The Not Ready-Catholic Dillemma

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Go read all of Calvin. He was clearly one of the top 5 Christian theologians of all time.

[/ QUOTE ]


If you keep saying stuff like this and *haven't* read the writings of the early church fathers as I urged in the thread you started, then not only is that willful blindness, but to the point which makes statements like above about Calvin lies. If that seems harsh coming from a fellow christian when you are trying not debate other christians, then I say it is worse to allow the truth to be misreprented by other christians who act like church history went from 33AD to 1400AD and refuse especially to invetigate the first two centuries of christianity after Our Lord's crucifixion.


And the larger question that all of these atheists should have for you and other protestants, is how can they accept anything you say when all the protestant denominations can't even agree among themselves, all the while claiming the reformation that produced those myriad denominations corrected errors in catholic theology. It's like a group of 100 astrologers who all predicted different things for the same person on a certain day arguing that astrology should be believed.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

If you keep saying stuff like this and *haven't* read the writings of the early church fathers


[/ QUOTE ]

Other than Augustine, who before Aquinas was better than Calvin (I'm not rating A. better than C.,byw)?

[ QUOTE ]

And the larger question that all of these atheists should have for you and other protestants, is how can they accept anything you say


[/ QUOTE ]

The same way they might accept what you say, by the grace of God.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
No, it's because the Bible tells Christians not to engage in disputes among each other in several places in the NT.

[/ QUOTE ]
Could you list these quotes? If so, it seems the pope is in direct violation of scripture with his comments.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Could you list these quotes? If so, it seems the pope is in direct violation of scripture with his comments.


[/ QUOTE ]

1 Corinthians 1:10

10Now (A)I exhort you, (B)brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no (C)divisions among you, but that you be made complete in (D)the same mind and in the same judgment.


1 Corinthians 3:3

3for you are still fleshly. For since there is (A)jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking (B)like mere men?


Philippians 1:27

27Only conduct yourselves in a manner (A)worthy of the (B)gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or remain absent, I will hear of you that you are (C)standing firm in (D)one spirit, with one mind (E)striving together for the faith of the gospel;

2 Corinthians 12:20
For I am afraid that perhaps when I come I may find you to be not what I wish and may be found by you to be not what you wish; that perhaps there will be strife, jealousy, angry tempers, disputes, slanders, gossip, arrogance, disturbances;

1 Timothy 6:4
he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions,

I'm not saying there can be no disagreement between professing Christians. Heresy should be opposed and doctrinal differences should be discussed. I'm just saying I personally don't want to debate other Christians on this forum. I don't think the above apply to what the Pope said - he's speaking for the Catholic Church and I guess he's thinks we're heretics - and that debate has been going on since the Reformation.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If you keep saying stuff like this and *haven't* read the writings of the early church fathers


[/ QUOTE ]

Other than Augustine, who before Aquinas was better than Calvin (I'm not rating A. better than C.,byw)?

[/ QUOTE ]


It's not that they were on the same level as Aquina or Augustine, it's that they prove what the beliefs and worship practices of the very early church were in the first two centuries after the death of Jesus, and before the time of the Council of Nicea when protestants allege the catholic church started. If protestants can't show that their beliefs and worship are consistent with that of the second and third generatinons of disciples of the apostles, then they can't claim the catholic church veared from early and true doctrine and practice.

Now you can either keep talking *about* those early fathers, or you can go *read them for yourself*. Of course that is if you aren't afraid doing so will challenge your beliefs as to which particular christian denomination is likely to be true and *fully* reflective of what Jesus taught.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And the larger question that all of these atheists should have for you and other protestants, is how can they accept anything you say


[/ QUOTE ]

The same way they might accept what you say, by the grace of God.

[/ QUOTE ]


Nice how you cut off the last part of that quote of mine with the reason non-believers shouldn't put credence in what you protestants are saying, and that you don't give a reason for why they shouldn't believe what I am saying.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Now you can either keep talking *about* those early fathers, or you can go *read them for yourself*


[/ QUOTE ]

Did you see my Clement quote?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Now you can either keep talking *about* those early fathers, or you can go *read them for yourself*


[/ QUOTE ]

Did you see my Clement quote?

[/ QUOTE ]


Yeah 1 quote and only noting similarities between catholic and protestant theology and not the substantial differences.

Here's a couple quotes from St. Irenaeus, ca. 185, not one hundred years after the death of the last apostle, St. John, from his work Adversus Haereses (Book III, Chapter 3):

1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to "the perfect" apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.




There you have from an early church father, not 100 years after the death of the last apostle (and who was born only a generation after), a man who was of the 3rd generation of christian disciples, speaking clearly of apostolic succession and the necessity of agreeing with the church/bishop or Rome. And you yourself refer to the letter written while St. John was living still, by the Bishop of Rome and Pope, the 4th to walk in the shoes of the Fisherman, St. Peter.

And yet you cleave to the teachings of false prophets and dissenters who came 1200 years later, and who were deniers of that truly proven holy apostolic succession and primacy of the Bishop of Rome. And then try to sell those error riven doctrines to non-believers. To what can that be due on your part if not spiritual and intellectual hubris and a willful blindness?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
"If you're asking why I don't want to debate doctrine with other Christians it's basically because the issues between Catholics and Protestants have been debated from every possible angle for hundreds of years so I don't need to try to "educate" Catholics. Also, I don't think atheists are really interested other than the entertainment value - the way I love to watch evolutionists wrangle over whether a particular skull is human or ape."

But that would never stop evolutionists from debating. Its not the entertainment part that worries you. It is the fact that an inter Christian debate might expose logical inconsistencies or new arguments that atheists could seize upon. But the Catholics here don't seem to worry about that. I consider that telling.

[/ QUOTE ]


I want to comment on this before NR has a chance to reply to my previous post. He is right about what the Bible says about contention among christians. But he is wrong when he says he doesn't feel a need to educate catholics in front of and for the "amusement" of non-believers. While I don't feel a need to proseltyze protestants in general, I do feel a need to make sure that only true and sound christian doctrine is placed before those non-believers, and to make protestants think and read a little more deeply when they act as if christian theology started with Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, et al. The biblical injunction means that debate among christians should be civil, and with my generally aggressive and sarcastic personality I am sure I have been guilty of violating same here. But if the truth is important, if it matters that the true meaning of the words of Jesus are known, then no christian should feel it wrong to debate difference in a civil manner, even in the face of unbelievers, even ones who only seek to deride christianity. If they sit in the seat of the scoffer, we are not guilty of putting them there, and we just might reach some who have an open heart and mind.

But when any non-believer is confronted with the *obvious* fact that there are many competing interpretations of the Bible among christians themselves, then christians should feel a need to make sure only the 100% true doctrine is proclaimed, and to make sure that's what they themselves are asserting by studying *all* of christian theology *especially* what the early fathers taught and believed to see if that is in accord with their own beliefs.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
But the Catholics here don't seem to worry about that. I consider that telling.

[/ QUOTE ]


David,

I want to tell you why we catholics "don't worry about that". It is because we are sure and confident in our beliefs not just because we can point to the true marks of the one true church like apostolic succession, but precisely because we do believe that there is and can only be one denomination that is 100% true and that it is the Catholic Church.

Whereas most protestant denominations don't claim to possess 100% of the truth, but believe like NR that all are partially right and thus all partially wrong. There's no way they can be confident in asserting their individual beliefs if they don't believe their own denomination's doctrine is the only one that is 100% true, which is of course something that astute non-believers like yourself are sure to pick up on, even if not understanding the reasons for same.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
It is because we are sure and confident in our beliefs not just because we can point to the true marks of the one true church like apostolic succession, but precisely because we do believe that there is and can only be one denomination that is 100% true and that it is the Catholic Church.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think i'm reading pretty carefully and it looks like this says "we are sure and confident in our beliefs because we believe that we share as a group beliefs that are 100% true."