As listed earlier on a thread made by Pax, I decided to ask a couple of questions that most Catholics usually evade or fail to answer. In so many ways, there is this notion that Catholics think they have the upper hand whenever they discuss patristic exegesis whenever it comes to scripture or the early church fathers (ECFs). For the most part, much of these troubles lie with some of the faulty presumptions. Below is a list of a few challenges Catholics should take the time to consider whenever discussing these critical challenges. Remember, it all starts with the first one, defining tradition.
Prove to any Protestant the following:
1. Where in either history or the scriptures do we find a description of tradition the way the Catholic Church defines it (yes Pax, it's an all-time favorite question you have never bothered to answer)?
2. Where in either history or the scriptures do we find a concise implicit or explicit evidence that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven?
3.Where in either history or the scriptures do we find the sacraments of marriage and last rites to play vital roles in the process of salvation (as described by the CCC because the sacraments are channels of grace)?
4. Where in either history or the scriptures do we find the terms latria and dulia have been defined to mean something other than 'worship' or 'service'? Again, this is the rub for Catholics. They use these terms interchangeably with venerating and honor. So, where does the Church fathers use and define these terms as exceptions to the first commandment?
5. Where in either history or the scriptures do we find non-biblical sources (e.g. papal encylicals or the ECFs) ever claiming themselves to be counted as infallible or for that matter as already existing members of an infallible magisterium?
Again, these answers not so easy to answer.