In defense of Cruciform; Traditions of Men

[brewmama]

I'm not protestant, as that term is indicative as a group that broke from the RCC, but you're argument is flawed. The Holy Ghost teaches all things. I don't "interpret" on my own. The Holy Ghost teaches all things.

Aide from scripture, the actions of the RCC hierarchy, such as naked boys jumping from cakes and mass child molestation, prove that it is a tool of Satan.

If the Holy Spirit teaches all things, why are there so many interpretations?

There are PLENTY of non-Catholic hierarchy that sin and fall into evil. Do you really want to get into a spitting contest?

 

[Cruciform]

It's a matter of perspective, isn't it. From your perspective, Protestants have all the oft repeated errors. From the Protestant perspective, it's the Catholic's who have all the oft repeated errors. Your claim to history does not make you any more correct than our claim to history. Protest away but those facts remain.

Go ahead, then, and demonstrate from Divine Revelation and the facts of ecclesiastical history that your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect is in fact that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself (Mt. 16:18-19), and which therefore possesses the inherent doctrinal authority to interpret Scripture and formulate doctrine in a manner which is binding upon all believers (Mt. 28:18-20; 1 Tim. 3:15). Otherwise, your Protestant "perspective" amounts to exactly nothing.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cruciform]

Who are we to judge?

"We" don't. Christ's one historic Church does, and always has.

 

[CabinetMaker]

"We" don't. Christ's one historic Church does, and always has.

God judges. Only God judges. That is why your opinions of Protestant or Catholic doctrine amounts to exactly nothing.

 

[Traditio]

God judges. Only God judges. That is why your opinions of Protestant or Catholic doctrine amounts to exactly nothing.

Is that a doctrinal opinion?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

2. That hermeneutical lens can be traced via your given protestant tradition to a given man or set of men who are not Jesus, nor do you claim anything else (contrary to the claims of the Catholic Church, who actually do assert that Jesus and the apostles started our tradition). The difference between my tradition and yours is "started by Jesus Himself" as opposed to "started by some guy named John Calvin...

If you had taken the time to read the content of my post you would know why these sort of claims about "church" are simply parroting Rome's own narrative of history versus actual history. For that matter, where have I ever claimed Calvin or any man as founder?

Are you so desperate to prove your point that you resort to blustering? Recall that you began this thread with claims of how Romanists are justified in making one-liners towards their detractors from lack of response. In answer to the contrary, my post contains evidences of response upon response that have been met by the same wave offs as you are now practicing here.

AMR

 

[Traditio]

If you had taken the time to read the content of my post you would know why these sort of claims about "church" are simply parroting Rome's own narrative of history versus actual history. For that matter, where have I ever claimed Calvin or any man as founder?

But AMR, I am afraid that you misrepresent me, for you have cut off a key phrase of what I wrote. I subsequently conceded that you might well wish to deny that the Catholic faith was started by Jesus; this was not the main "thrust" of my comments.

A propos your question of whether or not you have "claimed Calvin or any man as founder," I need only quote what it says directly beneath your name:

"Presbyterian (PCA) ○○○○○○○○○☞ A Calvinist!"

Are you so desperate to prove your point that you resort to blustering? Recall that you began this thread with claims of how Romanists are justified in making one-liners towards their detractors from lack of response. In answer to the contrary, my post contains evidences of response upon response that have been met by the same wave offs as you are now practicing here.

AMR

Fair enough. I was reading this posting of yours just now. I can't help but feel that St. Augustine's comments on apostolic succession seem to differ from your opinion.

You focus heavily on papal succession; to my mind, this is a secondary issue. It's not a matter of particular importance. What should weigh heavily on our minds is the matter, not of papal succession, but of apostolic succession. Was there ever a point in time, after Jesus and the Apostles, in which there were no bishops who were consecrated by their predecessors, whose consecrations, in turn, could be traced back to the Apostles?

I feel that the response I gave to your points about the St. Augustine quotes, generally speaking, answers this posting of yours.

What say you?

 

[Lon]

What say you?

My two cents: I say you are engaging the conversation, are seen as considerate, interested, rejoining appropriately, and keeping interest as well as serving your Catholic interest in a way that a one-liner is simply incapable of ever accomplishing. (my two cents, if it is worth that)

You two will walk to your separate corners, he to Presbyterian Protestant, and you to "Catholic." Like a good boxing match, it will not change your styles or choices. Truth is worth honing, and so, for me, debate is worthy of Him, and worth the effort. It has an impact on our serving God, our serving fellow men and the one who is the opponent, as well as allows us to divest and reinvestigate our own theology. Hence this is greatly preferred over the pat one-liner.

 

[Traditio]

My two cents: I say you are engaging the conversation, are seen as considerate, interested, rejoining appropriately, and keeping interest as well as serving your Catholic interest in a way that a one-liner is simply incapable of ever accomplishing. (my two cents, if it is worth that)

You two will walk to your separate corners, he to Presbyterian Protestant, and you to "Catholic." Like a good boxing match, it will not change your styles or choices. Truth is worth honing, and so, for me, debate is worthy of Him, and worth the effort. It has an impact on our serving God, our serving fellow men and the one who is the opponent, as well as allows us to divest and reinvestigate our own theology. Hence this is greatly preferred over the pat one-liner.

Lon:

With all due respect, not all posters on TOL have an MA or higher education in either theology or philosophy. I have great respect for AMR.

Most people on TOL are "average joes" who simply echo the contemporary refrains of their given sects, political parties, etc. They simply follow blindly the contemporary trends of their given sectarian parties.

AMR deserves something other than "so says Calvin; so what?"

The random uneducated protestant who simply repeats: "Traditions of men" or "scripture alone"?

Charity, perhaps, requires more. The rules of good reasoning? Not so much.

I don't consider them worthy (and here, of course, I do not speak qua Christian) of my time at all. So much the better for Cruciform that he even considers them worthy of one liners. :idunno:

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Content related to...
-Refutation of Augustine quote in support of Rome
-Anachronistic use of ECF by Romanists
-Church vs. church
-Catholic vs. catholic
-11 overlooked points of history
-Early church not Romanist/Papist church
-Romanist's "table of contents" ploy
-Rock of faith, not men
-Perpsicuity claimed by the magisterium
-Separation from apostacy
-Justification

In the above I have fixed that sleight of hand trick of yours hoping others would ignore the full content of my post to which you very sparsely responded.

You are neglecting the general context in which St. Augustine makes his claims about the authority of the Church, i.e., contrary to the manicheans. The aforementioned quote should be understood in light of what St. Augustine says in De Utilitate Credendi.

It is for this reason that St. Augustine, both in De Utilitate Credendi and elsewhere, lays special emphasis on apostolic succession, i.e., the unbroken succession of Catholic bishops: only this can give us grounds for faith in the truth of the claims in the gospel. Only if the current bishops of the Church are the successors of the successors of the successors[, etc.] of the apostles, who themselves were eyewitnesses to the events in question and passed on what they saw, learned, etc. to their successors, and they to theirs, and so forth and so on, can we have probable grounds for assent to the truths that they offer for our belief.

Are you really going to play this game of Augustine said this, but really what he meant, from reading over here and there, was that he really did not mean what he said?

Again? Nothing you have argued moves the man from what he clearly stated in the numerous quotes in my post. And moving the goal posts around won't help you either, as Augustine's position does not rest upon a sucession of infallible men, but with succession of the truths received of the NT apostles, that are preserved and taught.

Unlike Augustine, Rome continues to make the mistake with the idea that authority requires infallibility. Augustine is not affirming non-scriptural authority. The church has real authority, and it is derived from Christ in the NT Scriptures. So the church does have genuine authority, but not infallible authority. On a submission level, the church had to submit to the Apostles even when they were not under direct inspiration due to the nature of their authority. The NT makes it clear that infallible authority can and does command submission to fallible authority (see Hebrews 13:17; Romans 13:1 and forward). God commands our obedience and submission to His rulers (elders) in the church, but that need not and does not imply they are infallible in their authority. God commands subjection to civil authority, but that need not and does not imply that they possess the attribute of infallibility.

Spoiler

Augustine (354-430): God alone swears securely, because He alone is infallible. In Psalmum LXXXVIII Enarratio, Sermo I, PL 37:1122

Augustine (354-430) written 413/414 AD: Do not doubt that this duty of ours [i.e., to intercede for others] is a part of religion because God, ‘with whom there is no iniquity,’ whose power is supreme, who not only sees what each one is but also foresees what he will be, who alone cannot err in His judgment because He cannot be deceived in His knowledge, nevertheless acts as the Gospel expresses it: ‘He maketh his sun to rise upon the good and bad, and raineth upon the just and the unjust.’ See In Epistola CLIII, Caput II, §4, PL 33:654.

Augustine (354-430): All such matters, therefore, being put out of sight, let them show their Church, if they can; not in the discourses and reports of Africans, not in the councils of their own bishops, not in the writings of any controversialists, not in fallacious signs and miracles, for even against these we are rendered by the word of the Lord prepared and cautious, but in the ordinances of the Law, in the predictions of the Prophets, in the songs of the Psalms, in the words of the very Shepherd himself, in the preachings and labours of the Evangelists, that is, in all the canonical authorities of sacred books. Nor so as to collect together and rehearse those things that are spoken obscurely, or ambiguously, or figuratively, such as each can interpret as he likes, according to his own views. For such testimonies cannot be rightly understood and expounded, unless those things that are most clearly spoken are first held by a firm faith. De Unitate Ecclesiae, Caput XVIII, §47, PL 43:427-428.

Augustine (354-430): We ought to find the Church, as the Head of the Church, in the Holy Canonical Scriptures, not to inquire for it in the various reports, and opinions, and deeds, and words, and visions of men. De Unitate Ecclesiae, Caput XIX, §49, PL 43:429.

Augustine (354-430): Whether they [i.e. the Donatists] hold the Church, they must show by the Canonical books of the Divine Scriptures alone; for we do not say, that we must be believed because we are in the Church of Christ, because Optatus of Milevi, or Ambrose of Milan, or innumerable other bishops of our communion, commended that Church to which we belong, or because it is extolled by the Councils of our colleagues, or because through the whole world in the holy places which those of our communion frequent such wonderful answers to prayers or cures happen. De Unitate Ecclesiae, Caput XIX, §50, PL 43:429-430.

AMR

 

[Lon]

Lon:

With all due respect, not all posters on TOL have an MA or higher education in either theology or philosophy. I have great respect for AMR.

I don't consider them worthy (and here, of course, I do not speak qua Christian) of my time at all. So much the better for Cruciform that he even considers them worthy of one liners. :idunno:

THAT's the difference! Not a few of those one-liners were to AMR :noway: And after a thoughtful and engaging post...

This is a 'stick up for Cruci' thread so I understand the response for posterity... :carryon:

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

A propos your question of whether or not you have "claimed Calvin or any man as founder," I need only quote what it says directly beneath your name:

"Presbyterian (PCA) ○○○○○○○○○☞ A Calvinist!"

The label is for theological clarity, much as someone would claim to be a Molinist or Thomist, in a theological forum of diverse views. It focuses the discussion without the waste of time circling one another until come clear position emerges.

But you know this, yet, under the "with all due respect" rubric of course, tee it up to grasp at straws.

No matter, I am an old guy and can accommodate the clash at whatever level you wish to take it. I am also trying to remember, in hopes of not boiling over, that you are but the unwitting proxy for an odious and contumelious fellow, who, if I were still a Romanist, I would have had this manqué thrashed mercilessly for his years of feckless performance and witness on behalf of the HMC (so-called, that is).

AMR

 

[chrysostom]

"We" don't. Christ's one historic Church does, and always has.

welcome back

 

[chrysostom]

Is that a doctrinal opinion?

thank you for this thread

well done

 

[chrysostom]

The label is for theological clarity,

agreed
so
where is the label for mad?
where is the label for calvinist?

 

[CabinetMaker]

Is that a doctrinal opinion?

Show us from scripture where the RCC is our judge.

 

[chrysostom]

Show us from scripture where the RCC is our judge.

how do you declare yourself saved?
if
you don't judge yourself

 

[CabinetMaker]

how do you declare yourself saved?
if
you don't judge yourself

If you confess with your mouth that you believe in your heart that Jesus is Lord, you will be saved.

There are many hoops to jump through to be considered a good Catholic or good Protestant. They are all man made hoops. To be saved is is actually a very simple confession of faith. Once saved, there is nothing you must do to remain saved but there is plenty to do simply because you love your brother as you love yourself.

 

[chrysostom]

If you confess with your mouth that you believe in your heart that Jesus is Lord, you will be saved.

There are many hoops to jump through to be considered a good Catholic or good Protestant. They are all man made hoops. To be saved is is actually a very simple confession of faith. Once saved, there is nothing you must do to remain saved but there is plenty to do simply because you love your brother as you love yourself.

the people who claim to be saved
are
some of the meanest people on tol

how do you explain that?

 

[annabenedetti]

the people who claim to be saved
are
some of the meanest people on tol

how do you explain that?

They don't think they can sin.

With apologies to Love Story: Being MAD/saved means never having to say you're sorry.