ECT THE ARROGANCE & BLINDNESS OF THE PROTESTANT HERESY

[Traditio]

:chuckle: Oh, that's odd. Sorry about that. Here you go.

I believe I understand the distinction that the article makes between "apostolic succession" and "apostolicity," but I don't think that it really "gets at" my objection. What does "apostolic" mean in the Apostle's creed that you cited? What was the signification of the term insofar as it was originally used in that particular case.

 

[Town Heretic]

I believe I understand the distinction that the article makes between "apostolic succession" and "apostolicity," but I don't think that it really "gets at" my objection.

It isn't aimed at it, because you can't be, aren't actually interested in being satisfied by anything short of a dogmatic capitulation to your church. But it does answer on what is meant by what we recite.

What does "apostolic" mean in the Apostle's creed that you cited?

As used and considered by Presbyterians? I just showed you. The rest approaches the sort of pointless squabbling I was talking to Pure about.

 

[Cruciform]

I'm a Presbyterian. Does that make me anti-Baptist, Methodist or Anglican?

On Baptist, Methodist, or Anglican websites I imagine it would.

I don't think of it that way. Who is Christ to a Catholic? The same as he is to any Christian. There, in the salvific, we're joined in a truly catholic and apostolic church.

You're using the word "catholic" in a decidedly ahistorical manner, but I get your basic meaning, and agree with it. That's why the Catholic Church considers properly-baptized Protestants to be fellow Christians.


(Incidentally, the Protestant denomination from which I converted to the Catholic faith over fifteen years ago was the OPC.)



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Town Heretic]

On Baptist, Methodist, or Anglican websites I imagine it would.

I think that's peculiar thinking. What unites the Body is greater by far than what divides us.

You're using the word "catholic" in a decidedly ahistorical manner, but I get your basic meaning, and agree with it. That's why the Catholic Church considers properly-baptized Protestants to be fellow Christians.

As they should. And why I consider my Catholic brothers and sisters to be exactly that, our differences notwithstanding.

 

[Traditio]

As used and considered by Presbyterians?

No. What did it mean as intended by the author of the text that you cited and understood in the historical and religious context in which it was penned?

 

[Cruciform]

So then, is slavery acceptable?

No (Catechism, par. 2414). Now, again, how does this prove that your favored man-made Protestant sect is in fact that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself in 33 A.D., and against which he declared that the gates of Hades would never prevail?



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Town Heretic]

No. What did it mean as intended by the author of the text that you cited and understood in the historical and religious context in which it was penned?

Trad...

"For example, the Westminster Confession of Faith 1.10 says this:

The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture."

We have a contextual difference your appeal to tradition won't bridge. To the Protestant this is just an example of your dogma straying. But I'm not here to argue our differences, so let it go, Indy. It won't go anywhere that's fruitful for either of us.

Or better yet, I'll let it go and God keep you.

 

[Cruciform]

...I consider my Catholic brothers and sisters to be exactly that, our differences notwithstanding.

Yet this fails to address the Truth Question, that is, whether or not Jesus Christ founded a Church in which the fullness of the Christian faith resides, and which He desires for all believers to enter in faithfulness to Him.

If so, then we must ask which of the tens-of-thousands of professing Christian groups in existence today IS in fact that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ two millennia ago. I would contend that Christ's one historic Church is the Catholic Church and, if true, must conclude that, for example, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church is not actually a "church" at all---after all, Christ founded only ONE Church (Mt. 16:18; cf. 1 Tim. 3:15)---but rather merely a man-made sect whose teachings carry no binding apostolic authority whatsoever, but can never be more than the corrupt traditions of men. That is precisely why I ultimately left behind the OPC (and all the rest of the recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sects as well), and joined myself to Christ's one historic Catholic Church.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Danoh]

No (Catechism, par. 2414). Now, again, how does this prove that your favored man-made Protestant sect is in fact that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself in 33 A.D., and against which he declared that the gates of Hades would never prevail?



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Perhaps Jesus was wrong about that gates of Hades thing - I mean, the RCC sure has prevailed all these centuries.

 

[Traditio]

Trad...

"For example, the Westminster Confession of Faith 1.10 says this:

The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture."

We have a contextual difference your appeal to tradition won't bridge. To the Protestant this is just an example of your dogma straying. But I'm not here to argue our differences, so let it go, Indy. It won't go anywhere that's fruitful for either of us.

Or better yet, I'll let it go and God keep you.

Town Heretic:

I am not asking you a dogmatic question. Your faith or mine is utterly irrelevant to the question I am asking.

You quoted the Apostle's Creed.

The Apostle's Creed was penned at a determinate point in time by a determinate number of people with a determinate meaning which they intended to express.

How did they understand the word "apostolic" when they penned the words: "I believe in one holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church"?

The question that I am asking you is qualitatively no different from me asking you what the founding fathers meant when they penned the first amendment to the constitution.

 

[Danoh]

The opinions (traditions of men) taught to you by your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect are noted.

Am still looking for this dribble - "If you say the Rosary faithfully until death, I do assure you that, in spite of the gravity of your sins 'you shall receive a never fading crown of glory.' [2] Even if you are on the brink of damnation, even if you have one foot in Hell, even if you have sold your soul to the devil as sorcerers do who practise black magic, and even if you are a heretic as obstinate as a devil, sooner or later you will be converted and will amend your life and save your soul, if----and mark well what I say----if you say the Holy Rosary devoutly every day until death for the purpose of knowing the truth and obtaining contrition and pardon for your sins" (St. Louis Marie de Montfort, Secret of the Rosary, Red Rose)."

Am still looking for that -way, way, way later dribble, in Bible.

Romans 5:1-2 is all I find.

 

[Town Heretic]

Town Heretic:

I am not asking you a dogmatic question. Your faith or mine is utterly irrelevant to the question I am asking.

You quoted the Apostle's Creed.

We recite it every Sunday.

The Apostle's Creed was penned at a determinate point in time by a determinate number of people with a determinate meaning which they intended to express.

How did they understand the word "apostolic" when they penned the words: "I believe in one holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church"?

Then you're just asking how you understand the apostolic relationship and its consideration, not how we view it in our use and what's the point in that?

The answer on how we use words like catholic and apostolic is found in my prior answers.

 

[Traditio]

Then you're just asking how you understand the apostolic relationship and its consideration, not how we view it in our use and what's the point in that?

No. I'm asking how the authors understood the word that they wrote down.

The answer on how we use words like catholic and apostolic is found in my prior answers.

I'm not asking you how you use the word. I'm asking how the author(s) of the Apostolic creed used it.

 

[Town Heretic]

Yet this fails to address the Truth Question, that is, whether or not Jesus Christ founded a Church in which the fullness of the Christian faith resides, and which He desires for all believers to enter in faithfulness to Him.

Protestants believe that he did, but not as literally as you mean it. That is, there is one universal church, it's simply not the thing you'd have it. A similar difference attends how we see Peter and what was meant by the founding rock.

I would contend that Christ's one historic Church is the Catholic Church and, if true, must conclude that, for example, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church is not actually a "church" at all

I don't feel similarly compelled though I know that many Protestants feel as strongly about it, if in a different fashion.

---after all, Christ founded only ONE Church (Mt. 16:18; cf. 1 Tim. 3:15)---but rather merely a man-made sect whose teachings carry no binding apostolic authority whatsoever, but can never be more than the corrupt traditions of men.

I'd remind you that it is the Catholic church, not the Protestant line, that holds traditions as a rival to scriptural authority. On the founding point, supra and by way of reference to arguments we're both likely more than a little familiar with and are fruitless to pursue again.

That is precisely why I ultimately left behind the OPC (and all the rest of the recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sects as well), and joined myself to Christ's one historic Catholic Church.

I'm not trying to talk you out of your choice. I'd attempt to talk you into an approach more in keeping with the humility and warmth of your Pope, but that's life for you.

 

[Town Heretic]

No. I'm asking how the authors understood the word that they wrote down.

I'm not asking you how you use the word. I'm asking how the author(s) of the Apostolic creed used it.

Trad, I understand what you're asking. I've noted it. But there's no point in it and no dispute. By way of, when we say catholic, we mean universal. It's of no moment that the writer only understood the word to mean Catholic, lacking any other frame of reference.

 

[Traditio]

Trad, I understand what you're asking. I've noted it. But there's no point in it and no dispute. By way of, when we say catholic, we mean universal. It's of no moment that the writer only understood the word to mean Catholic, lacking any other frame of reference.

You're not a fan of constitutional constructionism, are you? lain:

 

[Town Heretic]

You're not a fan of constitutional constructionism, are you? lain:

I'm no fan of slavery and I've always thought women should be allowed to vote. You?

Or, I'm a great believer in right and in the right's ability to withstand the scrutiny of reason.

 

[Traditio]

I'm no fan of slavery and I've always thought women should be allowed to vote. You?

Or, I'm a great believer in right and in the right's ability to withstand the scrutiny of reason.

You're right, TH, I simply don't see any meaningful debate or discourse coming from this.

There's simply no argument to be had with someone who denies that we should read a text with a view to discerning the intentions of the author who wrote it.

In a more Aristotelian formulation: there's no argument to be had with a man who denies first principles. :nono:

 

[Town Heretic]

You're right, TH, I simply don't see any meaningful debate or discourse coming from this.

There's simply no argument to be had with someone who denies that we should read a text with a view to discerning the intentions of the author who wrote it.

You should if your intention is to honor his understanding. But, you can honor "We the people" even while not believing that the phrase should mostly refer to landed white people, should be expanded without having to come up with a new pronoun.

Aristotle would understand that. You? I'm taking an over/under.

 

[patrick jane]

You should if your intention is to honor his understanding. But, you can honor "We the people" even while not believing that the phrase should mostly refer to landed white people, should be expanded without having to come up with a new pronoun.

Aristotle would understand that. You? I'm taking an over/under.

what's with the plain face and zoo in your signature, and what about bucky ?