Roman Catholic Epistemology Is Fallacious

[Atwood]

Thomist, by Epistemology, I mean the answer to the question, HOW DO WE KNOW ANYTHING? In the case of theology, what is our basis of knowing what is true? Not everyone would say that scripture comes first; some apparently think they have a private pipeline to God directly. Some seem to make the RCC prior to the Bible.

Epistemology

You are speaking of the epistemology of Scripture...meaning how do we know Scripture is Scripture.

No -- I guess it is too much to ask persons to limit their assessment of my meaning to what I say. LOL. My meaning is how do we know anything; how do we know theological truth?

I say this because there is no such thing as Catholic Epistemology. There is Aquinian Epistemology, Augustinian Epistemology, Bonaventuran Epistemology, Benedictine Epistemology, etc...

Thank you so very much Thomist for stating what I thought was so, that the RCC does not have as monolithic approach as some might claim. But I have observed RCC apologists claiming that the Bible is only God's Word because the RCC says so. And then conversely they seem to say at the same time that the Bible proves that the RCC is true. You don't do that? You don't accept that observation as generally valid for RCC apologists? If there are significant branches of RCC that do not follow that approach, please id them for me & tell me which ones endorse the fallacy I mentioned.

There are great primary intellectual questions: One is How do I know anything? How one knows something is his epistemology. So I address that issue in theology. My source of knowledge is the Bible.
I hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal & that they are endowed . . .

whoops, wrong axioms, Thomist!

I hold these truths to be self-evident:
1) The God of the Bible exists, &
2) The Bible is God's word.

Those are my axioms. I do not prove them, as they are self-evident.
I use them for proof.

 

[Atwood]

http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...olic-fallacious-canon-canard.html#post1756797

The New Testament Canon

As it was off thread, I answered this where it is on-thread:

christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/102273-roman-catholic-fallacious-canon-canard.html#post1756797

 

[ThomistColin]

I hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal & that they are endowed . . .

whoops, wrong axioms, Thomist!

I hold these truths to be self-evident:
1) The God of the Bible exists, &
2) The Bible is God's word.

Those are my axioms. I do not prove them, as they are self-evident.
I use them for proof.

Funny...you get to argue the self-evidence of Scripture and your Faith Tradition. However, when we claim it...we are being fallacious?! Hypocritical isn't it.

 

[Atwood]

Funny...you get to argue the self-evidence of Scripture and your Faith Tradition. However, when we claim it...we are being fallacious?! Hypocritical isn't it.

Thomist, somehow I think you are intelligent to understand that all logical proof comes from self-evident axioms, truths so immediately obvious that they are not proved, but used for proof. I don't argue my axioms; I affirm my axioms. What "Faith Tradition"? After I affirm my axioms, I can do an induction of what the Bible says about faith & present the results.

I affirm 2 basic axioms & reason out linearly from that starting point.

I do not say A is proven by B,
& B is proven by A. Circle.

I invite you to affirm the axioms; but you have to do it for yourself; either they are or are not self-evident to you.

If you make your starting point that the RCC is self-evidently infallible, then we have nothing to discuss; for I will never affirm that claim. And perhaps if you claim that, you should be up front about it. Let everyone know that your assertions are proven by "the RCC says it, " end of argument for you.

But I think I use the same approach as the Lord Jesus, "It is written . . . ." QED.

 

[ThomistColin]

Thomist, somehow I think you are intelligent to understand that all logical proof comes from self-evident axioms, truths so immediately obvious that they are not proved, but used for proof. I don't argue my axioms; I affirm my axioms. What "Faith Tradition"? After I affirm my axioms, I can do an induction of what the Bible says about faith & present the results.

I affirm 2 basic axioms & reason out linearly from that starting point.

I do not say A is proven by B,
& B is proven by A. Circle.

I invite you to affirm the axioms; but you have to do it for yourself; either they are or are not self-evident to you.

If you make your starting point that the RCC is self-evidently infallible, then we have nothing to discuss; for I will never affirm that claim. And perhaps if you claim that, you should be up front about it. Let everyone know that your assertions are proven by "the RCC says it, " end of argument for you.

But I think I use the same approach as the Lord Jesus, "It is written . . . ." QED.

This is what I believe, to put it plainly:
The Books of the New Testament + the Early Church History affirms to me that the Roman Catholic Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. The Books of the New Testament are the infallible, inerrant written revelation that sits as the foundation of doctrine, which the Church upholds and protects.
I believe that through the Councils, infallible doctrine has been laid out, including the canon of the Holy Scriptures. For the Holy Spirit inspired the Scriptures and also acted upon those at the Canonical Councils to affirm what the Holy Spirit had inspired. I see it as Scriptures are the inspiration of God, the Church affirms that inspiration. Neither can exist in fullness without the other. Thus without Scripture, the Church has no foundation to its doctrines, and without the Church, the Scriptures are not affirmed by the Body of Christ.

So, I disagree with the presumption that Scripture proves the RCC or that the RCC proves Scripture, for to separate the two is to do an injustice to the deposit of Faith through Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture.

1. I believe the Scriptures are the inspired, infallible, and inerrant written revelation of God by God.
2. I believe that Sacred Tradition is the fruit of the Holy Scriptures.
3. I believe that the Catholic Church is the defender, protector, and preacher of both the seed (Scripture) and the fruit (Tradition).

Whether that helped or not, you asked for my honest opinion, there it is.

 

[maxwel]

This is what I believe, to put it plainly:
The Books of the New Testament + the Early Church History affirms to me that the Roman Catholic Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. The Books of the New Testament are the infallible, inerrant written revelation that sits as the foundation of doctrine, which the Church upholds and protects.
I believe that through the Councils, infallible doctrine has been laid out, including the canon of the Holy Scriptures. For the Holy Spirit inspired the Scriptures and also acted upon those at the Canonical Councils to affirm what the Holy Spirit had inspired. I see it as Scriptures are the inspiration of God, the Church affirms that inspiration. Neither can exist in fullness without the other. Thus without Scripture, the Church has no foundation to its doctrines, and without the Church, the Scriptures are not affirmed by the Body of Christ.

So, I disagree with the presumption that Scripture proves the RCC or that the RCC proves Scripture, for to separate the two is to do an injustice to the deposit of Faith through Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture.

1. I believe the Scriptures are the inspired, infallible, and inerrant written revelation of God by God.
2.I believe that Sacred Tradition is the fruit of the Holy Scriptures.
3. I believe that the Catholic Church is the defender, protector, and preacher of both the seed (Scripture) and the fruit (Tradition).

Whether that helped or not, you asked for my honest opinion, there it is.

Come on Thomist...
you believe in the scripture and the sacred traditions right up until the point where the Pope decides to just change some of it.
Like Popes do from time to time.

So... the infallible scripture AND the traditions of the church, BOTH taught a literal 7 day creation until the Pope decided it didn't and that it's all just allegorical?

Really?

Really Really?

So the traditions taught one absolute truth about creation one day, and then a different absolute truth another day.

Come on Thomist... that's just silly.

The sacred traditions of the church can't be inspired one day, and then uninspired the next.
Very silly.

 

[maxwel]

By the way,
if you claim the disbelief in the literal 7 day creation came about gradually, or came about by consensus...
it's still the same dilemma.

You can't have sacred traditions given by God's spirit one day,
and then those sacred beliefs imparted by God are all bunk and nonsense the next day.

Very silly.

 

[Atwood]

This is what I believe, to put it plainly

Does it bother you your lack of proof for your beliefs?
I don't recall asking for your opinion, though it is nice to know what it is. What I am looking for is either your proof or your realization that you don't have proof.

 

[ThomistColin]

Does it bother you your lack of proof for your beliefs?
I don't recall asking for your opinion, though it is nice to know what it is. What I am looking for is either your proof or your realization that you don't have proof.

We have given our proof. When it is from Scripture, you claim we are twisting Scripture. When it is from history, you claim it isn't acceptable because it isn't Scripture. That's not a discussion, that's just you wanting to be right.



And Maxwel,

Pope Francis never said that the Big Bang and Evolution are correct, He stated that they do not inherently oppose a sovereign God, but in fact require Him. Which, by the way, is very often one of the main attacks on the athiest's acceptance of evolution...

 

[kepha]

Atwood, I gave a summary of a summary of a summary, it was never intended to be a comprehensive dissertation on epistemology of scripture. An entity had to exist to discern inspired books from uninspired books. That entity does not MAKE inspired books inspired. That was my argument because you attacked the Church that brought the books together into a Bible.
2+2=4. Is that true because the Church says so, or is it true because it is true? This what you fail to understand. You keep screaming that the evil Catholic Church makes 2+2=4 true because she says so, and not because it's true by its own merits. The Catholic Church was the vehicle chosen by God to assemble the inspired books into a Bible, the books didn't magically assemble themselves.

The following is an article by Dr. Donald DeMarco, Professor of Philosophy, St. Jerome’s College

Love for the truth has been a favorite theme of Pope John Paul II. “Let us seek the truth about Christ and about his Church!...Let us love the Truth, proclaim the Truth! O Christ, show us the Truth! Be the only Truth for us!” – Agenda for the Third Millennium Pope John Paul II

The Holy Father’s enthusiasm for the truth however is not shared by the secular world. In fact, its citizens, in general, harbor a distinct fear of the truth. This fear may be analyzed on three different levels:

1) that the truth would impose unwanted moral responsibilities on them;
2) that any association with the truth would occasion an air of pretentiousness;
3) that any claim to the truth might expose them to being wrong.

They prefer freedom from moral responsibility, absence of any “holier than thou” attitude and exemption from the possible embarrassment of being in error. Their fears, however, take them from the very light and meaning they long for, and plunge them into a dark void were they are trapped by a misery of their own making. Their flight from the truth is also an entrance into a world of gloom. These three fears are ill fated, as well as ill founded. First of all, truth is our only avenue to real freedom. “You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.” John 8:32

Ignorance may at times be blissful, but it is never illuminating. St. Augustine once remarked that he had met many people who had been deceived, but never met anyone who wanted to be deceived.

We have a natural hunger for the truth of things. No one ever asks for the wrong time. It is always the “right” time and the truth about things we want to learn.

Untruth is not helpful, but truth is like a beacon that shows us the way. This is why the Pope titled his great encyclical on the freeing function of truth as Veritas Splendor (Truth’s Splendor).

When we are lost we want to lean the truth about our situation so that we can be liberated from our confusion. The truth makes us free; untruth binds us to bewilderment. The truth about ourselves awakens us to our moral responsibilities, but we need this awakening in order to become whom we truly are, to advance toward our destiny, to build a meaningful life.

We should welcome the truth that illuminates our moral responsibilities with the same enthusiasm that a person who is lost in the woods and welcomes a compass and a map.

Secondly, the fear that any discovery of truth would make us pretentious is also counterproductive. Truth is not of our own making. Even Christ proclaimed that the truth He illuminated did not spring from Him alone. “My teaching is not mine, but His who sent me” (John 17:6)

Truth is not subjective. It represents the objective order of things. The person who comes to know something of the truth, then should experience humility, not vanity, for he discovers something that is not his.

Christ was emphatic in his denunciation of the Pharisees who claimed to know something of the truth but behaved with a pretentious snobbery. Truth is not he cause of Pharisaism, vanity is.

And both Christ and his Church are unrelenting in their advocacy of humility and in their condemnation of vanity. In fact, it may be far less tolerant of Pharisaism than the secular world. Consider, for example, the comment, “I hate anything fake,” made by Britney Spears, a veritable icon of artificiality and pretense. The secular world awards this kind of duplicity with celebrity.

Thirdly, there is the rather spineless fear that in perusing the truth, we might fall into the embarrassing predicament of being wrong. Again, there is nothing wrong that can reasonably justify this anxiety. We all make mistakes. Not to try something for fear of making a mistake is akin to a paralyzing neurosis that would discourage one from trying anything.

Some people avoid marriage because they fear divorce. Others avoid friendship because they fear rejection. The pursuit of truth presupposes a certain amount of courage. If nothing is ventured, as the maxim goes, nothing is gained.

The fact that truth is indispensable for a meaningful life does not mean that it is always agreeable. Mounting the bathroom scale can be a breathless ascent, because the anxious weight-watcher knows that this simple piece of machinery tells the truth.

But he disconcerting truth that one is overweight may be exactly what one needs if exercising and dieting are to follow. The freedom that health offers may need to be preceded by the disagreeable truth that one is too fat.

Truth is as natural to our minds as oxygen is to our lungs and food is to our digestive system. It is a great mistake to regard the teaching of truth as an imposition. The Church does not, nor can she, “impose” truth. Rather, she endeavors to propose truths to those who are disposed to receive them. The Vatican’s Declaration of Religious Liberty states that, “The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it wins over the mind with gentleness and power.

The Church as Guardian of the Truth and Teacher of the Word provides food for hungry minds. She does not impose the truth; no more than do Christians impose food on hungry bodies when they practice this corporeal act of mercy.

She guards it because it needs to be protected against the contamination of error. She teaches it because it is more nourishing than error. Moreover, the truth enables her to teach realistically about the truth of Christ, the truth of the Catholic Church, and the truth of man. Apostles are ministers of love, but they are also servants of the truth.

(not available on line) The Bread of Life Magazine, July / Aug. Volume 26 Number 3

 

[kennethcadwell]

You are pretty much right in all that you say here, but to not believe that the council did not interject their morals into putting the books together to form the canon that we know have as our bible would not be proper.
All you have to do is go back and look at why they left some of the books out, and it was not for the excuse that they were not divinely written.
They left some out because they showed women in power, even apostleship. They left others out only because they were missing parts, or had not been properly translated. These are just some of the reasons they were left out, and there are more.

Man has interjected into the putting together, and writing of the bible for many years now. Which is why we have so many different versions now, and also different denominations. Man with satan's influence has changed the original wording and therefore context of some scriptures causing division and strife in the church.

Atwood, I gave a summary of a summary of a summary, it was never intended to be a comprehensive dissertation on epistemology of scripture. An entity had to exist to discern inspired books from uninspired books. That entity does not MAKE inspired books inspired. That was my argument because you attacked the Church that brought the books together into a Bible.
2+2=4. Is that true because the Church says so, or is it true because it is true? This what you fail to understand. You keep screaming that the evil Catholic Church makes 2+2=4 true because she says so, and not because it's true by its own merits. The Catholic Church was the vehicle chosen by God to assemble the inspired books into a Bible, the books didn't magically assemble themselves.

The following is an article by Dr. Donald DeMarco, Professor of Philosophy, St. Jerome’s College

Love for the truth has been a favorite theme of Pope John Paul II. “Let us seek the truth about Christ and about his Church!...Let us love the Truth, proclaim the Truth! O Christ, show us the Truth! Be the only Truth for us!” – Agenda for the Third Millennium Pope John Paul II

The Holy Father’s enthusiasm for the truth however is not shared by the secular world. In fact, its citizens, in general, harbor a distinct fear of the truth. This fear may be analyzed on three different levels:

1) that the truth would impose unwanted moral responsibilities on them;
2) that any association with the truth would occasion an air of pretentiousness;
3) that any claim to the truth might expose them to being wrong.

They prefer freedom from moral responsibility, absence of any “holier than thou” attitude and exemption from the possible embarrassment of being in error. Their fears, however, take them from the very light and meaning they long for, and plunge them into a dark void were they are trapped by a misery of their own making. Their flight from the truth is also an entrance into a world of gloom. These three fears are ill fated, as well as ill founded. First of all, truth is our only avenue to real freedom. “You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.” John 8:32

Ignorance may at times be blissful, but it is never illuminating. St. Augustine once remarked that he had met many people who had been deceived, but never met anyone who wanted to be deceived.

We have a natural hunger for the truth of things. No one ever asks for the wrong time. It is always the “right” time and the truth about things we want to learn.

Untruth is not helpful, but truth is like a beacon that shows us the way. This is why the Pope titled his great encyclical on the freeing function of truth as Veritas Splendor (Truth’s Splendor).

When we are lost we want to lean the truth about our situation so that we can be liberated from our confusion. The truth makes us free; untruth binds us to bewilderment. The truth about ourselves awakens us to our moral responsibilities, but we need this awakening in order to become whom we truly are, to advance toward our destiny, to build a meaningful life.

We should welcome the truth that illuminates our moral responsibilities with the same enthusiasm that a person who is lost in the woods and welcomes a compass and a map.

Secondly, the fear that any discovery of truth would make us pretentious is also counterproductive. Truth is not of our own making. Even Christ proclaimed that the truth He illuminated did not spring from Him alone. “My teaching is not mine, but His who sent me” (John 17:6)

Truth is not subjective. It represents the objective order of things. The person who comes to know something of the truth, then should experience humility, not vanity, for he discovers something that is not his.

Christ was emphatic in his denunciation of the Pharisees who claimed to know something of the truth but behaved with a pretentious snobbery. Truth is not he cause of Pharisaism, vanity is.

And both Christ and his Church are unrelenting in their advocacy of humility and in their condemnation of vanity. In fact, it may be far less tolerant of Pharisaism than the secular world. Consider, for example, the comment, “I hate anything fake,” made by Britney Spears, a veritable icon of artificiality and pretense. The secular world awards this kind of duplicity with celebrity.

Thirdly, there is the rather spineless fear that in perusing the truth, we might fall into the embarrassing predicament of being wrong. Again, there is nothing wrong that can reasonably justify this anxiety. We all make mistakes. Not to try something for fear of making a mistake is akin to a paralyzing neurosis that would discourage one from trying anything.

Some people avoid marriage because they fear divorce. Others avoid friendship because they fear rejection. The pursuit of truth presupposes a certain amount of courage. If nothing is ventured, as the maxim goes, nothing is gained.

The fact that truth is indispensable for a meaningful life does not mean that it is always agreeable. Mounting the bathroom scale can be a breathless ascent, because the anxious weight-watcher knows that this simple piece of machinery tells the truth.

But he disconcerting truth that one is overweight may be exactly what one needs if exercising and dieting are to follow. The freedom that health offers may need to be preceded by the disagreeable truth that one is too fat.

Truth is as natural to our minds as oxygen is to our lungs and food is to our digestive system. It is a great mistake to regard the teaching of truth as an imposition. The Church does not, nor can she, “impose” truth. Rather, she endeavors to propose truths to those who are disposed to receive them. The Vatican’s Declaration of Religious Liberty states that, “The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it wins over the mind with gentleness and power.

The Church as Guardian of the Truth and Teacher of the Word provides food for hungry minds. She does not impose the truth; no more than do Christians impose food on hungry bodies when they practice this corporeal act of mercy.

She guards it because it needs to be protected against the contamination of error. She teaches it because it is more nourishing than error. Moreover, the truth enables her to teach realistically about the truth of Christ, the truth of the Catholic Church, and the truth of man. Apostles are ministers of love, but they are also servants of the truth.

(not available on line) The Bread of Life Magazine, July / Aug. Volume 26 Number 3

 

[JesusIsAll]

Very silly.

The bottom line is usually just that simple. This current Pope wouldn't open his mouth near as much nor have a Quran reading at the Vatican, if he such as read what other "infalliable" Popes before him had to say about Islam, ex cathedra at that. (Will they ever get around to excommunicating themselves?) The Bible needs an infallible interpreter, which no individual is qualified to do, except the individuals who misinterpreted scripture to falsely inject the Roman cult into scripture. They say, "We're legitimate, by our private interpretation," then call this modus operandi illegitimate to all other souls on the planet, can have their convictions of their truth, yet deny the same convictions of those who find another truth, in holy scripture, at that. It's irrational theater of the absurd, yes, very silly.

 

[Atwood]

Thomist, don't you realize that you have not given "your proof." You have just made assertions, like the passionate assertions "I believe that . . . ."

Those statements are your beliefs, but they are not proof of them.

"The Books of the New Testament + the Early Church History affirms to me that the Roman Catholic Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church."

The NT never mentions the RCC, nor anything like it. The RCC is alien to the NT. As to Early Church History, there is no papal system there either. The NT is clear that the catholic (universal) Church is Christ's Body into which all believers are put by Spirit baptism (1 Cor 12:13). The Church is not a Roman organization, but the mystically united believers in the Lord Jesus, those who trust Him as Savior (not water or works or idols or Mary).

History (from the records left by men) yields at best probabilities. And the records of what happened in the 200's AD relative to the Church are few. Day after day, year after year, things happened in all the cities; yet the record is very little. This history proves very little. But one can see change over time from a NT plurality of elders in each city to a monarchal bishop, power centralizing eventually to Patriarchs & even later popes at Rome.

I believe that through the Councils, infallible doctrine has been laid out, including the canon of the Holy Scriptures.

Can you prove that the councils produced systematically consistent output? And what is your proof that the councils give infallible doctrine? What is your proof that the councils are prophets giving God's word?

For the Holy Spirit inspired the Scriptures and also acted upon those at the Canonical Councils to affirm what the Holy Spirit had inspired.

What is your proof of "acted upon those at the . . . Councils"? Did the guys predict the future infallibly (that is the test of a prophet, completely accurate prediction of future per Deuteronomy). How much did the non-Christian Constantine act upon councils?

I see it as Scriptures are the inspiration of God, the Church affirms that inspiration. Neither can exist in fullness without the other.

What is your proof of that?
There was scripture before there was the Church. Christ was proving with "It is written" before He built His Church.

Thus

How do you get to a "thus"?

without the Church, the Scriptures are not affirmed by the Body of Christ.

Have you forgotten that the Church is the Body of Christ, not the papal organization? There is no RCC in the NT. God's Word is God's Word -- fact. It doesn't become God's word by the believers affirming it to be so; but the believers, the sheep do recognize the Shepherd's voice (John 10), and they all have an anointing (1 John 2). They didn't wait 3 centuries to recognize God's Voice. At once they were responsible to obey God's voice. The 7 churchs of Rev didn't need to wait 2 centuries to know that Revelation & their admonitions were valid.

So, I disagree with the presumption that Scripture proves the RCC or that the RCC proves Scripture, for to separate the two is to do an injustice to the deposit of Faith through Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture.

But it seems to be a common RCC apologetic to claim that the Bible is only the Bible because the RCC has said so. And in effect it is claimed that the Bible is nothing until the RCC tells you what it means. Bible & Church are separate entities: When it says, "My sheep hear my voice," there is a clear distinction between the Voice of the Shepherd and the Sheep; they have no metaphysical unity. Or is it pantheism, man & God are fused?

2. I believe that Sacred Tradition is the fruit of the Holy Scriptures.

What is the proof of that?
To me that statement is not cogent.

Where is this "Sacred Tradition"? Is it printed in a book or is it some nebulous concept? Bring it forth and let's look at it. Was it not Peter Abelard who compiled a book called Sic et Non in which he showed traditions, church fathers, or councils contradicting each other?

If you objectively look at the references to "tradition" in the NT, you will see that the Lord Jesus rejected religious tradition. In fact it was a chief bone of contention between Him and the Pharisees.


"Pharisees and scribes, saying, 2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 3 And he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? 4 For God said, . . . But ye say, . . . . And ye have made void the word of God because of your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying,
This people honoreth me with their lips;
But their heart is far from me.


" And the Pharisees and the scribes ask him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with defiled hands? 6 And he said unto them, Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,
This people honoreth me with their lips,
But their heart is far from me.


7 But in vain do they worship me,
Teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men.


8 Ye leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men. 9 And he said unto them, Full well do ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, . . .
but ye say, If a man shall say to his father or his mother, That wherewith thou mightest have been profited by me is Corban, that is to say, Given to God; 12 ye no longer suffer him to do aught for his father or his mother; 13 making void the word of God by your tradition,

Likewise, prophet Paul condemns tradition:

Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ:


PAUL'S USE OF TRADITION POSITIVELY FOR PROPHETIC AND APOSTOLIC TEACHING (PAST TENSE), ORAL OR IN WRITING


Paul refers to teachings which He gave persons in the past as traditions that Paul delivered [past tense] to them.


2 Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you.


13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, for that God chose you from the beginning unto salvation in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: 14 whereunto he called you through our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word or by epistle of ours.


6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which they received of us.

It is clear that when prophet Paul uses tradition positively , it is for prophetic and apostolic word, and that in the past. There is no doctrine of future tradition to be gleaned from future sayings or writings of future "Church Fathers."

If you are honest, I think that if you actually read the traditions, you can see that they are not God's Word at all. And you have no proof that it is. And if they were, is it not strange that the so-called canon does not include them & that they are not printed in the Bible?

It does appear that you have no proof and that the RCC epistemology is fallacious.

 

[JesusIsAll]

Catholicism also has presume Christianity gone stupid. The apostles founded many churches. Our Lord Jesus gave instructions to seven churches in Revelation, Revelation we all know not some absurd allegory already transpired, is rather a glimpse into the end of the age, prophesied all over the rest of the Bible. Not once did any apostle or our Lord admonish of one Roman "church," not once. Such an all important fact has just that importance to be in doctrine of the first century churches of scripture, if it were the truth. Rather, the Bible warns of the gospel being perverted by false prophets and traditions of men, and contains no geographically central church body commanded, period. I've never bought swamp land, either.

 

[kepha]

Atwood, you refuse to accept any kind of "proof", except interpretations that agree with your private ones (that disagree with most of Protestantism).
You refuse to accept historical proof, unless it is written by some 18th century revisionist.
You refuse to accept that Catholic councils (Nicae, Rome, Hippo, Carthage) contributed to the complex process of canonization as late as the 4rth century, yet still refuse to offer your private theories as to how we got the Bible.
You refuse to accept the holiness of the saints and martyrs in every century.
You refuse to accept archaeological evidence found in the Roman Catacombs, dating back to the first 3 centuries of Christianity, that indicate their Catholicity.
Most of all, you refuse the testimony of the earliest Christian historians who where very close in language and culture as the Apostles, such as Tertullian, Eusebius, and Origen, who were Catholic, yet you claim to be well read.

What kind of "proof" will you accept?

"...the thousands and millions, both Jews and Gentiles, who believed the testimony of the Apostles in spite of all the disadvantages following from such a belief, in short the origin of the Church, requires for its explanation the reality of Christ's Resurrection, for the rise of the Church without the Resurrection would have been a greater miracle than the Resurrection itself"
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Resurrection of Jesus Christ

That's my final "proof".

 

[maxwel]

We have given our proof. When it is from Scripture, you claim we are twisting Scripture. When it is from history, you claim it isn't acceptable because it isn't Scripture. That's not a discussion, that's just you wanting to be right.



And Maxwel,

Pope Francis never said that the Big Bang and Evolution are correct, He stated that they do not inherently oppose a sovereign God, but in fact require Him. Which, by the way, is very often one of the main attacks on the athiest's acceptance of evolution...

That's really a whitewash to skirt the issue... lets just examine some facts.

Pope Francis:
“God is not a divine being or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life,” he said. “Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”

Let's examine that statement.

1. He's clearly pointing out that God did NOT just go "poof" like a magician, and make everything magically appear...
and yet...
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES IN GENESIS.

2. He says evolution is consistent with creation...
and yet ...
IT ISN'T.
Evolution COMPLETELY CONTRADICTS the scripture of Genesis.
In Genesis there is no evolution, there is just God, acting like a magician, and going "poof" and creating everything.

3. And if there could be any confusion about his belief in evolution, his belief in evolution clearly coincides with what other Popes have clearly said about their belief in evolution since Pope Pius back in 1950.

Pope Benedict XVI in 2007:
Regarding literal creation vs. evolution:
“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”

Pope Benedict clearly said evolution is a "reality which we must see."

He doesn't say evolution is an alternative, or a possibility... he's says it is REALITY.

So... if the sacred traditions of the church are "inspired" because they are given by the spirit of God, and the Popes actually stand in the place of Christ on earth with his divine authrority... HOW EXACTLY CAN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACH LITERAL CREATION IN THE PAST, but now come out AGAINST LITERAL CREATION, and SUPPORT EVOLUTION?

It is impossible for literal creation to be inspired one day, and to be a bunch of rubbish the next.

We don't have to argue Catholic beliefs versus Protestant beliefs...
The Catholic church has sacred beliefs and sacred traditions, which are inspired by God,
and then it CONTRADICTS ITSELF by CHANGING THEM!

I don't have to contradict the sacred beliefs of the RCC... the Catholic Church contradicts itself!

The sacred beliefs and sacred traditions can't be inspired by God one day, and then uninspired the next.

Something can't be true one day and then untrue the next.

Something can't be inspired one day and uninspired the next

Just Silly.

Silly and ridiculous.

 

[kepha]

That's really a whitewash to skirt the issue... lets just examine some facts.

Pope Francis:
“God is not a divine being or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life,” he said. “Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”

Let's examine that statement.

1. He's clearly pointing out that God did NOT just go "poof" like a magician, and make everything magically appear...
and yet...
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES IN GENESIS.

Only if you use strict literal interpretation.

2. He says evolution is consistent with creation...
and yet ...
IT ISN'T.
Evolution COMPLETELY CONTRADICTS the scripture of Genesis.
In Genesis there is no evolution, there is just God, acting like a magician, and going "poof" and creating everything.

Evolution is the science of the fossil record, and nothing more. The origins of man is a philosophical science, and the Pope is not confusing two different sciences, you are.

3. And if there could be any confusion about his belief in evolution, his belief in evolution clearly coincides with what other Popes have clearly said about their belief in evolution since Pope Pius back in 1950.

Pope Benedict XVI in 2007:
Regarding literal creation vs. evolution:
“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”

Pope Benedict clearly said evolution is a "reality which we must see."

He doesn't say evolution is an alternative, or a possibility... he's says it is REALITY.

Sorry you find reality so annoying.

So... if the sacred traditions of the church are "inspired" because they are given by the spirit of God, and the Popes actually stand in the place of Christ on earth with his divine authrority... HOW EXACTLY CAN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACH LITERAL CREATION IN THE PAST, but now come out AGAINST LITERAL CREATION, and SUPPORT EVOLUTION?

You are really confused. There are no dogmatic infallible declarations about evolution. Catholics are free to accept magical creation, but I don't think, in the light of scientific advancement, its a tenable position. Faith and reason are compatible in the Catholic world view. Faith without reason is dangerous. Pope Benedict told that to the Muslems and they went nuts. Is there room for reason in your faith?

It is impossible for literal creation to be inspired one day, and to be a bunch of rubbish the next.

Wrong. AUGUSTINE’S COMMENTARY ON THE BIBLICAL BOOK OF GENESIS (early 5th century)
Most of the commentary are rhetorical questions, leaving the strict literalist looking rather foolish. Again, it's commentary, not infallibly defined dogmas. But nonethess valuable.

We don't have to argue Catholic beliefs versus Protestant beliefs...
The Catholic church has sacred beliefs and sacred traditions, which are inspired by God,
and then it CONTRADICTS ITSELF by CHANGING THEM!

I don't have to contradict the sacred beliefs of the RCC... the Catholic Church contradicts itself!

The sacred beliefs and sacred traditions can't be inspired by God one day, and then uninspired the next.

Something can't be true one day and then untrue the next.

Something can't be inspired one day and uninspired the next

Just Silly.

Silly and ridiculous.

The Church has made no infallible declarations on evolution, but insists on the creation of Adam and Eve, so you are just blowing forum flatulence. Why is it that you are entitled to your opinion, but the Pope, who bases his opinion on the best scientific evidence available, and years of theology study, is not?

"...Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.
While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.
​

Adam, Eve, and Evolution | Catholic Answers

Atheistic evolution is probably the non sequitur creationists are screaming about.


The Time Question

Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.
Catholics should weigh the evidence for the universe’s age by examining biblical and scientific evidence. "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 159).

Development is not the same thing as change. The Catholic Church cannot, and never has, doubled back on any doctrine. What was formally taught by Jesus, the Apostles, and their legitimate successors is the same as what the Catholic Church teaches today; the evidence is there for anyone who wishes to see it. ​

 

[Atwood]

Re: Hx Is An Inadequate Starting Point; RCC Epistemology is Fallacious

Thomist tells me that there are various varieties of RCC epistemology, and he gave a list of some varieties. But despite that, it appears to me that aside from these specializations, there is an overall epistemology. Now if I am wrong, you RCC guys feel free to correct me.
From what I have read it appears that

the RCC system is a troika or 3 legged chair:
1) Bible, 2) "Sacred Tradition," and 3) Magisterium

-- they beez the majesties & we beez the ignorant peons, LOL.

The Bible is clear enough, except that they add the apocrypha (never quoted in NT as authority). And also the RCC claims that the Bible means only what they say it means!
The papists themselves are the actual authority instead of the Bible, just as the SCOTUS supplants the Constitution of the USA.

But Sacred Tradition is a nebulous concept without clear definition. The theory is that the oral sayings of the Lord Jesus have been passed on orally and are authoritative. This is much like the Jewish notion that Moses gave an oral law which was passed on. Eventually this was written down in the Mishnah after NT times. (BTW, the Lord Jesus rejected the traditions & did not regard them as "sacred".) However, in the case of the RCC, the "Sacred Tradition" is not written down. So you can't get a copy of it in some book & read it. You may as well try to nail jello to the wall. Thus it appears that there is no way to debate "Sacred Tradition," since it has no cogent reality. But RCC authorities can refer to it (even if it be a black cat in a black room with the lights out).

The NT itself does not support the concept of a "Sacred Tradition." The Apostles may refer here & there to something the Lord Jesus said which is not in the 4 gospels; but this does nto prove that God intended some oral tradition to be preserved orally. The Apostles are prophets giving God's Word in the NT. God knows what the Lord Jesus uttered, and what He wishes us to have of that is in the 4 Gospels, Revelation, and perhaps in a few writings which He gave us through NT prophets & apostles. If Paul refers to something Christ said, that is inspirationally no different from Mat, Mark, Luke, of John doing the same thing.

Paul refers to his own oral or written prophecy as "tradition" a time or two, but there is no endorsement of the concept that oral sayings would be preserved orally in the Church for the future outside the scripture.

Then then have their Magisterium, which appears to be inherent authority in the papal organization, which they erroneously call The Church. And that means that both the Bible & Sacred Tradition are whatever they say it is!

So what it boils down to is that truth & theological knowledge, is just what the papal organization says it is, end of argument. It is theoretically futile to argue anything with them from the Bible, as the Bible only means what they say it means in their mind.

in arguing what the truth is, (what is actual knowledge), when you debate with a papist, you are debating with someonewho claims that the RCC is right because the RCC says so (utter circular argument). Thus they have a fallacious epistemology.

Nevertheless, one may throw Bible verses at them for 2 reasons:

1) It is God's Word & the Holy Spirit may convict them directly of the truth (regardless of their theories), and
2) the Bible refutation of RCC error may help the non-papist who is reading what is posted.

Thy Word is a lamp to my feet and light to my eyes.


Deut 4
And now, O Israel, hearken unto the statutes and unto the ordinances, which I teach you, to do them; that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which Jehovah, the God of your fathers, giveth you. 2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish from it, that ye may keep the commandments of Jehovah your God which I command you.

Prov 30:


Every word of God is tried:
He is a shield unto them that take refuge in him.
6 Add thou not unto his words,
Lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

1 Cor 4

"that in us ye might learn not to go beyond the things which are written;

8 I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto them, God shall add unto him the plagues which are written in this book: 19 and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this book.

 

[JesusIsAll]

Our Lord Jesus didn't find a church at Rome worth mentioning in the first three chapters of Revelation, of not one, but seven churches, at that. There's nothing in Acts, where Peter said, "Paul, we've got to do this circumcision spat later, as I have to be off to Rome to get measured for my Halloween costume and pick out a ring." There's absolutely no link between Peter and Rome, just as, of course, there's no Roman "church" of any singularity, at all, declared in the gospel, no throne specified for any sinful man to sit on and call himself "Holy Father," that is, a name of God. Now, Peter did write a letter from Babylon, which could have some potential for a reality based discussion, comparing Babylon and Roman Catholicism. (No offense, Peter.)

 

[Atwood]

Atwood, you refuse to accept any kind of "proof",

Kindly refrain from making things up like straw men. If you claim that I refuse something, backquote me instead of making things up.

I accept any logical proof of anything.

So have at it & prove the papal system is the Church & that it is infallible.

I don't think you can, because your ultimate argument is that the papal system is true because the papal system says so. circular argument, fallacy.

I am not Protestant, but catholic.
You are not catholic, but Roman.

"...the thousands and millions, both Jews and Gentiles, who believed the testimony of the Apostles in spite of all the disadvantages following from such a belief, in short the origin of the Church, requires for its explanation the reality of Christ's Resurrection, for the rise of the Church without the Resurrection would have been a greater miracle than the Resurrection itself"
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Resurrection of Jesus Christ

That's my final "proof".

Nothing in that quote proves that the RCC is The catholic church, nor that it is infallible.
And if you procede to quote the RCC Encyclopedia as proof of the RCC, you reason in a circle & it is fallacious.

Give any proof that you want; but it must be proof, not circular reasoning nor claiming that you are right because you say so.