nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The Catholic / Protestant Debate Megathread

PDN

New mega thread time!

We're sick of the board being taken over by numerous threads where the same rather tired arguments and entrenched positions keep getting rehearsed over and over again.

So, if Protestants and Roman Catholics want to debate the merits of their respective positions this is the place to do it. Any new threads started for this purpose will be locked.

It is OK, in other threads, to say "as a non-Catholic I believe this" or "as a Catholic I don't believe this". That's fine, and people can note your position. But once it moves into arguing against Protestantism or against Catholicism then this is the thread to bring it to.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

StealthRolex

Jakkass,

I can see us going around in circles here as none of my answers and none of the answers from Catholicism or Catholic Apologetics seem to be enough to satisfy you so lets try this from a different tack.

You see while salvation is something we are all interested in one of the things that is more tangible is what we don't want to happen when we die.

We don't want to go the Hell.

So let me ask you, why are you not a Catholic?

philologos

lmaopml wrote: »

Jackass, Catholics don't love God because we're only trying to get a ticket to heaven, it's absurd to even suggest it....or that it is the way in which we look at our faith in Christ. It's seems to be popular propoganda though, along with a few other whoppers I've seen...

I've not said that all Catholics are in this situation. I do think that it does lend itself to people thinking that going to church and other things makes them good before God, and that people need to work on doing things to be appreciated by God.

lmaopml wrote: »

Where did the doctrine of 'Assurance of Salvation' originate?

I believe it originated in the New Testament.

lmaopml wrote: »

So, you say it's all about 'Motivation' on your behalf, and this brings about a truer trust and faith in Jesus and his saving grace.......So you will feel better about loving God 'knowing' that you are 'Assured of Salvation'....

No. Loving God will happen anyway. The motivation for loving God isn't to work ones way to salvation, but is just out of genuine appreciation for Him.

lmaopml wrote: »

Well, that sounds to me like I can't love him 'unless' I have the assurance of my saving....

Where did I say that? - It's not about not being able to love God unless. It's a statement of belief. I believe that God has given us free grace, to live a new life for Him. I appreciate this and I will live for Him.

It's irrelevant whether or not one hypothesises that God may be a different way. The point is that I would personally believe that God is this way.

lmaopml wrote: »

It's a variation; albeit a more clever one, on OSAS, but it's osas by any other name...

PDN's point is useful. It can lend itself to OSAS (which I'm not 100% sure of) but it can also lend itself to Arminianism. I.E - I can be sure of salvation for as long as I believe in Jesus.

lmaopml

Jakkass wrote: »

Assurance of salvation, effectively as far as I am concerned means that we divorce ourselves from the traditional forms of other religion. It makes Christianity in effect entirely unique.

Rather than saying that you must follow the rules, and I will reward you by salvation, it says, I love you, I will forgive you, now repent and live a life serving me.

The movation is different. You accept God's love, so that you can serve Him for no other reason other than that you love Him, and you love His truth. Rather than serving Him with no other reason apart from to try get a ticket to heaven.

Jackass, Catholics don't love God because we're only trying to get a ticket to heaven, it's absurd to even suggest it....or that it is the way in which we look at our faith in Christ. It's seems to be popular propoganda though, along with a few other whoppers I've seen...

Where did the doctrine of 'Assurance of Salvation' originate?

So, you say it's all about 'Motivation' on your behalf, and this brings about a truer trust and faith in Jesus and his saving grace.......So you will feel better about loving God 'knowing' that you are 'Assured of Salvation'....

Well, that sounds to me like I can't love him 'unless' I have the assurance of my saving....

It's a variation; albeit a more clever one, on OSAS, but it's osas by any other name...

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm saying that the elevation of Mary has confused people about the Gospel. The criticism of Christians raising Mary to the level of God in the Qur'an is a perfect historical account of how people have misunderstood the Trinity on the account of the elevation of Mary.

Who is raising Mary to the level of God?

Do they not know God is a Jealous God and wants no other gods before him. They will burn in hell, probably.

philologos

Assurance of salvation, effectively as far as I am concerned means that we divorce ourselves from the traditional forms of other religion. It makes Christianity in effect entirely unique.

Rather than saying that you must follow the rules, and I will reward you by salvation, it says, I love you, I will forgive you, now repent and live a life serving me.

The movation is different. You accept God's love, so that you can serve Him for no other reason other than that you love Him, and you love His truth. Rather than serving Him with no other reason apart from to try get a ticket to heaven.

PDN

StealthRolex wrote: »

Ah yes, OSAS. Tell me about the Apostle Judas Iscariot again. He was OSAS wasn't he. Is he in heaven?

No, it isn't OSAS. Assurance of Salvation is a doctrine held by both Arminians and Calvinists and is entirely separate from OSAS.

Unconditional Eternal Security (known sometimes as Once Saved Always Saved - hence OSAS) teaches that once someone is saved then it is impossible for them to lose that salvation.

Assurance of Salvation teaches that you can know that you are saved (in line with numerous Scripture verses) but that you can, by a deliberate act of your own will, apostasise and renounce your salvation.

philologos

StealthRolex wrote: »

Jesus set the bar high and the Church has followed that. There are other Catholic rites that do have married clergy. They are still Catholic and accept papal authority and the catechism and are part of the One True Church of Christ.

I'm aware of this. This doesn't help your argument.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Jesus lived with his mother until He was 30. Many of those He grew up with had long since married and had children.
In Ireland if you live with your mammy 'til you're 30 the winking windows ask questions.

Although an interesting cultural justaposition between the Jewish Semitic culture of Jesus' age, and the modern Irish Western culture of our age. I don't see what relevance this has to prohibiting marriage amongst clergy.

StealthRolex wrote: »

If Jesus could do it why can't others. He was human after all.
That other rites allow married clergy and are part of the Catholic church means what for your argument?

I think your first premise is inaccurate. Although Jesus was in human flesh, He was also infallible and represented the fullness of the Trinity.

The fact that married clergy are allowed in the Latin Rite of the RCC is a huge blow to your argument that celibacy should be compulsory since many ministers in and outside of the RCC already serve God. It also is unbiblical that all clergy were expected to be celibate.

StealthRolex wrote: »

You want to discuss "Mary worship"?

What is "Mary worship" when it's at home anyway. I though this was something only Protestants thought about.

I'm saying that the elevation of Mary has confused people about the Gospel. The criticism of Christians raising Mary to the level of God in the Qur'an is a perfect historical account of how people have misunderstood the Trinity on the account of the elevation of Mary.

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not sure about elevating Mary this high. Indeed, this has contributed to the Qur'anic understanding that Mary is to be worshipped.

You want to discuss "Mary worship"?

What is "Mary worship" when it's at home anyway. I though this was something only Protestants thought about.

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

I agree, he gave us the Christian church. Constantine gave us Roman Catholicism.

Same Church - different name.

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

I can be assured that I am saved. This is a key point that antiskeptic has made in the past.

Ah yes, OSAS. Tell me about the Apostle Judas Iscariot again. He was OSAS wasn't he. Is he in heaven?

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

This is an assertion, that you haven't substantiated, that the RCC is the same as the early church. Indeed, I've called you out on it numerous times. If all one is going to do is repeat ones position over and over again ad-infinitum, I think it's fair to say that you aren't interested in discussion, but are interested in being an ideologue.

I resemble that remark

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

This isn't quite accurate. You make it out as if all denominations do this, or even all churches in a single denomination do this. This simply isn't correct.

Did I say all? It looks like I said "other". You could take that to mean "some" but you cannot take it to mean "all". If I meant all I would have said "all other".
Did I say "all other"? No I did not. If this is the way you want to discuss things...

Jakkass wrote: »

Comparing the RCC to a musical piece, is just absurd. It's out of context.

Those in heaven are sometimes said to join the heavenly chorus. If you expect to get there should you not be practicing?
Both reading from the one piece of music and following only one conductor.

I thought it was a nice analogy. You think its absurd, well, what can I say.

I don't see the true followers of Jesus saying his parables were absurd and out of context.

philologos

StealthRolex wrote: »

and I have at Jimis request put up two supporting posts, one of which quite clearly says we were here first so the onus is on you.

Saying it isn't enough. Demonstrating that it is historically the case is another. I've already posted, on more than one occasion that your assumption is false, and I've given you reasons why it is false.

All you've done is linked to material, rather than presenting your own case.

StealthRolex wrote: »

At least you appear to accept that from the 4th century until the reformation there was one true church.

I accept that the Holy Spirit was present at the Council of Nicea.

StealthRolex wrote: »

If you believe the Catholic Church is wrong prove it.

That isn't the way it works StealthRolex. You are making claims about the RCC, and they haven't been backed up, yet you continue to repeat them without adequate explanation. That's the issue.

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

Celibacy is an unreasonable restriction that was never imposed upon clergy either in the Old Covenant Levite priests, or in respect to the New Covenant ministers. A celibate life, isn't for all, not even for all ministers. It is often effective to have some ministers who have lived a married life who can relate to that well. Indeed, it is also good to have those who have lived a celibate life to relate to those who are doing the same.

Jesus set the bar high and the Church has followed that. There are other Catholic rites that do have married clergy. They are still Catholic and accept papal authority and the catechism and are part of the One True Church of Christ.
Jesus lived with his mother until He was 30. Many of those He grew up with had long since married and had children.
In Ireland if you live with your mammy 'til you're 30 the winking windows ask questions.

If Jesus could do it why can't others. He was human after all.
That other rites allow married clergy and are part of the Catholic church means what for your argument?
[/QUOTE]

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

This is just you believing everything that people tell you. Sometimes, we have to think about why people do things. The Latin isn't the original language, therefore it makes little sense that one would translate from Latin to English rather than from Hebrew or Greek to English.

No. This is about trusting the Holy Spirit when He speaks through the Church.

I have since clarified by position regarding the latin vulgate.

philologos

StealthRolex wrote: »

To be honest I cannot answer that. The best I can do is try to find out what the official position of the Church is.
If you find the Popes position first you will have your answer

Your article is problematic. It suggests that Protestants do not have a divine faith, and as a result of lacking this divine faith that we are not likely to attain salvation.

Do you agree with the author, or not? That's all I'm asking.

StealthRolex wrote: »

I would however suggest that unless you believe in everything the Catholic Church and the Pope says you should you are making it difficult for yourselves.

OK, but this is still a very different argument than what your article is making. If this is really an account that all those who are ignorant of the Reformation need to read, surely you agree with it?

StealthRolex wrote: »

Jesus was not in the business of pleasing people. He came to save souls.

The Pope is not in the business of pleasing people. His job is to save souls and feed the flock.

I'm not asking you to give me an answer pleasing to me, I'm asking you to give me an honest answer. Don't hold back.

StealthRolex wrote: »

I ask you, is there any other religious leader who has eyes on heaven and does not spend time trying to please people or make money or foment dissent.

There are quite a few I'd imagine. No doubt one could construct a criticism of any leader from the Archbishop of Canterbury onwards. I do believe that other men are focused on God and the Gospel, and this isn't the sole preserve of the Pope.

StealthRolex wrote: »

The Pope serves but one master. There are few if any other religious leaders who can claim the same.

I could imagine that others could debate this, but I do believe that the Pope is interested very much in the Gospel, but he is not unique above all men for this interest.

I dealt with a lot more in that post, if you could deal with some of them, I'd really appreciate it.

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

I have challenged this notion more than once now. There were multiple different types of church in Christianity in the first century. The RCC didn't exist as a structured entity as it is today until the fourth century. There are churches that date from the Apostles in the first century, which aren't in communion with the RCC.

and I have at Jimis request put up two supporting posts, one of which quite clearly says we were here first so the onus is on you.

At least you appear to accept that from the 4th century until the reformation there was one true church.

If you believe the Catholic Church is wrong prove it.

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

Look, simply put, do you think that Protestants do not have a saving faith in Christ? - A yes or no answer would suffice.

To be honest I cannot answer that. The best I can do is try to find out what the official position of the Church is.
If you find the Popes position first you will have your answer

I would however suggest that unless you believe in everything the Catholic Church and the Pope says you should you are making it difficult for yourselves.

Jesus was not in the business of pleasing people. He came to save souls.

The Pope is not in the business of pleasing people. His job is to save souls and feed the flock.

I ask you, is there any other religious leader who has eyes on heaven and does not spend time trying to please people or make money or foment dissent.

The Pope serves but one master. There are few if any other religious leaders who can claim the same.

StealthRolex

Thanks Imaopml,

I'll stop making assertions about latin vulgate or DR as I stand corrected

It is good to note that the official source are the original documents

So if we really want to argue a point we're going to have to take the Churches word for it and everyone else will need to learn latin, greek and aramaic and gain access to the Vatican archives.

In the meantime we can check our copies for a Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur

philologos

StealthRolex wrote: »

Well, that's not just my opinion. Christ gave us one Church and expected unity amongst Christians. There was for a while, in Europe at least, and then things changed.

I have challenged this notion more than once now. There were multiple different types of church in Christianity in the first century. The RCC didn't exist as a structured entity as it is today until the fourth century. There are churches that date from the Apostles in the first century, which aren't in communion with the RCC.

StealthRolex wrote: »

The Latin Vulgate is the Catholic reference. Im sure if there was a better reference she would be using it.

This is just you believing everything that people tell you. Sometimes, we have to think about why people do things. The Latin isn't the original language, therefore it makes little sense that one would translate from Latin to English rather than from Hebrew or Greek to English.

StealthRolex wrote: »

It depends on what is argued not and the effect that has on the soul.
e.g celibacy. Jesus set the bar high but scripture allows for married clergy.
Catholicism follows Christ and sets the bar high. Other Catholic rites allow married clergy and there is no conflict.

Celibacy is an unreasonable restriction that was never imposed upon clergy either in the Old Covenant Levite priests, or in respect to the New Covenant ministers. A celibate life, isn't for all, not even for all ministers. It is often effective to have some ministers who have lived a married life who can relate to that well. Indeed, it is also good to have those who have lived a celibate life to relate to those who are doing the same.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Contrast
Catholicism - all rites - does not allow women priests and openly gay clergy.
Other denominations allow women clergy and openly gay clergy including cohabiting. This is clearly not scriptural.

This isn't quite accurate. You make it out as if all denominations do this, or even all churches in a single denomination do this. This simply isn't correct.

StealthRolex wrote: »

I get an orchestra of 30 players together, give them each a similar but different arrangement of the same piece.
What will it sound like when played?
Speed, key signature, interpretive marks, pauses, recitatives - if they are not all synced it's cacophony.
We need to be working from the same piece under the same direction.

Comparing the RCC to a musical piece, is just absurd. It's out of context.

StealthRolex wrote: »

No matter. My point is when it comes to the aorist tense it can be past or present.
The Latin Vulgate encompasses "best fit" in this example. In regards to the Bible in general Protestants admit that without the Catholic Church there would be no Bible, and it is only since the Reformation that conflicting versions have appeared.
Lets face it, only one version can be as correct as it can be. Why have more than one reference document?

It doesn't though. If it did, the people who were putting the New Jerusalem translation, which is a RCC translation together would have kept the older version instead of the newer.

Only one version can be correct is absolutely absurd. It is possible to phrase a sentence differently, while maintaining the meaning. Review, and constant study will lead to more accurate translations.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Encylopedia Brittanica only publishes one version at a time.
Software is released one version at a time.
Why not refer to only one version of the Bible?

The Bible, is a much more important text than the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Different translations serve a different purpose. The Good News is in more simplex language, while the NRSV is a literal translation. Both are useful in different contexts.

StealthRolex wrote: »

It is also a historical record. How many other history books get rewritten and reversion-ed ad hoc?

This is again, out of context entirely. The Bible is a book written in a foreign, and indeed ancient tongues. Therefore it is entirely acceptable that it would be translated multiple times. Indeed we even have multiple translations of René Descartes philosophy.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Jesus did not believe that. If he did why then did he recruit Apostles and give them directives? Why did He say there were things He could not tell the Apostles then but would send the Holy Spirit later.
If Jesus is sufficient then you are relying on an unchanging history. Jesus is alive and living and so is His message which is kept alive by the workings of the Holy Spirit through the Catholic Church.

This is an assertion, that you haven't substantiated, that the RCC is the same as the early church. Indeed, I've called you out on it numerous times. If all one is going to do is repeat ones position over and over again ad-infinitum, I think it's fair to say that you aren't interested in discussion, but are interested in being an ideologue.

The Christian church can only exist, because Jesus allows it to exist. Therefore He is sufficient. The Christian church would be nothing without Jesus, or His resurrection. That's why Paul says that there would be no hope if Jesus were not raised from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:14).

StealthRolex wrote: »

Likewise. However what happens if Jesus who is merciful steps aside so you face the Father who is Just?

I am assured, by faith that if I abide in Him, and if I believe His word, that I will be with Him until the end. (Romans 8:1). I will never deny Jesus, and I will always continue in Him.

I can be assured that I am saved. This is a key point that antiskeptic has made in the past.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Jesus did not just give us Himself. He also gave us the Church.

I agree, he gave us the Christian church. Constantine gave us Roman Catholicism.

StealthRolex wrote: »

God the Father, Mary the Mother, Jesus the Son, us the Children of God.

I'm not sure about elevating Mary this high. Indeed, this has contributed to the Qur'anic understanding that Mary is to be worshipped.

Qu'ran 5:116 wrote:

And behold! Allah will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah.?" He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, Thou I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Like most families we all want to be in the same house. There are some who leave - Prodigal perhaps.
The Father is not happy until all his Children are back in the same house.

I think if we wish to be back in the same house, on a serious level, we will need to make a serious effort conform all our churches back to the original Gospel preached by the Apostles and Christ. I believe a lot including the RCC have deviated away from that.

For us the Catholic Church is the house of God in this life. We want all who have left the house to return. No questions asked.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Jesus did not say remarriage after divorce was permissable.
He said divorce due to adultery is permissable.
He advised that whoever married a divorced woman, even one divorced because of adultery, commits adultery.

It might do your argument service to quote the passage.

Matthew 19:9 wrote:

And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.

StealthRolex wrote: »

He said what God has put together no man can put asunder. This means that while you can separate and "divorce" on earth the marriage bond is permanent in heaven.

Didn't Jesus say when dealing with the Sadducee's question about the Resurrection (The Sadduccees didn't believe that we would live again) that we would be like the angels in heaven? (Mark 12:18-26).

StealthRolex wrote: »

We do not judge. However we are not tolerant of sin either which is why we are expected to go to confession and do our best not to sin. Not "try" but do all that we can not to sin. We fail and fail miserably but it is lifetimes work we are about, not instant gratification, success or achievement. For every sin we overcome there will be another waiting in the wings.

I believe that Jesus is at work in every individual, and that He will help us to overcome the work of the devil in every day life. We must aim to live a live like His, but we certainly don't need to work to be saved.

Confession is another topic we will have to touch upon. I think confession of course is a good thing, but how we confess is another question. I believe that people can confess before other members of the church, or a minister if they feel inclined, but I would also hold that people can confess before God.

StealthRolex wrote: »

use in a church is different to use by the Magisterium. There are childrens bibles too but we don't use them to inform doctrine.
Why do you have an issue with NRSV being used in a church? I', not seeing this as being an issue.

I don't have an issue with the NRSV being used in church. It just smacks in the face of Vulgate translations being better than translations from the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. The logical conclusion of your position concerning the Vulgate should be opposed to the NRSV being used in church.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Well Jakkass, what can I say. I didn't write it but I found it well written.

Your usage of it in your signature means that you are in broad assent of its content surely?

Look, simply put, do you think that Protestants do not have a saving faith in Christ? - A yes or no answer would suffice.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Let me put is this way - we tend to see the prodigal son as one who walks away from Christ. What would have happened him if he never returned to his fathers house?
Maybe the Prodigal is an analogy for Protestants or non-Catholic Christians and his fathers house is an analogy for the Catholic Church.

I believe that would be an inappropriate usage of that analogy considering that neither Roman Catholicism or Protestantism existed at the time of Christ.

I also don't believe I am walking away from Christ, I'm holding to the Gospel in a way that I have never done so before in my life.

StealthRolex wrote: »

If there are 30,000 churches then either they are all right or only one is right.
That's not theoretical as we know Jesus started One Church.

It is also possible, that some one are right, and some are wrong. Or, that there is truth in all, but there are some serious difficulties in others.

StealthRolex wrote: »

I think there is much misunderstanding about Vatican II and what it contains. It might be better to explore the changes you think caused rebellion so we can see if what people thought they were rebelling against were really worth rebelling against or was it all brought about by confusion fomented by the evil one.

Didn't Vatican II reform numerous practices within the RCC? - I don't think the changes caused "rebellion" in any way, but there were changes made in respect to other denominations that would go against your article for example. Vatican II was a renewal of the Spirit in the church according to many pro-Vatican II commentators. This would suggest that such a renewal was needed.

lmaopml

The whole debate has to be taken in context with ...history, tradition, fathers writings, and what various translations mean to us as they stand. As Jesus spoke 'Aramaic' himself and original manuscripts would have been written in Hebrew and Aramaic there are bound to be some translation nuances.....Did they matter in St. Jerome's time? Certainly not!

So, the way history stands is that St. Jerome did a sensational job as a fabulous scholar and under the circumstances to transcribe into Latin the Vulgate which has been used by the church, under the guidance of the church and in light of the Sacraments by Christianity for hundreds of years in actual 'practice' and that 'practice' extends back prior to Jerome writing the bible - people of the time would have known exactly what was meant by baptism etc. etc.

If one changes the 'name' of a word or context of a 'word' in the bible when it is being translated from Greek into English of course there will be errors etc. in comparison to other texts...It's what one takes out of that or reads into it that counts, and what they 'do' with that...

What has to be remembered here though, is that Catholics believe the Bible came out of the Church along with traditions and understanding, under apostolic authority, that were handed on, spoken orally, and written down from the original apostles, not that the Church came out of the bible...

Whereas Protestants today look to the bible as the only source...after the reformation and sola scriptura doctrine of Luther. It's the reason why our Sacraments ( to Catholics ) which are central to the faith and the grace we receive from understanding and having faith and belief, are so at variance with some of the Protestant denominations....and I don't mean any offence by saying that - just stating a fact, and why some are more like the Catholic faith that they originated from..

So, what one has to ask oneself is.......What 'did' the apostles mean? and how is the best way to know this? rather than argue semantics, over greek and latin and aramaic and hebrew etc. and for a Catholic to get the correct interpretation today, we refer to the direction of the Church, Sacred Scripture, tradition, history and the fathers which contribute to getting the full picture, rather than sacred scripture alone...

As a side note;

It's great to see scholars able to use the dead sea scrolls to actually confirm the integrity of scripture; something even St. Jerome didn't have..which is, and should be a celebration for all of Christianity.

Also, they are putting the Codex Sinaiticus online which is 1600 years old in the original Greek for scholarly review, which is also brilliant...

Here's a really cool site; http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/ to view the work underway!

Also, here's a good article from a Catholic website that may be of interest, http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0202bt.asp

I rather like the DR, and have been known to reference all of em if looking at Scripture online etc. there is no need as a Catholic to limit myself either, to only Latin texts ( Although as it's the official language of the Church, some Catholics have a great affinity with it; Obviously..lol ) ...because sacred scripture goes hand in hand with tradition, apostolic authority and the Church..

Some great internet comparison sites out there too, what a great age to live in..

StealthRolex

I swiped this and it puts over some good points. As it is not mine I will not be respond to comments.

Orestes Brownson, maybe America’s greatest philospher and certainly most prolific writer, offers something along these lines as to why Protestant attempts to destroy the Church will always fail.

First, the Catholic Church is in possession of the title “Church of Christ” and always has been in possession of that title. Therefore, the presumption is with the Church not the assailants of the Church (the Protestants). In a court, the defendant is always presumed innocent until proven guilty. If a group of citizens of a country declare that the current state government is no longer possesses the right or title of government, then the burden is on the dissenters to show that to be so. Burden of proof on Protestants

Second, any attack cannot be a mere assertion.
Mere assertions can be rebutted by mere asssertions. E.g., Protestant 1: “The Church of Rome has left true doctrine”; Catholic Church: “No I haven’t.” Nothing gained by the Protestant and the Church is still presumed to be the Church Christ Himself instituted.Bare assertions will not score points

Third, Protestants cannot use the Bible to backup their assertions.
Prot. 2: “The Papists contradict the teachings of the Bible, like ‘There is only one mediator between God and man’”;
Cath. Ch., “And where do you get your authority to interpret and teach Scripture authoritatively? You cannot say that the Bible gives you that authority, for that would be to teach from the Bible that you can teach from the Bible, which is to assume what you are supposed to be proving.”
So unless the Protestant has a divine commission from a source that is not the Bible (a vision, a dream, etc., accompanied by signs and wonders proving your divine commission), then the Protestant has no recourse to the Holy Scriptures.Cannot use the Bible as a authoritatively religious book to prove Catholicism is not the One Church.

Fourth, Protestants may, by the use of reason, draw logical inferences from Holy Scriptures that prove that there is no Church. So if a Protestant can find a rational argument from the Bible, one that clearly and expicitly or even implicitly states that the Catholic Church as she understands herself is mistaken or false, then we will concede the point.
There is also recourse to natural reason: if it can be shown that the Catholic Church in Her dogmatic teaching truly and really contradicts either known natural reason or herself (that is, her dogmas contradict one another) then we will concede that the Roman Church is no Church at all.
Protestants must content themselves with the use of natural reasoning alone. Since none of this has been, or can be, accomplished by those who rage against God and His Church, then we are left with two options:

1. Bend the knee in submission to the holy Mother Church, the Body of Christ.

2. Embrace atheism.

Here is a link to the whole article. I left tons out and he explains it very well and what objections you may have to what I have here wrote should be cleared up.

StealthRolex

JimiTime wrote: »

I have not being making claims. Think of me as a blank canvas. What I have seen, is yourself assert that Jesus set up the RCC and its the OTC. The simple question, from this simple Christian is, what is the basis for the claim. Why should I believe your, presently unsubstantiated, claim? I.E. Substantiate your assertion with the evidence of your belief. Otherwise you might as well say that God lives in your kitchen.

Equally I could ask you and members of all the other churches that claim to be valid to prove that their church is the one church founded by Christ.

Is there any scriptural support for disunity among Christians?
Is there any scriptural support for multiple doctrines among Christians?
Is there any scriptural support for more than one successor to St. Peter at a time?

Who outside of the Catholic Church has the power to forgive sins as Jesus did "If you forgive men's sins, they are forgiven them..." (John 20:23 NAB)

Christ founded only One Church
He gave the job of being His Vicar to St. Peter.
St Peter has successors all the way to the present Pope.
"His office let another take." (Acts 1:20 RSV) ...and so Matthias did... And Clement... And Linus... And Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI

"And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb." Rev. 21:14 RSV

"You form a building which rises on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone." Ephesians 2:20 RSV

"...the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth." 1 Timothy 3:15 RSV

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." 2 Thessalonians 2:15 RSV

"And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers." Acts 2:42 RSV

"For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body..." 1 Corinthians 12:13 RSV

"...one Lord, one faith, one baptism..." Ephesians 4:5 RSV

"And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets... Are all apostles? Are all prophets?" 1 Corinthians 12:27-29 NAB

"Moreover, we [the apostles] possess the prophetic message which is altogether reliable. You will do well to be attentive to it... Know first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation." 2 Peter 1:19-20

"In them [Paul's letters] there are some things that are hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures." 2 Peter 3:16 NAB

there is more

Acts 2:42: doctrine, community, sacred rite (bread).
Eph 5:25-26: Christ loved the Church.
1 Tim 3:15: church is pillar and foundation of truth.
Mt 16:18; 20:20: Christ protects Church.
Heb 13:17: obey.
Mt 18:17-18: church as final authority.
Mt 23:2: Pharisees succeeded Moses (seat of Moses).
1 Cor 5:5; 1 Tim 1:20: excommunication.
Eph. 2:20, Rev. 21:14 ...apostles are the Church's foundation, Christ is its cornerstone.

Other churches did not exist until the Reformation. The onus is on them to prove their place in the family of Christ.

The Bible speaks of one and only one church

JimiTime

StealthRolex wrote: »

Fine Jimi, prove that Jesus wanted 30,000 churches and more every day.

I have not being making claims. Think of me as a blank canvas. What I have seen, is yourself assert that Jesus set up the RCC and its the OTC. The simple question, from this simple Christian is, what is the basis for the claim. Why should I believe your, presently unsubstantiated, claim? I.E. Substantiate your assertion with the evidence of your belief. Otherwise you might as well say that God lives in your kitchen.

StealthRolex

Fine Jimi, prove that Jesus wanted 30,000 churches and more every day.

JimiTime

StealthRolex wrote: »

Well, that's not just my opinion. Christ gave us one Church and expected unity amongst Christians. There was for a while, in Europe at least, and then things changed.
.

Said it before, say it again. This is what the whole thing is about. We can talk about vulates, magesteriums, reformations, faith, works blah blah yawn yawn, but once the above assertion is in the mix its an absolute waste of time.

You either deal with this question of one true church, or its the biggest waste of time of a conversation. If someone holds someone as the authority, then you can quote whatever until the cows come home. It needs to be established by Catholics that their assertion of OTC is correct, and it needs to be rebuffed by those against this assertion.

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

No, I'm merely saying that your opinion concerning:
1) The RCC being the one true church

Well, that's not just my opinion. Christ gave us one Church and expected unity amongst Christians. There was for a while, in Europe at least, and then things changed.

Jakkass wrote: »

2) The Latin Vulgate being better than English translations derived from Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.
amongst other things, are not adequately argued for.

The Latin Vulgate is the Catholic reference. Im sure if there was a better reference she would be using it.

Jakkass wrote: »

There is much RCC in common with other Christian denominations, and much of it does adhere to the Scriptures. A lot could also be argued not

It depends on what is argued not and the effect that has on the soul.
e.g celibacy. Jesus set the bar high but scripture allows for married clergy.
Catholicism follows Christ and sets the bar high. Other Catholic rites allow married clergy and there is no conflict.
Contrast
Catholicism - all rites - does not allow women priests and openly gay clergy.
Other denominations allow women clergy and openly gay clergy including cohabiting. This is clearly not scriptural.

Jakkass wrote: »

Any translations that I have consulted, at least in English seem very similar in wording to one another.

I get an orchestra of 30 players together, give them each a similar but different arrangement of the same piece.
What will it sound like when played?
Speed, key signature, interpretive marks, pauses, recitatives - if they are not all synced it's cacophony.
We need to be working from the same piece under the same direction.

Jakkass wrote: »

PDN is looking at the Greek, looking at the Latin translated by Jerome, and looking that the Doubay-Reims translation and notes that there is a difference between both the Latin and the Greek, a change which is inherited by the Doubay-Reims, and corrected in the New Jerusalem Bible.

I'm personally not a scholar of either language.

No matter. My point is when it comes to the aorist tense it can be past or present.
The Latin Vulgate encompasses "best fit" in this example. In regards to the Bible in general Protestants admit that without the Catholic Church there would be no Bible, and it is only since the Reformation that conflicting versions have appeared.
Lets face it, only one version can be as correct as it can be. Why have more than one reference document?

Encylopedia Brittanica only publishes one version at a time.
Software is released one version at a time.
Why not refer to only one version of the Bible?

It is also a historical record. How many other history books get rewritten and reversion-ed ad hoc?

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe, that Jesus is sufficient. I believe that because I have accepted His grace, I have died with Him, and I have a new life to live. A life which has responsibilities (1 John 2:6 - If I am to abide in Him, I am to walk as He walked).

Jesus did not believe that. If he did why then did he recruit Apostles and give them directives? Why did He say there were things He could not tell the Apostles then but would send the Holy Spirit later.
If Jesus is sufficient then you are relying on an unchanging history. Jesus is alive and living and so is His message which is kept alive by the workings of the Holy Spirit through the Catholic Church.

Jakkass wrote: »

It's not about me being deserving. I'm personally deserving of hell. By accepting Jesus, He is now my advocate. He stands on my behalf before the Father (1 John 2:1).

Likewise. However what happens if Jesus who is merciful steps aside so you face the Father who is Just?

Jakkass wrote: »

My life alone isn't sufficient for anything. Yours isn't either. Nobody's life is sufficient. Only Jesus is sufficient. That's the reason He died. If you believe that you are sufficient to save yourself, I would argue that you are mistaken.

Jesus did not just give us Himself. He also gave us the Church.

We are a family

God the Father, Mary the Mother, Jesus the Son, us the Children of God.

Like most families we all want to be in the same house. There are some who leave - Prodigal perhaps.
The Father is not happy until all his Children are back in the same house.

For us the Catholic Church is the house of God in this life. We want all who have left the house to return. No questions asked.

Jakkass wrote: »

Of course it's a problem. I do think that you have misinterpreted that there is a limited context (sexual immorality) whereby divorce is permissible.

We went through that in another thread to no avail.

We did but misrepresentation, eisegesis and misinterpretation led to no conclusion. Maybe it should be pursued in a thread of its own.

Jesus did not say remarriage after divorce was permissable.
He said divorce due to adultery is permissable.
He advised that whoever married a divorced woman, even one divorced because of adultery, commits adultery.

He said what God has put together no man can put asunder. This means that while you can separate and "divorce" on earth the marriage bond is permanent in heaven.

Jakkass wrote: »

These apply to anyone, including those who are members of the RCC. Another notable question to ask is. Do you live under the law of mercy or under the law of judgement? Do you take your position to judge others when you yourself are guilty of many of the same sins as the ones you are listing?

Dogmatism lends itself to hypocrisy. It's something I had to look at in my life too to make sure that I am living as under the law of liberty.

We do not judge. However we are not tolerant of sin either which is why we are expected to go to confession and do our best not to sin. Not "try" but do all that we can not to sin. We fail and fail miserably but it is lifetimes work we are about, not instant gratification, success or achievement. For every sin we overcome there will be another waiting in the wings.

Jakkass wrote: »

Which Bible? - I've made clear already that there are numerous translations used by both Protestants and Catholics. The NRSV is used by Catholics, Anglicans and Greek Orthodox mainly, but also in other theological scholarship. It has also been approved by the Vatican for usage in numerous churches.

use in a church is different to use by the Magisterium. There are childrens bibles too but we don't use them to inform doctrine.
Why do you have an issue with NRSV being used in a church? I', not seeing this as being an issue.

Jakkass wrote: »

Well StealthRolex, your article has gone much further than leaving it down to God. So we are in a spot of difficulty. Either that you do believe what that article says and want to be politically correct about it, or you believe that the article is mistaken. If you believe what the article has said be forthright about it, I have thick enough skin

Well Jakkass, what can I say. I didn't write it but I found it well written.

Let me put is this way - we tend to see the prodigal son as one who walks away from Christ. What would have happened him if he never returned to his fathers house?
Maybe the Prodigal is an analogy for Protestants or non-Catholic Christians and his fathers house is an analogy for the Catholic Church.

Jakkass wrote: »

You're telling me! That's why I and others have suggested the best model for ecumenism is actually inter church co-operation on a pragmatic level rather than on a theoretical level.

If there are 30,000 churches then either they are all right or only one is right.
That's not theoretical as we know Jesus started One Church.

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm referring to numerous individuals who rebel against the changes brought in by Vatican II.

I ask this because you refer to a bishop who is writing pre-Vatican II rather than one who is writing post-Vatican II.

I think there is much misunderstanding about Vatican II and what it contains. It might be better to explore the changes you think caused rebellion so we can see if what people thought they were rebelling against were really worth rebelling against or was it all brought about by confusion fomented by the evil one.

philologos

StealthRolex wrote: »

I put it to you then that what you are basically saying is that all of the Catholic Church teaching are based on unsubstantiated assumptions.

Will that do?

No, I'm merely saying that your opinion concerning:
1) The RCC being the one true church
2) The Latin Vulgate being better than English translations derived from Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.
amongst other things, are not adequately argued for.

There is much RCC in common with other Christian denominations, and much of it does adhere to the Scriptures. A lot could also be argued not to.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Very, which is why the Church will authorize some and not others.

Any translations that I have consulted, at least in English seem very similar in wording to one another.

StealthRolex wrote: »

See PDN and note that he makes the error of assuming that Christ and God occupy space and time by not deciding which aorist tense is being deployed - it could be gnomic aorist - or maybe he decided a particular aorist suited his interpretation. The latin vulgate implies space and time do not effect God. If the past tense is correct the we don't need to give up sin is one incorrect interpretation that does not match with other parts of scripture. If we accept that because God is outside of space and time then our sins now cause Jesus suffering.
PDN - nothing personal, it is by way of example.

PDN is looking at the Greek, looking at the Latin translated by Jerome, and looking that the Doubay-Reims translation and notes that there is a difference between both the Latin and the Greek, a change which is inherited by the Doubay-Reims, and corrected in the New Jerusalem Bible.

I'm personally not a scholar of either language.

StealthRolex wrote: »

That is a question you can examine for yourself. Do you think your life and what you do is sufficient to gain you salvation and why?
Are there elements of the teachings of Jesus that you ignore or break?
Are there commandments you ignore or break?

I believe, that Jesus is sufficient. I believe that because I have accepted His grace, I have died with Him, and I have a new life to live. A life which has responsibilities (1 John 2:6 - If I am to abide in Him, I am to walk as He walked).

It's not about me being deserving. I'm personally deserving of hell. By accepting Jesus, He is now my advocate. He stands on my behalf before the Father (1 John 2:1).

My life alone isn't sufficient for anything. Yours isn't either. Nobody's life is sufficient. Only Jesus is sufficient. That's the reason He died. If you believe that you are sufficient to save yourself, I would argue that you are mistaken.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Example - Commandments say adultery is wrong
Jesus days remarriage after divorce is wrong
a church says remarriage after divorce is right
is this a problem?

Of course it's a problem. I do think that you have misinterpreted that there is a limited context (sexual immorality) whereby divorce is permissible.

We went through that in another thread to no avail.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Example - your neighbour earns more than you for doing less. Are you envious? Do you covet his life or belongings?
Example - do you bear false witness
Do you pray to win the lottery?
Do you feed the poor and hungry, cloth the naked, visit prisoners?

These apply to anyone, including those who are members of the RCC. Another notable question to ask is. Do you live under the law of mercy or under the law of judgement? Do you take your position to judge others when you yourself are guilty of many of the same sins as the ones you are listing?

Dogmatism lends itself to hypocrisy. It's something I had to look at in my life too to make sure that I am living as under the law of liberty.

James 2:10-13 wrote:

For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

StealthRolex wrote: »

I would agree that the Bible used by Protestants contains enough errors to make it a false Bible.

Which Bible? - I've made clear already that there are numerous translations used by both Protestants and Catholics. The NRSV is used by Catholics, Anglicans and Greek Orthodox mainly, but also in other theological scholarship. It has also been approved by the Vatican for usage in numerous churches.

StealthRolex wrote: »

As to their being saved or not - that is up to God. What Protestants can so is explore religion and theology and satisfy themselves beyond all reasonable doubt that what they are following is the true path and the only path.

Well StealthRolex, your article has gone much further than leaving it down to God. So we are in a spot of difficulty. Either that you do believe what that article says and want to be politically correct about it, or you believe that the article is mistaken. If you believe what the article has said be forthright about it, I have thick enough skin

StealthRolex wrote: »

With 30,000 (or more as new ones are started) protestant and non-catholic communities, churches and denominations that might take some time.

You're telling me! That's why I and others have suggested the best model for ecumenism is actually inter church co-operation on a pragmatic level rather than on a theoretical level.

StealthRolex wrote: »

What is Old Catholic?
Are you referring to Vatican II changes that were followed correctly by the bishops or those that break Canon law?
I accept the teachings of the Magisterium and the Pope over the Irish bishops interpretation where a conflict exists.

I'm referring to numerous individuals who rebel against the changes brought in by Vatican II.

I ask this because you refer to a bishop who is writing pre-Vatican II rather than one who is writing post-Vatican II.

StealthRolex

PDN wrote: »

I don't think it's problematic for people to examine the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts and listen to what the best scholars and linguists (irrespective of denominational affiliation) have to say. That's the kind of informed debate that operates in any other field of knowledge.

However, you seem to be saying that, while the Vulgate is not perfect, Catholics are bound to accept it. So, even if the Vulgate is in error and mistranslates a certain word or phrase, yopu are bound to accept it anyway. Have I accurately refelected what you're saying, or am I being unfair here?

Not unfair at all - we are bound to accept the interpretation of the Church. Lets face it, the Church has been at it for 2000 years and has an immense body of knowledge and scholarship to call upon. We Trust her because she is protected from error by the Holy Spirit.

When you run an orchestra you all follow the same version of the music under the same conductor. His artistic interpretation might be different but he cannot re-arrange it. unless everyone has the same manuscript there would be chaos. Likewise you all follow the conductors directions. Failure to do so leads to chaos.
There may be an error in the manuscript and in reading may be missed. In playing it may also be missed or noted. If noted and corrected, great as long as everyone corrects it the same way. If it is missed but is not glaringly obvious when played then the error is probably minor.

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

What you're basically saying is, if I accept all of your unsubstantiated assumptions, that I will hold the same point of view as you do. That isn't an argument for backing up that the Latin Vulgate and translations that come from it are more accurate than the Greek and Hebrew and translations that come from it.

That simply can't do.

I put it to you then that what you are basically saying is that all of the Catholic Church teaching are based on unsubstantiated assumptions.

Will that do?

Jakkass wrote: »

How different do you think translations from the same document can be?

Very, which is why the Church will authorize some and not others.

Jakkass wrote: »

This isn't back up that the Latin Vulgate is more accurate. These are claims that can be substantiated.

See PDN and note that he makes the error of assuming that Christ and God occupy space and time by not deciding which aorist tense is being deployed - it could be gnomic aorist - or maybe he decided a particular aorist suited his interpretation. The latin vulgate implies space and time do not effect God. If the past tense is correct the we don't need to give up sin is one incorrect interpretation that does not match with other parts of scripture. If we accept that because God is outside of space and time then our sins now cause Jesus suffering.
PDN - nothing personal, it is by way of example.

Jakkass wrote: »

The article that you cited, suggests strongly that non-Catholics will not be saved.

That is a question you can examine for yourself. Do you think your life and what you do is sufficient to gain you salvation and why?
Are there elements of the teachings of Jesus that you ignore or break?
Are there commandments you ignore or break?

Example - Commandments say adultery is wrong
Jesus days remarriage after divorce is wrong
a church says remarriage after divorce is right
is this a problem?

Example - your neighbour earns more than you for doing less. Are you envious? Do you covet his life or belongings?

Example - do you bear false witness

Do you pray to win the lottery?

Do you feed the poor and hungry, cloth the naked, visit prisoners?

There are many many examples that can be explored.

Jakkass wrote: »

From reading it, the point bluntly seems to suggest that Protestants have a false Bible, and that they aren't saved. I think you are taking liberties with this. It is odd that you have cited someone pre-Vatican II though. Are you an Old Catholic or do you accept the changes the RCC has made in how it has done things since?

I would agree that the Bible used by Protestants contains enough errors to make it a false Bible.

As to their being saved or not - that is up to God. What Protestants can so is explore religion and theology and satisfy themselves beyond all reasonable doubt that what they are following is the true path and the only path.

With 30,000 (or more as new ones are started) protestant and non-catholic communities, churches and denominations that might take some time.

What is Old Catholic?
Are you referring to Vatican II changes that were followed correctly by the bishops or those that break Canon law?
I accept the teachings of the Magisterium and the Pope over the Irish bishops interpretation where a conflict exists.