Roman Catholicism: The One True Church?

Rapture Ready ^ | Stephen Meehan

[rbmillerjr]

So, by what authority do you make this claim?

You failed to answer. The Church founded by Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church is the Church that gave us the accepted canon and this was accepted by Christendom.

Vain attempts by others to reinterpret and invent religions that are not in unity with Christ’s Church, are of no use to Christians.

[Elsie]

Let’s take the contrarians defenders of the Protestant heresy one by one.

Are you begging the question just a wee bit here?

[Elsie]

...impossible to disagree with Dr. A. David Anders, a born and raised Bible Christian and a Wheaton-educated Protestant historian who after several years of intense study converted to Catholicism and wrote: “Protestantism is a confused mass of inconsistencies and tortured logic.”

It's impossible to disagree with ELSIE, a born and raised heathen that was re-born as a Bible Christian and a HolySpirit-educated Protestant bible student who after several years of intense study remains a Protestant and writes: “Catholicism is a confused mass of inconsistencies and a history of tortured HERETICS.”

[metmom]

Saul (later Paul) was well aware of Jesus and His teachings from either first hand witnesses or he heard Jesus speaking to crowds but did nothing. If that's tradition then so was last nights news.

According to Catholic Redefinition of Words (CRW), yes, hearing something or telling someone something qualifies as *tradition*, just like me asking you to pray for me qualifies as praying to you.

It's beyond ridiculous what people will do to words just to justify or excuse themselves.

[Elsie]

So, by what authority do you make this claim?

#5

Logical fallacies hide the truth, so pointing them out is very useful.

 

1. Ad Hominem - Attacking the individual instead of the argument.
Example: You are so stupid your argument couldn't possibly be true.
Example: I figured that you couldn't possibly get it right, so I ignored your comment.

 

2. Appeal to Force - Telling the hearer that something bad will happen to him if he does not accept the argument.
Example: If you don't want to get beaten up, you will agree with what I say.
Example: Convert or die.
 
3. Appeal to Pity - Urging the hearer to accept the argument based upon an appeal to emotions, sympathy, etc.
Example: You owe me big time because I really stuck my neck out for you.
Example: Oh come on, I've been sick. That's why I missed the deadline.

 

4. Appeal to the Popular - Urging the hearer to accept a position because a majority of people hold to it.
Example: The majority of people like soda. Therefore, soda is good.
Example: Everyone else is doing it. Why shouldn't you?

 

5. Appeal to Tradition - Trying to get someone to accept something because it has been done or believed for a long time.
Example: This is the way we've always done it. Therefore, it is the right way.
Example: The Catholic church's tradition demonstrates that this doctrine is true.
 
6. Begging the Question - Assuming the thing to be true that you are trying to prove. It is circular.
Example: God exists because the Bible says so. The Bible is inspired. Therefore, we know that God exists.
Example: I am a good worker because Frank says so. How can we trust Frank? Simple: I will vouch for him.

 

7. Cause and Effect - Assuming that the effect is related to a cause because the events occur together.
Example: When the rooster crows, the sun rises. Therefore, the rooster causes the sun to rise.
Example: When the fuel light goes on in my car, I soon run out of gas. Therefore, the fuel light causes my car to run out of gas.
 
8. Circular Argument - See Begging the Question
Fallacy of Division - Assuming that what is true of the whole is true for the parts.
Example: That car is blue. Therefore, its engine is blue.
Example: Your family is weird. That means that you are weird too.

 

9. Fallacy of Equivocation - Using the same term in an argument in different places but the word has different meanings.
Example: A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Therefore, a bird is worth more than President Bush.
Example: Evolution states that one species can change into another. We see that cars have evolved into different styles. Therefore, since evolution is a fact in cars, it is true in species.

 

10. False Dilemma - Giving two choices when in actuality there could be more choices possible.
Example: You either did knock the glass over or you did not. Which is it? (Someone else could have knocked the glass over)
Example: Do you still beat your wife?

 

11. Genetic Fallacy - Attempting to endorse or disqualify a claim because of the origin or irrelevant history of the claim.
Example: The Nazi regime developed the Volkswagen Beetle. Therefore, you should not buy a VW Beetle because of who started it.
Example: Frank just got out of jail last year; since it was his idea to start the hardware store, I can't trust him.

 

12. Guilt by Association - Rejecting an argument or claim because the person proposing it likes someone whom is disliked by another.
Example: Hitler liked dogs. Therefore dogs are bad.
Example: Your friend is a thief. Therefore, I cannot trust you.

 

13. Non Sequitur - Comments or information that do not logically follow from a premise or the conclusion.
Example: We know why it rained today: because I washed my car.
Example: I don't care what you say. We don't need any more bookshelves. As long as the carpet is clean, we are fine.

 

14. Poisoning the Well - Presenting negative information about a person before he/she speaks so as to discredit the person's argument.
Example: Frank is pompous, arrogant, and thinks he knows everything. So, let's hear what Frank has to say about the subject.
Example: Don't listen to him because he is a loser.

 

15. Red Herring - Introducing a topic not related to the subject at hand.
Example: I know your car isn't working right. But, if you had gone to the store one day earlier, you'd not be having problems.
Example: I know I forgot to deposit the check into the bank yesterday. But, nothing I do pleases you.

 

16. Special Pleading (double standard) - Applying a standard to another that is different from a standard applied to oneself.
Example: You can't possibly understand menopause because you are a man.
Example: Those rules don't apply to me since I am older than you.

 

17. Straw Man Argument - Producing an argument about a weaker representation of the truth and attacking it.
Example: The government doesn't take care of the poor because it doesn't have a tax specifically to support the poor.
Example: We know that evolution is false because we did not evolve from monkeys.

 

18. Category Mistake - Attributing a property to something that could not possibly have that property. Attributing facts of one kind are attributed to another kind. Attributing to one category that which can only be properly attributed to another.

Example: Blue sleeps faster than Wednesday.
Example: Saying logic is transcendental is like saying cars would exist if matter didn't.

[metmom]

And it’s got to be INFALLIBLE official teaching, don’t forget.

[rbmillerjr]

This Beckwith quote seems like many I’ve seen here on FR.

“Some of the hostility was not surprising, for some of it came from well-meaning Protestants who simply do not have a good grounding in Christian history or the Catholic Catechism. Many of these well-meaning folks, unfortunately, have sat under the teachings of less-than-careful Bible-church preachers and pastors who approach Catholicism with a cluster of flawed categories that make even a charitable reading of the Catechism almost impossible.”

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/2772/#ixzz3bQumwMRf

[rbmillerjr]

Thank you. I had my Logic and Fallacies classes many years ago.

You may want to think thorough applying “Appeals to tradition”, as a fallacy, to a debate on the accepted canon of Scripture, which is entirely based on the rightful authority of those who gave us Christianity’s canon.

Think about it.

[freepersup]

Bookmarked.

Excellent reference material for dealing with the mentally challenged right here at FR. Useful across the topical spectrum of threads. Thanks.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Steelfish,

You addressed this snippet to me. I will allow everyone else to handle the issues you raised for them.

"aMOREPERFECTUNION insists that we post these “sacred traditions” of the Catholic Church."

You claimed there are Sacred Traditions and posted a verse from Paul to try to back up your claim.

I am asking for proof. If there are sacred traditions from Paul, post the list. That is all. You are not providing anything to support your specific claim.

If your claim is true, you should be able to DEMONSTRATE it with facts, evidence and logic. You have not in three or four posts about this topic.

If that list you claim is valid, simply:

1. Post the official list of Sacred Traditions from Paul
2. Demonstrate it is from Paul and was transmitted without error.

When you do that, you will have supported your truth claim. If you can't do it - and you cannot - you made an unsupported claim that is just opinion without fact.

"The canon of the Bible may be the BEST example of Sacred Tradition that the Catholic Church is the Bible itself because nowhere in the Bible does it say what the canon is."

Nor does it need to do so. I recommend you do a thorough study of history about the Canon. This is not only false, the Canon has been reexamined repeatedly over centuries and earlier errors corrected without "Sacred Tradition."

"We need to rely on Sacred Tradition that tells us what the canon is. Without Sacred Tradition, we have no way of knowing what is inspired Scripture and what is not."

FIRST, I must point out that instead of backing up your truth claim that Paul passed on traditions, you shifted ground to the canon. Perhaps you didn't realize your error. It happens sometimes.

In doing so, you committed the Logical Fallacy of Ambiguity. Some might see it as "Moving the Goalposts." Whatever.

In doing so, you failed to support your claim.

In doing so, you also found a new logical fallacy you've not used:

Circular Reasoning - purporting that sacred tradition is evident because we need sacred tradition so sacred tradition must exist - and making the Bible lower on authority than tradition. How highly you have made man over the inspiration of God!

If you have proof, why aren't you posting it Steelfish?

I do love beef. Give me a half-pound of ground, put this behind us and go have a beer!

Best.

[CynicalBear]

Please show that what the Catholic Church teaches as tradition is exactly what the apostles taught that they referred to as tradition. If you cannot do that I have no choice but to believe that the Catholic Church teaches something different than what the apostles taught and are thereby accursed for preaching another gospel.

[MHGinTN]

Appreciate you posting that! I’ve been meaning to get a printout of the list. Where is ‘The Undistributed Middle’?

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “That’s not how The early Apostles saw it. Read, Benedict XVI” <<

.
So Benedict knows more than the Word of God?

It has to be Hell, being a catholic, bound to hearing Yeshua’s detractors opinions as more valid than his own words!

.

[daniel1212]

BLUEDRAGON takes issue with Francis J. Beckwith

Rome needs some conservatives, yet some other RCs impugn such converts as being still infected with Prot theology.

DANIEL1212 produces a stack of comments to confirm that Catholicism requires unwavering obedience to its doctrines. But this is an unremarkable finding. Catholicism is not open to picking and choosing in the way Protestantism is that has like a cancer divided itself into some 30,000 sects and keeps subdividing itself

You sure turn a blind eye to all that has refuted you so far, which you cannot recover from. At least you finally responded to one thing I said, yet which is the same specious comparison i exposed. as specious. As said but ignored, even the Armstrong apologist you invoked disowned the 33,000 sects, while you marginalize the divisions in your one organizational church while on the other hand RCs have such a broad definition of "Protestant" that is so wide you can drive a Unitarian Scientology Swedenborgian Unification 747 thru it. Meanwhile those who hold most strongly to Scripture as literally being the wholly inspired and accurate word of God are far more unified in core conservative Truths than the overall fruit of Rome. Moreover, the fact is that Catholicism is indeed open to picking and choosing, the difference btwn it and Protestant is only a matter of degrees. But which division is covered up because Rome has organizational unity, which is because one can believe most anything and have this Org. treat and counts you a member and life and in death.

And she professes a limited degree of doctrinal assent, but which is largely on paper, with priests dissenting as well as laity. Moreover, what one does and overall effects is the evidence of what one believes, not merely what they profess. (Mt. 7:20; Ja. 1:18; 1Cor. 4:20)

And both what level teachings fall under and their meanings are subject to different interpretation, even by councils. The result being, as shown before in the words of one poster who wryly commented,

The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. — Nathan, http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html

RCs must count even even publicly know proabortion/sodomy/Muslim souls as bretheren, since Rome does and you are to follow your leaders, and cannot obey Scripture as fund,. evangelicals do. (2Cor. 6:14-18)

Then you have the significant differences with the EOs vs Rome.

Yet unity itself is not the goal of the Godly, as certain cults, which effectively operate under the Roman sola ecclesia model as the basis for the veracity of Truth claims, evidence the greatest corporate unity.

Under both sola ecclesia and sola Scriptura (or even prima Scriptura) we see divisions, and the real issue is what basis for the veracity of Truth claims is Scriptural.

And the fact is that, as explained but ignored, the church did not begin under the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome, but upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. By which common souls judged men of God as being so, and followed itinerant preachers (and Preacher) in dissent from the historical magisterium and stewards of Diving revelation, which under the Roman model are to be followed.

And under which manifest men of God (2Cor. 6:4-10; 12:12) the church saw its early limited degree of unity. And which model for unity has not been tried and found wanting, but wanting to be tried, while Rome's carnal substitute is not Scriptural.

And as a former RC, who remained therein for 6 years after being manifestly born again, i can honestly testify that in terms of real spiritual unity based upon essential salvific Truth I have found far far more among evangelicals than among RCs (and i looked for such).

in the way Protestantism is that has like a cancer

Actually, being able to separate, as Scripture requires, (2Cor. 6:14-18; cf. 1Co. 11:19) means that the the body of Christ and kingdom of God has greatly expanded itself thru division from liberal churches and Rome.Yet it seems RCs would rather have us be in liberal Prot churches than in conservative evang. ones, perhaps because the former are usually those closest to Rome.

And because multitudes of RCs become part of conservative evangelical churches which RCs attack, yet they are the most unified in conservative beliefs and values , despite being a faith which allegedly is all in disarray according to RCs. Because for RCs, the preeminence of Rome trumps all.

Just as one cannot pick and choose to believe in the writings of one Evangelist versus another,

RC theologians themselves still struggle to reconcile such in Scripture, but Rome does not get into officially defining many texts of Scripture much, and her commentary on such is often liberal.

(whose writings from hundreds of scripts were culled and presented as the authentic word of God in the Synod of Rome in AD 382 under Petrine authority),

More dubious propaganda. The claim that the Council of Rome (382) approved an infallible canon is contrary to Roman Catholic statements which point to Trent, and depends upon the Decretum Gelasianum, the authority of which is disputed (among RC's themselves), based upon evidence that it was pseudepigraphical, being a sixth century compilation put together in northern Italy or southern France at the beginning of the 6th cent. In addition the Council of Rome found many opponents in Africa.” More: http://www.tertullian.org/articles/burkitt_gelasianum.htm

And scholarly doubts and disputes about books continued right into Trent, which provided the first "infallible" indisputable canon after the death of Luther. And who included the apocryphal books in his Bible, though in a separate section, in keeping with an ancient tradition.

Doctrinal menu selection is not how Petrine authority works.

Peter never gave the final word on doctrine as the head of all the church, and in Acts 15 it was James who provided the final judgment on what should be believed and done, confirmatory of what Peter Paul and Barnabas believed. And holy (he was) Peter was the only apostle to be openly rebuked by another apostle, (Gal. 2 due to his denial of this via his actions (though Barnabas also was also implicitly reproved).

Christ, taught ONE coherent truth and this is why He established ONE Church and entrusted the Great Commission to go forth and “teach.”

Which church is a critical deformation of the NT church , beginning with her novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which is the basis for the veracity of her claims. For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

This is why St. Paul speaks of “obedience” to faith and teaching (Romans 6:17).

And utterly fails to even mention Peter in his extensive letter to that church on the obedience of faith, not even among his 27 acquaintances in Romans 16, nor in any epistles or letters in the life of the church does the Holy Spirit provide a reminder to submit to the pope as the supreme infallible Father/head of in Rome, or at least specifically to pray for him, or present him as first of a line of exalted infallible heads, all of which would befit a cardinal doctrine.

Your every attempt to defend Rome exposes the fallacious nature of your polemics.

This implies not only that we cannot have different “teachers” from Billy Graham to David Koresh and your corner street Foursquare Church pastor all offering “different versions” of God’s worth,

True to form, here you are lumping a man who operated more akin to Rome does with her popes with standard evangelical preachers. Yet you object to Mary Magdalena of the Cross as an example of what can exist in Rome, but this time was supposedly exposed. And as David Koresh types and liberals are to be combated, thus the modern evangelical movement arose in the last century, to combat liberal revisionism, which those who subscribe to this tradition still do, against such as deny the core apostle's creed truths we both concur on, as well as those who add to Scripture such as Mormonism and Rome. But also including the liberal revisionism Rome has taught in her own sanctioned Bibles for decades. The differences among such defenders is not on of God’s worth, but secondary issues.

Yet as with conservative RCs, they see the strongest unity as well as the strongest disputes, both due to their stronger commitment to Truth.

but that Catholic doctrine is a unified whole, and departures from it must of necessity be labeled a heresy.

Pure propaganda. A RC is not living in the real world but in a fantasy if they believe that. The doctrinal unity of Rome is overall largely on paper, and subject to variant interpretations, and thus you have schisms and sects among those who are committed to doctrinal purity based on historical writings. But rather than that, Rome seeks its members to implicitly assent to leaders, which define what Rome means in each generation. Meanwhile, in the past Rome has seen even more confusion at times.

He says that: “division produced Godly men such as Matthew Henry, Spurgeon, Wesley, Moody, Edwards, etc. Which are desperately needed today.” It escapes him that heretics, like atheists, Hindus, Rastafarian, can all lead good lives.

That is a manifestly desperate bit of sophistry, as the men listed were not simply good men, but Godly men of faith, being unified in core salvific Truths and love for Christ, though disagreeing on such issues as efficacy of grace with human freedom (which remains an unresolved dispute in Rome) and the larger issue of election.

They also all reject the Eucharistic Presence of Christ and the transubstantiation that occurs during the Sacrifice of The Mass, a centerpiece of Catholic doctrine.

Which makes them unified in rejecting heresy, which the Sacrifice of The Mass, the centerpiece of Catholic doctrine, manifestly is , with her separate class of believers distinctively titled priests (hierus), which the Holy Spirit never called NT presbuteros/episkopos, nor described them as having a distinctive sacerdotal function, nor are even shown dispensing bread as part of their ordained duties, and whose primary function is to pray and preach the word. (Acts 6:3,4; 2Tim. 4:2) The only priesthood in the NT church is that of all believers, who are all called to sacrifice (Rm. 12:1; Heb. 13:15,16)

Take for example Jay Richard. He is a senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute. Richards holds a Master of Divinity degree, a Master of Theology degree and a Ph.D. in philosophy and theology from Princeton Theological Seminary.

Which is simply another example of an apostate, and of your seeming mesmerization with intellectual elites, yet which, as showed before, is contrary to how the NT church began. It was the common people who hear the Lord gladly, and were led by unlettered men before Paul, whom we much esteem as compared with RCs, while the lettered looked down their nose at such.

Why don't you get one of your heavy weights to come here and debate here, who will actually defend Rome in her past and present incarnation? Let me know if you can get one to show up.

[DeprogramLiberalism]

>The epistle of James contradicts other Bible authors on a number of important matters.<

>>>No.<<<

I’ve given four detailed examples in this thread. Explain them.

[editor-surveyor]

.
You’ve given concocted, mistaken thoughts as examples.
.

[editor-surveyor]

Christianity has no accepted ‘canon.’

Paul declared the ancient Hebrew scriptures to be Yehova’s canon of what the apostles called scripture.

Various sects and self appointed tyrants of the catholic church have arbitrarily added and subtracted supposed letters to the NT at will, but lack any authority to do so, as Yeshua declared plainly that there is no man in charge of his assembly.
.

[DeprogramLiberalism]

>>>So, by what authority do you make this claim?<<<

Authority is your schtick. I value the Scriptures alone when dividing truth. The Church is generic, not “one church”. I liken myself to the black sheep of Lk.9.49-50. He was not one of the twelve or the seventy-two, so the disciples attempted to stop him. His “authority” was that he acted in Christ’s name. Christ answered his disciples:

“Do not stop him,” Jesus said, “for whoever is not against you is for you.”

[DeprogramLiberalism]

>>>You’ve given concocted, mistaken thoughts as examples.<<<

Then you should have no problem explaining why they are not contradictions. Go ahead - I’m waiting...

[DeprogramLiberalism]

>>>Please show that what the Catholic Church teaches as tradition is exactly what the apostles taught that they referred to as tradition. If you cannot do that I have no choice but to believe that the Catholic Church teaches something different than what the apostles taught and are thereby accursed for preaching another gospel.<<<

Excellent point!