Login Register

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic Page 6 of 7   [ 125 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Where Do Catholics Get The Notion They Follow The Bible?
PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 4:36 pm 
Offline
Honeymoon King
Honeymoon King
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 25, 2003 4:39 pm
Posts: 44272
Location: in marital bliss
Religion: One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic
Church Affiliations: 3rd Degree K of C, L of M
Signum Crucis wrote:
Calvinist wrote:
pax wrote:
But we are no longer under the Law.



Exactly. Those that believe in Christ are saved. There is no longer any condemnation for those that are in Christ. That includes lying. Or idolatry.


So why then are you so concerned that Beng is making a personal attack? According to you, there is no fault or sinfulness in lying or in bearing false witness or in any other attack by a Christian against another person. Beng is a Christian.


I think it is pretty well concrete proof that Cal is not saved. If he were, he would forgive as Jesus forgives, for that is what the Lord commanded us to do.

Does that mean Ananias and Saphira went straight to heaven after they were struck dead at Peter's feet?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Where Do Catholics Get The Notion They Follow The Bible?
PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 7:42 pm 
Offline
Handmaids of the Lord
Handmaids of the Lord
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2005 2:38 pm
Posts: 5512
Religion: Catholic
"And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, 'He shall be called a Nazarene' ." Matt. 2:23.

I would really like to have parker tell us where in the OT this prophecy is found.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Where Do Catholics Get The Notion They Follow The Bible?
PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 7:47 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 6:10 pm
Posts: 13096
Location: Inverted Cross domain
Calvinist wrote:
beng wrote:
Btw, you're a liar haparker 321 ( a sin which gets you to hell).





haparker321 wrote:
beng wrote:
Go read it yourselves. You don't need them. You don't want to do the hard work?

Agreed, and in such circumstances I have concluded the following:

The Early Church Fathers does not define or use tradition in the same sense the Catholic Church does.

The Early Church Fathers did not espouse the Bodily Assumption as fact.



You didn't even know the quotes from the fathers that pax gave you with regard to the bodily assumption.


You don't know about the fathers or The Father. You have your own father (John 8:44).



1. Why do you feel the need for personal attacks? That's just rude.


How am I suppose to describe what he did? He did not rape, he did not murder, he did not steal, what he did was lying. Ergo, he's a liar.

Quote:
2. Lying no more gets you sent to hell than idolatry. That's somewhat hypocritical for someone who lives in glass houses to throw stones.


I'm not doing any idolatry from where I'm coming from (the true christian faith, that is the Catholic faith). Yet even according to your standard (Protestantism), haparker321 is lying.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Where Do Catholics Get The Notion They Follow The Bible?
PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 7:54 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 6:10 pm
Posts: 13096
Location: Inverted Cross domain
But anyway, if he's bothered by it. Let me offer a no-nonsense apology (that I offended him, even though what he did is still IMO objectively lying). I'll even confess it to a priest.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Where Do Catholics Get The Notion They Follow The Bible?
PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 9:26 pm 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen

Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 2:29 pm
Posts: 272
Location: Diocese of Fort Worth
Religion: Catholic
haparker 321, you have been asked these questions by multiple people including the forum administrator.


1) what evidence do you have from the writings or homilies of the Church Fathers that they did not accept the Assumption of Mary to be true?

2) What evidence do you have that two previous popes have taught against the assumption of Mary?


Please answer them.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Where Do Catholics Get The Notion They Follow The Bible?
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 9:36 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 12:22 am
Posts: 349
Religion: Catholic
haparker321 wrote:
I decided to ask a couple of questions that most .......



Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vs6qZd_xP1w

and here: http://catholictruth.webs.com/

and here: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/scriptur ... ence-guide

and here: http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/products/books

Hope this helps. I look forward to discussing this more after you've reviewed and replied, point by point, to all of these.

Your brother in Christ.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Where Do Catholics Get The Notion They Follow The Bible?
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 12:42 am 
Offline
Head Administrator
Head Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2002 9:24 am
Posts: 71995
Location: Music City
Religion: Catholic
I don't think that haparker has any real intentions of pursuing this or any other discussion on this board. Because he offers no supporting documentation for his claims, he cannot be taken seriously.

_________________
For the DCF Children Image Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Where Do Catholics Get The Notion They Follow The Bible?
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 4:14 pm 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 9:58 pm
Posts: 220
Religion: Reformed
Quote:
Of course, we disagree with you on both points.

Right, and that's because you are citing historical sources that do not pertain to any direct evidence.

Quote:
"Common understanding" among whom? Catholics? Not in the least!!

Of course it is.

Code:
Our view is that all teachings find some Scriptural support; and "Tradition" reflecting the "Deposit of Faith" transmitted forward through each generation is historical by definition.

Which as I shown beforehand, you have not proven.

Quote:
"Teachings that come unsupported by either the Bible or history" may be a common "definition" among Protestants; but (as I noted in my prior post), such is NOT the meaning of Tradition among Catholics.

And the way the Church uses tradition is not the same way she defines it.

Quote:
Since no where in the early church was "Tradition" described or defined as "something that can be taught infallibly without the support of either history or scripture," I have no obligation to "prove" such from any Church Father.

I thought my original post (OP) asked for evidence that tradition defined and used in the same sense the Catholic Church does (I refined the question a little). So far I found no such proof to surface. I think what you said here is not what I have argued.

Quote:
You're here just working off one rather large strawman of a definition of "Tradition."

I asked a question.

Quote:
And I quoted Basil who noted in the 4th Century that there are "unwritten" teachings delivered "by the tradition of the Apostles" that have the "same force" as the Scriptural teachings. So the present understanding in that regard is reflected in the historical record.

Although Basil does mention a belief in the idea that tradition is independent of Scripture, the problem here as mentioned before is that He speaks about the ecclesiastical practices of the bishops (e.g. the sign of the cross, baptisms, using oil, etc.) but not of doctrine. Sorry, try again.

Quote:
Of course it doesn't

Right, and that makes the church look completely ambiguous with its dealings in Scripture.

Quote:
as most all teachings bear the imprint of both Scripture (to varying degrees of explicitness) and Tradition.

And, as mentioned earlier, you have yet to prove this.

Quote:
Even the Encyclical dogmatically defining the Assumption makes reference to Scripture, and that teaching probably has the least direct Scriptural support.

Don't forget implicit.

Quote:
A doctrine such as the Trinity finds much support in Scripture, though various aspects of the teaching (for example, the term "Trinity" itself and the "homoousios" of Jesus Christ and the Father) are revealed more explicitly through Tradition.

I accept the Trinity as fact because there is much support found in Scripture and historical writings. Unfortunately, not all Catholic doctrines are like this where they are supposed to be doctrinally well-supported.

Quote:
So it's pretty much a pointless exercise for the Church to create a list of teachings that were transmitted orally versus those that come via Scripture. Tradition and Scripture overlap far too much to make that exercise meaningful.

Not for us Protestants.

Quote:
That is not a problem that concerns us Catholics. For Protestants to act like it's such a big deal always smacks of disingenuous argumentation.

Not really. You see, if the Church argues for the need of this 'Golden Index' catalog for the Canon, then it's OK for us Protestants to demand the Golden Tradition/Non-Tradition list as well. It's only fair.

Quote:
In our view, all teachings have foundation in Scripture and history. This has been pointed out to you before.

The evidence is found wanting.

Quote:
When at the outset you phrase the question as "Where in either history or the scriptures do we find a description of tradition the way the Catholic Church defines it," you make the definition of tradition central to the inquiry. (Do you that easily lose track of what you've asked?)

Like I said earlier, the issue is about how tradition is used (which is what I meant more specifically).

Quote:
And we DON'T define it now as "something that lacks basis in Scripture or history."

Again, and again, most Catholic doctrines fall right into this category.

Quote:
Though for some reason you keep suggesting we do.

I am and you are proving my point.

Quote:
Again, it's your challenge to produce a definition (definitions usually take the form "Tradition is ____" or "Tradition means _____") or a discussion of Tradition that employs words to the effect that it encompasses "things that lack basis in Scripture or history." Either produce that, or else cease this line in inquiry.

Protestant Churches do not believe tradition has equal weight with Scripture here; hence, the burden of proof lies with Catholics.

Parker


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Where Do Catholics Get The Notion They Follow The Bible?
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 4:17 pm 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 9:58 pm
Posts: 220
Religion: Reformed
Signum Crucis wrote:
I don't think that haparker has any real intentions of pursuing this or any other discussion on this board. Because he offers no supporting documentation for his claims, he cannot be taken seriously.


Look, I do not usually show up regularly because I have two different jobs and I enjoy returning on occasion. I think I have expressed this to you before somewhere along those lines and yes these positions can be very demanding. If you honestly think that I am much of a 'coward or liar' (as implied by some of these posts), then why would I return to this post?

Parker


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Where Do Catholics Get The Notion They Follow The Bible?
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 4:23 pm 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 9:58 pm
Posts: 220
Religion: Reformed
Signum Crucis wrote:
So why then are you so concerned that Beng is making a personal attack? According to you, there is no fault or sinfulness in lying or in bearing false witness or in any other attack by a Christian against another person. Beng is a Christian.

I think it's really (more or less) a form of name calling, which comes as a personal attack. If the opponent does not agree with someone, the opponent calls the challenger X or Y. I think I would have to agree with Calvinist.

Parker


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Where Do Catholics Get The Notion They Follow The Bible?
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 4:29 pm 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen

Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 2:29 pm
Posts: 272
Location: Diocese of Fort Worth
Religion: Catholic
haparker321 wrote:
Signum Crucis wrote:
I don't think that haparker has any real intentions of pursuing this or any other discussion on this board. Because he offers no supporting documentation for his claims, he cannot be taken seriously.


Look, I do not usually show up regularly because I have two different jobs and I enjoy returning on occasion. I think I have expressed this to you before somewhere along those lines and yes these positions can be very demanding. If you honestly think that I am much of a 'coward or liar' (as implied by some of these posts), then why would I return to this post?

Parker


Then answer these questions, as you have been asked to repeatedly.

1) what evidence do you have from the writings or homilies of the Church Fathers that they did not accept the Assumption of Mary to be true?

2) What evidence do you have that two previous popes have taught against the assumption of Mary?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Where Do Catholics Get The Notion They Follow The Bible?
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2012 3:11 pm 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:43 am
Posts: 25
Religion: Catholic
ive read this thread and i am still in the camp that the Holy Mother Mary was assumed into heaven i haven't seen any good prof from haparker proving otherwise but i will say one thing if i recall haParker wanted records from before 400 A.D but if there not there it could be because the early church didn't have to defend it since it was accepted that mary was accepted into heaven hope i made since just wanted to put in my 2 cent


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Where Do Catholics Get The Notion They Follow The Bible?
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2012 3:32 pm 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen

Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 2:29 pm
Posts: 272
Location: Diocese of Fort Worth
Religion: Catholic
Devoted2Mary wrote:
ive read this thread and i am still in the camp that the Holy Mother Mary was assumed into heaven i haven't seen any good prof from haparker proving otherwise but i will say one thing if i recall haParker wanted records from before 400 A.D but if there not there it could be because the early church didn't have to defend it since it was accepted that mary was accepted into heaven hope i made since just wanted to put in my 2 cent


This is a good point. In the early Church most of the writings were geared towards heresies which were cropping up. As for the rest, haparker will not provide evidence, as there is none. He has argued himself into a corner by claiming that early Church Fathers did not support the assumption and that multiple popes taught against it. Those are the kind of statements which beg for evidence to support them. Yet, despite repeated requests, we have nothing.

Here are some good writings on our Blessed Mother that you may wish to check out. Your profile says you are a candidate right now and I know that when I was coming in through RCIA, Mary was one of the things I had to read a good deal to get my head around. Perhaps one or two of these might be useful for you.

http://www.amazon.com/Mary-Fathers-Chur ... 287&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Mother-Saviour-Re ... pd_sim_b_8

http://www.amazon.com/Dormition-Mary-Ea ... d_sim_b_56

http://www.amazon.com/Queen-Mother-Bibl ... d_sim_b_52

http://www.amazon.com/Mary-Church-Sourc ... pd_sim_b_4

http://www.amazon.com/Patristic-Sermons ... 952&sr=8-4

http://www.amazon.com/Theotokos-Woman-M ... 952&sr=8-1



Peace of Christ,


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Where Do Catholics Get The Notion They Follow The Bible?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 11:40 am 
Offline
Head Administrator
Head Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2002 9:24 am
Posts: 71995
Location: Music City
Religion: Catholic
haparker321 wrote:
Signum Crucis wrote:
I don't think that haparker has any real intentions of pursuing this or any other discussion on this board. Because he offers no supporting documentation for his claims, he cannot be taken seriously.


Look, I do not usually show up regularly because I have two different jobs....


Which has absolutely nothing to do with your lack of documentation.

_________________
For the DCF Children Image Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Where Do Catholics Get The Notion They Follow The Bible?
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 1:42 pm 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 9:51 am
Posts: 109
Religion: Catholic -- Latin Rite
haparker321 wrote:
Quote:
Of course, we disagree with you on both points.


Right, and that's because you are citing historical sources that do not pertain to any direct evidence.


Your pattern of speaking in vague generalities continues.

My first statement on my first post on this thread noted that discussions with Protestants (like you) "often is an exercise in the non-Catholic finding reason after reason to reject what is offered is 'proof.'" You are making me look prophetic (not that this wasn't easily predictable). So, in yet another attempt by this Board to make you deal in specifics, rather than vague platitudes, I ask: please explain the criteria for determining when a citation to an historical source "pertains to direct evidence" and when it does not. If citing to a primary historical source such as the writings of St. Basil isn't "direct evidence," then what, pray tell, would ever constitute direct historical evidence in your view? Can you offer some guidance here? If you can't provide that, it's apparent you're just playing the "that's not adequate proof" game.

Quote:
Quote:
"Common understanding" among whom? Catholics? Not in the least!!


Of course it is.


In my last post, I laid the challenge for you to provide a Catholic source wherein "Tradition" was defined or discussed to mean "Teachings that come unsupported by either the Bible or history" as you (wrongly) assert the Catholic Church defines it. Your reply doesn't attempt to provide that definition.

Quote:
Quote:
"Teachings that come unsupported by either the Bible or history" may be a common "definition" among Protestants; but (as I noted in my prior post), such is NOT the meaning of Tradition among Catholics.


And the way the Church uses tradition is not the same way she defines it.


So are you here finally agreeing that the Catholic Church does NOT define "Tradition" as "teachings that come unsupported by either the Bible or history?" You keep dancing around this question. Please answer for once.

Quote:
Quote:
Since no where in the early church was "Tradition" described or defined as "something that can be taught infallibly without the support of either history or scripture," I have no obligation to "prove" such from any Church Father.


I thought my original post (OP) asked for evidence that tradition defined and used in the same sense the Catholic Church does (I refined the question a little).


And I'm offering as evidence statements affirming that the early church 1) explicitly recognized there are equally authoritative non-written teachings and 2) accepted as matters of doctrine things (e.g., Mary's PV) that you certainly won't agree are Scripturally based, so your only alternative is to acknowledge these doctrines are based in the main on Tradition (more on this below). So you have evidence that Tradition was described and used then just as it is described and used today.

Quote:
So far I found no such proof to surface. I think what you said here is not what I have argued.


That's because your original post proceeds off a false view of how the Catholic Church defines "Tradition." We can't provide proof to a question that proceeds off a false premise. That's why I keep insisting you provide a definition of "Tradition" from a Catholic source, because that may be the only way I can hope to correct the erroneous view that resides in your head.

Quote:
I asked a question.


Again, you asked a question based on a flawed premise. But in the further attempt to show how this is the case, I'll ask for information from you:

    Please document 1) how the Catholic Church defines "Tradition" (using Catholic-sourced documentation) and 2) where or how in history any Catholic writer has appealed to or used Tradition in a sense contrary to the definition provided. (Or, in light of your later 'what I more specifically meant qualifier,' if you want to focus on how Tradition was "used" then and now, that's fine, too.)

Parker, you are continuing in this notion that there is some disparity between how Catholics today describe Tradition and how earlier generations described it. So the burden falls on you to document that disparity.

By contrast, I've already given one example -- Basil -- who speaks of an equally authorititative non-Scriptural teaching authority (more on Basil below). So your turn: give an example of someone who described (or used) Tradition differently from how the Catholic Church today describes (or uses) it, and provide the words they used in so describing it (or demonstrate how they used it).

Quote:
Although Basil does mention a belief in the idea that tradition is independent of Scripture, the problem here as mentioned before is that He speaks about the ecclesiastical practices of the bishops (e.g. the sign of the cross, baptisms, using oil, etc.) but not of doctrine. Sorry, try again.


Parker, you're not going to be able to skirt by Basil (or a host of other examples that lie waiting in the wings) by trying to claim the authoritative non-written teachings he refers to pertain just to supposed non-doctrinal matters like the sign of the Cross (and even that has Trinitarian implications). You are exhibiting a failure to grasp the extent to which the early church expressed its doctrinal beliefs through its liturgical practices. But I needn't delve into ancient liturgies at this point, as another example should suffice to show that Basil accepted doctrinal matters on the basis of Tradition.

Basil, like pretty much near all of his contemporaries, affirmed the belief in Mary's Perpetual Virginity:

    "The friends of Christ do not tolerate hearing that the Mother of God ever ceased to be a virgin." Basil the Great, "Homilia in sanctam Christi generationem," in Patrologia Graeca 31:1468

Now, Basil could only have based his belief on this matter on two possible sources: 1) Scripture or 2) Tradition. Are you going to contend that Basil could adequately ground his belief on Mary's PV on Scripture alone? I am guessing not (though I'd be fascinated were you to make and support that claim). If not, then here before us is a doctrinal belief that Basil (under your paradigm where Scripture and Tradition are essentially separate things) must be regarded as basing primarily on Tradition. And, again, note how Basil asserts this teaching without undertaking some type of historical 'proofing' back through time.

So, again, I am demonstrating through the example of Basil how the early church described and used Tradition as the present Church today describes and uses it. This is the very thing you have asked to see produced. And I have many more examples I can adduce.

Quote:
Right, and that makes the church look completely ambiguous with its dealings in Scripture.


You consistently fail to distinguish between assertion and argument. What on earth is "ambiguous with its dealings in Scripture" supposed to mean? That's merely an assertion (albeit a non-sensical one). It would start to take on a semblance of argument if you were to give an example or two and attempt to explain how these show "ambiguity with [Church] dealings in Scripture."

Quote:
Quote:
So it's pretty much a pointless exercise for the Church to create a list of teachings that were transmitted orally versus those that come via Scripture. Tradition and Scripture overlap far too much to make that exercise meaningful.


Not for us Protestants.


Only for those Protestants who favor this pet argument and who then ignore the logical response that the Scripture/Tradition overlap makes producing a list of "Teachings Which Come Solely From Tradition" impossible. Here you simply ignore my point and regurgitate the same "show me the list" blather. Pet arguments aren't easily abandoned, but this one is beyond saving and deserves to be euthanized.

Quote:
You see, if the Church argues for the need of this 'Golden Index' catalog for the Canon, then it's OK for us Protestants to demand the Golden Tradition/Non-Tradition list as well. It's only fair.


The Church doesn't argue for a need for a "Golden Index." It merely observes correctly that Scripture itself does not define its own parameters.

This is a case of Protestants mixing the apples and oranges and making a specious argument. "Canon" means "list." Scripture does not by itself identify that list. So historically that list was derived through the witness and practice of the Church (through the "Holy Spirit leading into all truth") in accepting some books as having apostolic origin (and thus authoritative and inspired) and dismissing others as not having the same, direct apostolic origin. But a writing either bears apostolic authority or it does not. It's an either/or matter (apple).

As to Tradition, it is the same Spirit-led witness and practice of the Church which accepts some teachings as properly belonging to the Apostolic "Deposit of Faith," while concluding others do/did not. We are very consistent in our approach to Scripture and Tradition in this regard. But given that all teachings bear the imprint of both Scripture and Tradition to varying degrees, it's not the same either/or "apple" that exists with the question of a book's canonicity. That is, it's not a matter that a teaching can be said to be 'via Scripture only ' or 'via Tradition only.' (It's an 'orange.') So no "Golden Tradition" list which purports to identify teachings that are received apart from Scripture is possible. It's only the fallacious Protestant pet-argument that insists such can or should be done.

Quote:
Quote:
When at the outset you phrase the question as "Where in either history or the scriptures do we find a description of tradition the way the Catholic Church defines it," you make the definition of tradition central to the inquiry. (Do you that easily lose track of what you've asked?)


Like I said earlier, the issue is about how tradition is used (which is what I meant more specifically).


At the outset, you phrased it as a matter of how Tradition is "decribed (defined)." Now, you're shifting to say it's a question of "how tradition is used."

The rejoinder to your frequent "I keep asking, but don't ever get an answer" posturing is that you are getting answers; you just keep trying to shift the question to make it seem like you haven't. The "maintain a moving target" technique is one I've seen often before.

Brian


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Where Do Catholics Get The Notion They Follow The Bible?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:56 pm 
Offline
Ancient Mariner
Ancient Mariner
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 9:04 pm
Posts: 16957
Location: If I'm not there I must be here
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: Honorary Member 3rd degree KC
I wonder what evidence he has that Jesus was a protestant and no one knew until Luther.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Where Do Catholics Get The Notion They Follow The Bible?
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 10:03 am 
Offline
Head Administrator
Head Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2002 9:24 am
Posts: 71995
Location: Music City
Religion: Catholic
It's a shame that haparker did not return to read Brian's response. :(

_________________
For the DCF Children Image Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Where Do Catholics Get The Notion They Follow The Bible?
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 12:26 am 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 11:30 am
Posts: 5921
Location: Double-Decker Couch
Religion: Lead, Kindly Light
haparker321 wrote:
Protestant Churches do not believe tradition has equal weight with Scripture here; hence, the burden of proof lies with Catholics.

Bobo doesn't think the reports of Bigfoot are false; hence the burden of proof lies with anyone who disagrees.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Where Do Catholics Get The Notion They Follow The Bible?
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 1:30 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 8:55 am
Posts: 4367
Location: Castle Black: my chamber behind the Armory
Religion: Catholic
haparker321 wrote:
Protestant Churches do not believe tradition has equal weight with Scripture here; hence, the burden of proof lies with Catholics.


"Don't you know that the laying on of hands after baptism and then the invocation of the Holy Spirit is a custom of the Churches? Do you demand Scripture proof? You may find it in the Acts of the Apostles. And even if it did not rest on the authority of Scripture the consensus of the whole world in this respect would have the force of a command. For many other observances of the Churches, which are due to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law..."
St Jerome, Dialogue Against the Luciferians, chpt 8


I can provide ample evidence that shows that Parker does not believe the same way the early Church did.

The bigger problem for parker and protestants like him is the question, why do you refuse to believe and follow what the Early Church believed and followed?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Where Do Catholics Get The Notion They Follow The Bible?
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:50 am 
Offline
King of Cool

Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 1:30 pm
Posts: 70842
Religion: Anticukite Catholic
Arguments about 'burden of proof' are inherently stupid.....


If the question under discussion was 'resolved: Protestantism is 100% true and Catholicism a damnable heresy' the burden of proof would be on Catholics, if the question under discussion was 'resolved: Protestantism is heresy' then the burden of proof lies on the Protestants, and if the question under discussion is 'Is Catholicism true?' the burden of proof lies equally on both sides.

But since this is a CATHOLIC message board, and Parker is here as an attacker/aggressor, we're really kind of arguing the second question 'Resolved: Catholicism is true' which means the burden of proof lies with those who reject that proposition, i.e. Parker.

To come here, on a Catholic message board, and proclaim that somehow Catholics are under the burden of proof to prove the truth of Catholicism to him or else he wins by default is just stupid. He is supposed to be here trying to convert US not the reverse.

That would be as dumb as me walking onto, say, a Jewish message board and declaring that the burden of proof is on them to prove that Jesus is not the Messiah or else Christianity wins by default. Hey, when you're in somebody's else's territory, the burden of proof is on YOU.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 6 of 7   [ 125 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


Jump to: