus was making a blanket statement about “authority”, simply illustrating that hypocritical actions of individuals in and of themselves, according to the words of Jesus, do not negate the legitimacy of such individual’s authority. I can’t see anything outside of that as relevant to the point. The fact that the Apostles disobeyed their directive to stop preaching the Gospel is, I believe, a different theological argument, perhaps related to the law being fulfilled and their authority no longer being legitimate (pure speculation on my part…I don’t know).

 

[joshua_b]

Uh, I guess. It seems very convenient that the Pope can conduct himself in any way that he wants, and then say, “All Christians have to believe X.” The least Catholics could have done is put in a Caveat of “Minimum Good Behavior.” Even in the military, although admittedly the occurence would be rare, members are free to reject an unlawful order.

As a Catholic, I would contend that this is rather INCONVENIENT, and is very counter-productive to people willingly accepting the doctrine of Papal Infallability.

 

[ckempston]

No, you’re taking this too deep. I never meant to imply that Jesus was making a blanket statement about “authority”, simply illustrating that hypocritical actions of individuals in and of themselves, according to the words of Jesus, do not negate the legitimacy of such individual’s authority. I can’t see anything outside of that as relevant to the point. The fact that the Apostles disobeyed their directive to stop preaching the Gospel is, I believe, a different theological argument, perhaps related to the law being fulfilled and their authority no longer being legitimate (pure speculation on my part…I don’t know).

This being an inductive argument, it is not exactly strong, but it is not really that weak either. I see where you are coming from and will admit that the Catholic position of Infallable, not Impeccable, is pretty reasonable and not directly in contradiction to the Scriptures.

 

[Chris_LaRock]

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

Over the years here at CAF, I have seen countless self-proclaim “experts” on Christianity who will argue with Catholics on these forums until they are blue in the face, writing things like, “I have a Master’s in Divinity” but I don’t ever see a Protestant response from these individuals to a real Catholic Apologist.

Why won’t our Protestant friends take on some of the real Catholic Apologists from our time? Catholics here, take on Calvin and Luther all the time.

Why won’t they take on the Apologists from our time or even from this web site, the home page here at CAF?

It’s easy, for example, a Protestant can go here and cut and past a comment from a Jimmy Akin or Karl Keating article and provide the Protestant response.

This way, they can they show all of us, “non-informed Catholics”, how and why we are wrong in our defense of Catholicism.

I’m waiting, tell me what Catholic Apologist got it “wrong” and why and provide a real Protestant response….If you can.

maybe the protestants are afraid of being accused of ‘contempt for catholicism’ and banned if they ask a question that offends?

 

[ckempston]

As a Catholic, I would contend that this is rather INCONVENIENT, and is very counter-productive to people willingly accepting the doctrine of Papal Infallability.

Yes, I’m beginning to see that Catholic Apologetics, much like Biblical Apologetics, has many inconveniences, as you put it. “Bible-only” Christians, since they put so much Faith in the Bible, have to go to great lengths to defend certain things that either lack proof or create “apparent” contradictions.

These aren’t necessarily insurmountable, but they do pose problems, and in both cases, Faith seems to be the answer. For instance, it is inconvenient that we cannot prove beyond question many of the events in the Old Testament, but that does not mean these events did not happen as recorded.

It seems to me that the apologetic methods of Bible-only Christians and those of Catholics are pretty much identical, so for me to reject your reasoning in this and other matters would be pretty, well, unreasonable. As you pointed out elsewhere, the real question lies in who has the interpretive authority.

 

[joshua_b]

maybe the protestants are afraid of being accused of ‘contempt for catholicism’ and banned if they ask a question that offends?

They MAY be afraid of that, but I don’t know that they need be unless they assume that this board is as viciously resentful of n-c doctrine as many “christian” apologetics forums are of Catholics and their Church’s doctrines.

This place is a love-fest compared to the nonsensical antics on boards like over at carm. I can’t think of anyone having been banned from this forum for stating their beliefs or refuting another post in charity and civility.

 

[ckempston]

They MAY be afraid of that, but I don’t know that they need be unless they assume that this board is as viciously resentful of n-c doctrine as many “christian” apologetics forums are of Catholics and their Church’s doctrines.

This place is a love-fest compared to the nonsensical antics on boards like over at carm. I can’t think of anyone having been banned from this forum for stating their beliefs or refuting another post in charity and civility.

HA HA HA. CARM!!! Oh my goodness, I used to frequent that site. You know, if you actually back the the guy who runs the site (Matt something? I forget) into a corner demonstrating that he is Biblically wrong, he will send you PMs and order you to drop it or be banned. True story. Happened to me. It is a huge bash-fest over there, or at least it was a couple years ago.

 

[PJM]

Actual my dear friend in Christ, they do argue

What they do not do, or atleast seldom seem to do is have areal debate, an exchanhe of views and information.

What I see often, is a falt refusal to accept TRUTH! Because they are unable to refute much of what is sharred, they ignore it, and beome argumentive, to no logical end.

But God has a plan, and God’s Will, will be done!

God bless,

PJM m.c.

 

[SSTeacher]

A magician never gives away his secret.

But since I’m not a magician, I guess it’s alright to tell you that the book (or most of it) can be found at:

fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/history_timothy_ware_1.htm
fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/history_timothy_ware_2.htm

So all I actually did was copy-and-paste. (I don’t have the actual book, although I did check it out from the library a couple years ago to read it, along with The Orthodox Way. I take it you have a copy?)

And here’s me thinking that you jumped up, whipped the book off your bookshelf, flipped to exactly the right page, typed out the relevant section like greased lightning and then posted it in next to no time while simultaneously discussing different aspects of the subject with others and never losing your train of thought!

I’m grateful anyway. It might have been easier than I’d imagined in my silliness but it still took up your time and you didn’t have to do it.

I do indeed have a copy of the book. I’ve seen it in bookstores on both sides of the Atlantic but I didn’t actually buy a copy until 2006 when I first began to suspect that the Protestant position was untenable and decided to take a serious look into Orthodoxy. I backed away from Orthodoxy several months ago. However, I think I may resume my examination in the New Year.

But I’m certainly not ruling out Catholicism just yet.

It’s a fact that all Protestant denominations in this country are in decline and one wonders how many are leaving their denominations to become Catholics.

Thanks, again.
Mick

 

[Peter_J]

As a Catholic, I would contend that this is rather INCONVENIENT,

Been watching The Shawshank Redemption?

 

[Peter_J]

And here’s me thinking that you jumped up, whipped the book off your bookshelf, flipped to exactly the right page, typed out the relevant section like greased lightning and then posted it in next to no time while simultaneously discussing different aspects of the subject with others and never losing your train of thought!

Aw, I blew it.

 

[Peter_J]

I see where you are coming from and will admit that the Catholic position of Infallable, not Impeccable, is pretty reasonable and not directly in contradiction to the Scriptures.

Or, to be even more precise, the Catholic position that the Pope is: sometimes infallible, never impeccable.

 

[ckempston]

Or, to be even more precise, the Catholic position that the Pope is: sometimes infallible, never impeccable.

Catholic ability to be “more precise” never ceases to amaze me.

 

[SSTeacher]

I agree that this is “wrongheaded”. God does not purify the rebellious and the refusing. He disciplines every son whom He receives, but those who do not receive Him, He does not give them the power to become sons. Neither does He purify them.

I can easily accept that if we’re talking only about the present life. The word “discipline” and the word “disciple” go hand in hand. But it’s the idea that God needs to “discipline” or “purify” people in the hereafter that seems hard to fit in.

It is for me too, since I ascribe rather to the Eastern notion of Theosis.

So are you drawn to an Indulgence–free scenario, then?

So you would understand that we believe a person who dies right after baptism needs no further purification. This is one reason people used to engage in the terribly risky practice of waiting to the last minute to be baptized.

Why “terribly risky?” What do Catholics believe will happen to those who die without being baptized according to the “proper” form?

I understand. For those of us who have received the Apostolic faith, much of what comes out of the Reformation constitutes “strange doctrine”, and what we consider “a different gospel” than the one we received from the Apostles.

That’s a valid point. It’s no secret that we Protestants do indeed have any number of different Gospels since many of them can be seen regularly on American TV.

Are we in agreement, then, that this is not a Catholic invention?

Yes, agreed, sod it.:tiphat:

I am saying that it came from Jewish belief, but I think not-so ancient.The Deuterocanon was produced during the intertestamental period.

But the inference is that the belief would have been much older, right?

Well, no. The deuterocanon itself was received by the Church in 382 and declared inspired because it was the version of OT scripture used by Jesus and the Apostles. However, it came under dispute again in the reformaiton, when Luther wanted to remove books that were “too Catholic” from the canon. Luther chose the same course used by the Palestinian Jews, rejecting the Septuagint because it testified of Jesus too clearly, among other reasons that turned out to be spurious. The Church found it necessary to redefine the canon, as it had been done in 382, to combat this heresy.

Well, I can’t argue with any of that. It’s curious that Luther preferred to align himself with Jewish thinking about Scripture rather than with the Christian view.

Well, I was not trying to take the win-lose approach. In fact, I think the charism of infallibility Jesus gave to the Church makes a win-win for all of us, which was, of course, His intention.

Nicely stated.

Cordially,
Mick

 

[Peter_J]

Catholic ability to be “more precise” never ceases to amaze me.

Well thank you, ckemp. (Although, in my experience, Papal Infallibility is a subject on which many Catholics are not careful to present the Catholic position precisely.)

 

[Peter_J]

Yes, I admit that’s rather difficult pill to swallow. Consider again what I said about Cardinal Newman and Vatican I. Newman believed that P.I., while true, ought not to have been dogmatically defined. Now here’s the kicker: he nevertheless believed that it had been dogmatically defined. In other words, according to Newman, belief in P.I. shouldn’t be mandatory but is mandatory.

I think Newman wrote something in response to this objection (or a related objection). If I find it, I’ll post it here.

Sorry for the delay. Here’s one passage I found:

I think the Third Ecumenical will furnish an instance of what I mean. There the question in dispute was settled and defined, even before certain constituent portions of the Episcopal body had made their appearance; and this, with a protest of sixty-eight of the Bishops then present {306} against the opening of the Council. When the expected party arrived, these did more than protest against the definition which had been carried; they actually anathematized the Fathers who carried it, and in this state of disunion the Council ended. How then was its definition valid? In consequence of after events, which I suppose must be considered complements, and integral portions of the Council. The heads of the various parties entered into correspondence with each other, and at the end of two years their differences with each other were arranged. There are those who have no belief in the authority of Councils at all, and feel no call upon them to discriminate between one Council and another; but Anglicans, who are so fierce against the Vatican, and so respectful towards the Ephesine, should consider what good reason they have for swallowing the third Council, while they strain out the nineteenth.

The Council of Ephesus furnishes us with another remark, bearing upon the Vatican. It was natural for men who were in the minority at Ephesus to think that the faith of the Church had been brought into the utmost peril by the definition of the Council which they had unsuccessfully opposed. They had opposed it on the conviction that the definition gave great encouragement to religious errors in the opposite extreme to those which it condemned; and, in fact, I think that, humanly speaking, the peril was extreme. The event proved it to be so, when twenty years afterwards another Council was held under the successors of the majority at Ephesus and carried triumphantly those very errors whose eventual success had been predicted by the minority. But Providence is {307} never wanting to His Church. St. Leo, the Pope of the day, interfered with this heretical Council, and the innovating party was stopped in its career. Its acts were cancelled at the great Council of Chalcedon, the Fourth Ecumenical, which was held under the Pope’s guidance, and which, without of course touching the definition of the Third, which had been settled once for all, trimmed the balance of doctrine by completing it, and excluded for ever from the Church those errors which seemed to have received some sanction at Ephesus. There is nothing of course that can be reversed in the definitions of the Vatican Council; but the series of its acts was cut short by the great war, and, should the need arise (which is not likely) to set right a false interpretation, another Leo will be given us for the occasion; “in monte Dominus videbit.”

 

[ckempston]

Sorry for the delay. Here’s one passage I found:

I think the Third Ecumenical will furnish an instance of what I mean. There the question in dispute was settled and defined, even before certain constituent portions of the Episcopal body had made their appearance; and this, with a protest of sixty-eight of the Bishops then present {306} against the opening of the Council. When the expected party arrived, these did more than protest against the definition which had been carried; they actually anathematized the Fathers who carried it, and in this state of disunion the Council ended. How then was its definition valid? In consequence of after events, which I suppose must be considered complements, and integral portions of the Council. The heads of the various parties entered into correspondence with each other, and at the end of two years their differences with each other were arranged. There are those who have no belief in the authority of Councils at all, and feel no call upon them to discriminate between one Council and another; but Anglicans, who are so fierce against the Vatican, and so respectful towards the Ephesine, should consider what good reason they have for swallowing the third Council, while they strain out the nineteenth.

The Council of Ephesus furnishes us with another remark, bearing upon the Vatican. It was natural for men who were in the minority at Ephesus to think that the faith of the Church had been brought into the utmost peril by the definition of the Council which they had unsuccessfully opposed. They had opposed it on the conviction that the definition gave great encouragement to religious errors in the opposite extreme to those which it condemned; and, in fact, I think that, humanly speaking, the peril was extreme. The event proved it to be so, when twenty years afterwards another Council was held under the successors of the majority at Ephesus and carried triumphantly those very errors whose eventual success had been predicted by the minority. But Providence is {307} never wanting to His Church. St. Leo, the Pope of the day, interfered with this heretical Council, and the innovating party was stopped in its career. Its acts were cancelled at the great Council of Chalcedon, the Fourth Ecumenical, which was held under the Pope’s guidance, and which, without of course touching the definition of the Third, which had been settled once for all, trimmed the balance of doctrine by completing it, and excluded for ever from the Church those errors which seemed to have received some sanction at Ephesus. There is nothing of course that can be reversed in the definitions of the Vatican Council; but the series of its acts was cut short by the great war, and, should the need arise (which is not likely) to set right a false interpretation, another Leo will be given us for the occasion; “in monte Dominus videbit.”

Great information. Thanks for the historical perspective.

 

[joshua_b]

Been watching The Shawshank Redemption?

That thought never even entered my head, although, that is one of my favorite movies. Intentional reference or not, I still think it’s an accurate assessment. It would be a lot easier for people to accept the objective definition of “papal infallibility” if we didn’t have to contend with the fact that over the course of 2 millenia, we have had a few bishops of Rome that, quite frankly, acted like hedonistic and exploitative jackasses.

 

[joshua_b]

Well thank you, ckemp. (Although, in my experience, Papal Infallibility is a subject on which many Catholics are not careful to present the Catholic position precisely.)

Unfortunately, this statement applies to way too much Catholic doctrine. That is one more reason why I love the Catechism. Although, I admit, I have been guilty of incorrect presentation a time or two in the past.

 

[Jimmy_B]

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

Over the years here at CAF, I have seen countless self-proclaim “experts” on Christianity who will argue with Catholics on these forums until they are blue in the face, writing things like, “I have a Master’s in Divinity” but I don’t ever see a Protestant response from these individuals to a real Catholic Apologist.

Why won’t our Protestant friends take on some of the real Catholic Apologists from our time? Catholics here, take on Calvin and Luther all the time.

Why won’t they take on the Apologists from our time or even from this web site, the home page here at CAF?

It’s easy, for example, a Protestant can go here and cut and past a comment from a Jimmy Akin or Karl Keating article and provide the Protestant response.

This way, they can they show all of us, “non-informed Catholics”, how and why we are wrong in our defense of Catholicism.

I’m waiting, tell me what Catholic Apologist got it “wrong” and why and provide a real Protestant response….If you can.