In what way does that relate to Rev 11:19 Then the temple of God was opened in heaven, and the ark of His covenanth]" was seen in His temple. And there were lightnings, noises, thunderings, an earthquake, and great hail.We're not debating this, but check out the list of the quotes on the following page, and pay close attention to the dates: Church Fathers on Mary as Ark of the New Covenant ::
That has nothing to do with infallibility.All the graphics in the world will not change what survey after survey shows (Catholics being liberal), including that commissioned by your church, and is evidenced wherever Catholicism abounds and (votes.)
These sins may exist, but that does not mean they are endorsed.Nor can you deny that your church counts and treats proabortion, prosodomite Ted Kennedy-type RCS as members in life and in death, as Ted-hands are red, was.
These divisions may may exist, but that does not mean there are separate doctrines. There is only one set of unchanging doctrines.Nor can you deny the other divisions within Catholicism, Catholics, with each side calling each other cafeteria Catholics based upon their judgment of what church teaching means. Thus there are different forum categories here, including one for "TradCats" I assume, with different favorite Bibles (Douay-Rheims for most TradCats).
If you read what I was responding to, which it seems you do not, then you might just realize it does, for the OP argues that an infallible magisterium is essential for unity. Yes Catholics interpret their church, from TradCats to Ted Kennedy-Cats, all of whom Rome counts and treats as members in life and in death, thus showing what she really believes, interpreting herself. For the evidence of what one really believes is what one does.That has nothing to do with infallibility.
Not "may," but do, and it means that Rome implicitly conveys that these sins are to be tolerated without being excommunicated. Your current pope, elected by your pastors, even seems to be censoring the few conservative bishops who attempt to correct some his interpretation of what Catholic teaching means.These sins may exist, but that does not mean they are endorsed.
Nonsense. Sects are formed based upon beliefs, even if in matters of interpretation, and what one believes is doctrine.These divisions may may exist, but that does not mean there are separate doctrines. There is only one set of unchanging doctrines.
This is the classic error of assuming the term "Word of God" means Sacred Scripture, when in reality the term Word of God can mean a whole host of other things, the most obvious being, God the Son, as it does in The Last Gospel. (John 1:1-14) This is guilty of the fallacy of Begging the Question (as are many of these assertions) as these passages don't at all affirm that the "Word of God," whatever that may be is formally sufficient, they merely show a certain aspect of the Word of God, namely, that is stands firm in the heavens, and that it is above all things, and is only equal with the Name of God.
Does the Holy Gospel record ALL of the words spoken by Jesus? Either way, this passage only affirms the Infallibility of Sacred Scripture, not that it is formally sufficient, or the only infallible authority.
All these merely affirm the infallibility of Sacred Scripture, they don't affirm that Scripture alone is the only Infallible Authority. On top of that, the vast majority of these refer only to the Old Testament.
Strawmans
These three quotes do not even assert that what is being written here, is infallible, let alone that what is written here is the only infallible authority (imagine how ridiculous that would be!)
Before starting this debate, I discussed it with my friends on the FishEaters Forum, (in which they warned me, that very thing that would happen on this debate, would happen, namely, that the vast majority of Protestants would dodge my arguments, and attack Catholic Dogma, but I'm not going to harp on that.) during our discussion, I talked about some of the arguments, I was considering using during this debate, and my friend at FishEaters told me I was overthinking things. Now imagine if, one of my FishEater friends in effort to prevent me from overthinking things told me, "don't think beyond what I have typed!" would that mean I should base my arguments only on what was type in his post? That should throw-out everything I've researched leading up this debate?
Jesus was only condemning traditions of men, not oral traditions, not traditions in general.
No, not all oral traditions were wrong about Jesus, the Bible proves it:
And coming he dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was said by prophets: That he shall be called a Nazarene.No where in the Old Testament is this prophet about the Messiah written, it's an oral tradition.
- St. Matthew 2:23 DR
Oh and by the way, while we're on the subject of Tradition in the Bible, you know the "proof-text" for Sola Scriptura, 2 Timothy 3:16? Well look at what it says earlier in the same chapter:
Now as Jannes and Mambres resisted Moses, so these also resist the truth, men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith.Now where in the Old Testament, do we here of Jannes and Mambres resisting Moses? We don't, this also is a tradition, and St. Paul has now qualms about putting it in his Epistle.
- 2 Timothy 3:8 DR
View attachment 209704
Wow, you folk really are desperate! Yep, this debate definitely is winding down. I guess have to worry about this to much as I work on finishing my college papers. I'll be back tomorrow evening to continue this debate.
See you all later.
Only expressly 12 times,"Christ gave his disciples no command to write, but only to teach." (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 5, p. 767).
[/QUOTE]It doesn't work and you are correct to "call that hand."
As many here pointed out we need to know which version of Roman Rite Catholicism we are dealing with.
-Vat 2?
-SSPX?
-traditionalist within Vat 2 but opposed to some or many tenents?
-Liberal RCs who embrace the changes Pope Francis champions.
There are three Roman Catholic communities here on CF last I checked.
So you bring up a valid point which @PeaceByJesus and @Major1 brought up as well.
For example, I debate often on other forums self proclaimed pro choice Catholics. Yet when confronted with their own catechism on the sin of abortion tell me they agree with said catechism but are still pro choice.
Yet we are told Prots and Evangelicals have 33,000 differing views yet right here we have Presbyterians, Evangelicals, Baptists and Pentecostals all in unison with regards to the authority of Holy Scriptures.
Only expressly 12 times,
Revelation 1:11
Revelation 1:19
Revelation 2:1
Revelation 2:8
Revelation 2:12
Revelation 2:18
Revelation 3:1
Revelation 3:7
Revelation 3:14
Revelation 14:13
Revelation 19:9
Revelation 21:5
And Christ abundantly affirmed the writing of God's word, that being the most authoritative means of preservation, and since it is the Spirit of Christ who inspired the writers of the NT, then to claim "Christ gave his disciples no command to write" means that the Holy Spirit did this on His own, which is heretical:
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. (John 16:13-14)
This is the classic error of assuming the term "Word of God" means Sacred Scripture, when in reality the term Word of God can mean a whole host of other things, the most obvious being, God the Son, as it does in The Last Gospel. (John 1:1-14) This is guilty of the fallacy of Begging the Question (as are many of these assertions) as these passages don't at all affirm that the "Word of God," whatever that may be is formally sufficient, they merely show a certain aspect of the Word of God, namely, that is stands firm in the heavens, and that it is above all things, and is only equal with the Name of God.
Does the Holy Gospel record ALL of the words spoken by Jesus? Either way, this passage only affirms the Infallibility of Sacred Scripture, not that it is formally sufficient, or the only infallible authority.
All these merely affirm the infallibility of Sacred Scripture, they don't affirm that Scripture alone is the only Infallible Authority. On top of that, the vast majority of these refer only to the Old Testament.
Strawmans
These three quotes do not even assert that what is being written here, is infallible, let alone that what is written here is the only infallible authority (imagine how ridiculous that would be!)
Before starting this debate, I discussed it with my friends on the FishEaters Forum, (in which they warned me, that very thing that would happen on this debate, would happen, namely, that the vast majority of Protestants would dodge my arguments, and attack Catholic Dogma, but I'm not going to harp on that.) during our discussion, I talked about some of the arguments, I was considering using during this debate, and my friend at FishEaters told me I was overthinking things. Now imagine if, one of my FishEater friends in effort to prevent me from overthinking things told me, "don't think beyond what I have typed!" would that mean I should base my arguments only on what was type in his post? That should throw-out everything I've researched leading up this debate?
Jesus was only condemning traditions of men, not oral traditions, not traditions in general.
No, not all oral traditions were wrong about Jesus, the Bible proves it:
And coming he dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was said by prophets: That he shall be called a Nazarene.No where in the Old Testament is this prophet about the Messiah written, it's an oral tradition.
- St. Matthew 2:23 DR
Oh and by the way, while we're on the subject of Tradition in the Bible, you know the "proof-text" for Sola Scriptura, 2 Timothy 3:16? Well look at what it says earlier in the same chapter:
Now as Jannes and Mambres resisted Moses, so these also resist the truth, men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith.Now where in the Old Testament, do we here of Jannes and Mambres resisting Moses? We don't, this also is a tradition, and St. Paul has now qualms about putting it in his Epistle.
- 2 Timothy 3:8 DR
Okay, so PeaceByJesus, and JayW have resorted to boarderline ad hominem attacks, and ad hominem is pretty much instant-lose in debates, the only people who are really debating right now are Major1 and redleghunter, although even redleghunter is trying lure me off topic a bit.
I'm hoping to get this debate finished by Saturday, as on October 16th, I'll be starting a Mother of God debate, which I highly encourage you to join. Here's my offer, we can either continue this debate as usual and I will continue to debunk Sola Scriptura, or I can give you what you all, which is a Catholic proof-text. If you're willing, I can give a Scripture passage that proves one of the most important Dogmas in the Catholic Faith, and we spend the last week debating that. The choice is yours' you have until this evening to decide.
Okay, so PeaceByJesus, and JayW have resorted to boarderline ad hominem attacks, and ad hominem is pretty much instant-lose in debates, the only people who are really debating right now are Major1 and redleghunter, although even redleghunter is trying lure me off topic a bit.
I'm hoping to get this debate finished by Saturday, as on October 16th, I'll be starting a Mother of God debate, which I highly encourage you to join. Here's my offer, we can either continue this debate as usual and I will continue to debunk Sola Scriptura, or I can give you what you all, which is a Catholic proof-text. If you're willing, I can give a Scripture passage that proves one of the most important Dogmas in the Catholic Faith, and we spend the last week debating that. The choice is yours' you have until this evening to decide.
"Catholic distinctives which are not manifest in the inspired record of the NT church." Wrong. That's called blind prejudice.Your delusion extends to your reading of this thread. By the grace of God I have provided you with reasoned and substantiated arguments, most of which were either ignored or you simply reiterated what was refuted, while refusing to answer questions.
And after your primary premise, which you presented as the alternative to SS, was clearly shown to be wrong, and in fact would nuke the NT church from the beginning, yet you imagine that you are the victor! You cannot continue to debunk Sola Scriptura because you have yet too, reasonably understood, except by strawmen, but your alternative, sola ecclssia, has been and can be continually to debunked.
Ad hominems therefore are warranted, as Christ showed they can be. No wonder you want to move on to a different thread.
As for providing a Scripture passage that proves one of the most important Dogmas in the Catholic Faith is not hard, I can do that since we ourselves contend for such common-held Truth as the Apostle Creed professes. But what you CANNOT do is provide any Scripture passage that proves any Catholic distinctives which are not manifest in the inspired record of the NT church.
Thus I challenge you to do that and look forward to exposing your fallacious provocative assertions.
This is a rant. Cut it down to one or two topics, not rattle off 5+ topics in one post that would take 5 pages to answer.A mere parroted assertion, and which presupposes that the church which is the Lord's body, and to which He is married, is one particular organic church. However, that is impossible since only the spiritual body of Christ in which the Spirit baptizes them into (1Co. 12:13) only always consists 100% of true believers, while organic fellowships in which they express their faith inevitably become admixtures of wheat and tares, with Catholicism and liberal Protestantism being mostly the latter.
Since Catholicism has always maintained salvific Truths along with her various distinctives which are not seen in the inspired record of what the church believed, then souls of broken hearts and contrite spirits (Ps. 34:18) have and can find Christ, and thus the gates of Hell have not prevailed against His church, the mystical body of Christ, which is built upon Christ the Son of God, even though Rome has become as the gates of Hell for multitudes.
More RC arrogance, and you actually implicitly confess that we could believe God could preserve an infallible Church, but since since faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God, (Rm. 10:17) which Scripture most assuredly is, and nowhere teaches ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility of office as per Rome, then we have no warrant to believe in this self-proclaimed bombast.
What good is that? Faith in a lie is still faith, and your is just as that of Mormonic faith. In both cases the church is an object of faith, and thus whatever it formally teaches is to be believed.
The principle of taking disputes from a local level to the highest (which flows from the OT) is followed in many Protestant churches, as it should be, but the differences btwn the Jerusalem Council and Rome include:
1. Paul and Barnaba went up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders, but Rome's so-called apostolic successors even fail of the qualifications and credentials of manifest Biblical apostles. (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12; 2Cor. 6:1-0; 12:12)
2. There was not a Catholic priest among them (except perhaps among the Judaizers) since none were called “hiereus” (Greek) which is the word distinctively used for a separate sacerdotal class of clergy, and which Rome thus uses for her pastors based upon imposed functional equivalence, while NT pastors were never called "hiereus" but are called "presbuteros/episkopos" (senior/overseer), which denotes the same in the office, (Titus 1:5-7; cf. Acts 20:17,28) and do not have any unique sacerdotal function.
Instead the primary work of NT pastors is that of prayer and preaching. (Act 6:3,4; 2 Tim.4:2) by which they “feed the flock” (Acts 20:28; 1Pt. 5:2) ) for the word is called spiritual "milk," (1Co. 3:22; 1Pt. 1:22) and "meat," (Heb. 5:12-14) what is said to "nourish" the souls of believers, and believing it is how the lost obtain life in themselves. (1 Timothy 4:6; Acts 15:7-9; cf. Psalms 19:7)
All believers are called to sacrifice (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9) and all constitute the only priesthood (hieráteuma) in the NT church, that of all believers, (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6).
3. The testimony Peter gave was that of him preaching the evangelical gospel that "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." (Acts 10:43) That "the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe," (Acts 15:7) with God "purifying their hearts by faith." (Acts 15:9) Which preceded baptism, which immediately followed as it normally should, (Acts 10:47) with the faith that is expressed thereby being what purifies the heart and justifies the believer before God. (Rm. 4:5)
4. It was not Peter but James who declared the conclusive Scripturally-support judgment ("Wherefore my sentence is") which settled the matter, confirmatory of what Peter exhorted and Paul and Barnabas preached.
Presbyteros is simply Greek for priest, as any dictionary will affirm. "hiereus" is for the OT priests that fell into disuse, which is why you don't see "hiereus" in the NT. The reason you are so angry over this matter is that your spiritual forefathers abolished the NT priesthood. Now you want to blame the CC.2. There was not a Catholic priest among them (except perhaps among the Judaizers) since none were called “hiereus” (Greek) which is the word distinctively used for a separate sacerdotal class of clergy, and which Rome thus uses for her pastors based upon imposed functional equivalence, while NT pastors were never called "hiereus" but are called "presbuteros/episkopos" (senior/overseer), which denotes the same in the office, (Titus 1:5-7; cf. Acts 20:17,28) and do not have any unique sacerdotal function.
Indeed. And I quote:He built it through the agency of men and believers in God. Likewise, the written New Testament is the will of Christ. He wrote it through those commissioned by Him. It contains His laws as seen in 1 Cor. 14:37 and produces the faith which brings life in His name as recorded by John 20:30-31.
Can you point out the 'ad hominem' attacks by @PeaceByJesus and @JayW ? Responding to assertions and claims with a counter argument is not 'ad hominem.'Okay, so PeaceByJesus, and JayW have resorted to boarderline ad hominem attacks, and ad hominem is pretty much instant-lose in debates, the only people who are really debating right now are Major1 and redleghunter, although even redleghunter is trying lure me off topic a bit.
I'm hoping to get this debate finished by Saturday, as on October 16th, I'll be starting a Mother of God debate, which I highly encourage you to join. Here's my offer, we can either continue this debate as usual and I will continue to debunk Sola Scriptura, or I can give you what you all, which is a Catholic proof-text. If you're willing, I can give a Scripture passage that proves one of the most important Dogmas in the Catholic Faith, and we spend the last week debating that. The choice is yours' you have until this evening to decide.
If you truly wanted a debate you should have entered a debate challenge in the Formal Debate forum. Recommend you do so, as both parties negotiate a format and narrow down the scope of the debate. Then a staff moderator takes up and opens a thread where only the challenger and opponent can post. You are currently in a discussion thread where the greater 'viewership' will see everyone's arguments and judge them on their own.I'm hoping to get this debate finished by Saturday, as on October 16th
Can you point out the 'ad hominem' attacks by @PeaceByJesus and @JayW ?
Just to be clear, you post here defending the alleged infallibility and exclusivity of the RCC as the vehicle through whom God speaks, but then refer to their scripture as blasphemous? How does that work?
I recall a few months ago you starting at least one long thread on the OBOB subforum about what you perceived as wrong teachings in your Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults (RCIA) class at your local Catholic church?
My letter to my modernist RCIA class
And then four months later you're still struggling to forgive them for whatever you think they've done?
I need help forgiving my RCIA class
I post this only for the purposes of introspection. It seems your issue isn't that there are Christians out there who do not follow the RCC's beliefs, but rather that everyone else, including the RCC, doesn't follow yours. At some point, my friend, you need to take stock of all the strife you have with fellow Chirstians and acknowledge the common denominator.
Well this is rich, another RC defending a church in which the majority or near majority of the members are liberal, morally or theologically, and would have us leave conservative evangelical fellowship and convert to this unholy amalgam which counts and treats everyone from blind cultic devotees to an imaginary (pre V2) pure church to Ted Kennedy-type RCs as brethren in life and in death.
But being more Catholic than their own leadership overall, the solution by such RCs as this "Slave of the Handmaid of the Lord" is to simply reject as being so those whom Rome considers to be members. Which means that such has better judgment of what Catholic teaching means than what his church effectually teaches by its actions (or inactions) - that such are member - and Scripturally what one does and effects constitutes the evidence of what one truly believers.(James 2:18; Mt. 7:20)
But then such superior Catholics, who attack Catholics in good standing for "preaching modernism, cafeteria catholicism, and anti-TradCat bigotry" based upon their judgment of what church teaching is, and search for other Catholic churchees and even other Rites, persecute us for claiming we have better judgment of what valid church teaching is (based on Scripture), and leave Rome for better pasture.
Oh! Okay! Now I understand! This was all just yet another attempt to draw attention away from failing Sola Scriptura, and attack Catholicism.Why is it that you just cannot get it, and instead repeated the same old mantra that has been so plainly refuted time and again? Again, if an infallible magisterium is essential for common people to assuredly ascertain what is of God, then the NT church could not have begun! For the NT church began with common souls having ascertained what/who is of God, both writings (as seen by the abundant invocations of them by Christ and His disciples to the Jews), and men, holding past prophets to be of God and John the Baptist "to be a prophet indeed," as well as the Lord and His disciples being of God, yet whom the magisterial stewards of Scripture rejected.
As much as you insist that it is untenable that common souls can correctly ascertain what/who is of God, and understand preaching and writings of them without an infallible interpreter, the very NT church (which Catholics imagine themselves to be) refutes you!
In addition, a second infallible interpreter simply moves the problem to a second level, for it is very manifest that both which magisterial level each RC teachings falls under, as well as their meaning, are to varying degrees subject to interpretation by Catholics, including popes and each magisterial generation.
Nor can you ever show the ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome in Scripture.
I have explained RC theology on magisterial infallibility, and once again you are contrary to how the NT church began, and essentially have invalidated it.
In addition, you have also ignored the fact that very very few Bible verses, if any, have been infallibly interpreted by Rome, and RCs have a great deal of interpretive liberty of the Bible within the parameters of Rome.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?