I think it is pretty well concrete proof that Cal is not saved. If he were, he would forgive as Jesus forgives, for that is what the Lord commanded us to do.

Does that mean Ananias and Saphira went straight to heaven after they were struck dead at Peter's feet?

"And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, 'He shall be called a Nazarene' ." Matt. 2:23.

I would really like to have parker tell us where in the OT this prophecy is found.

How am I suppose to describe what he did? He did not rape, he did not murder, he did not steal, what he did was lying. Ergo, he's a liar.



I'm not doing any idolatry from where I'm coming from (the true christian faith, that is the Catholic faith). Yet even according to your standard (Protestantism), haparker321 is lying.

But anyway, if he's bothered by it. Let me offer a no-nonsense apology (that I offended him, even though what he did is still IMO objectively lying). I'll even confess it to a priest.

haparker 321, you have been asked these questions by multiple people including the forum administrator.


1) what evidence do you have from the writings or homilies of the Church Fathers that they did not accept the Assumption of Mary to be true?

2) What evidence do you have that two previous popes have taught against the assumption of Mary?


Please answer them.

Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vs6qZd_xP1w

and here: http://catholictruth.webs.com/

and here: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/scriptur ... ence-guide

and here: http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/products/books

Hope this helps. I look forward to discussing this more after you've reviewed and replied, point by point, to all of these.

Your brother in Christ.

Right, and that's because you are citing historical sources that do not pertain to any direct evidence.


Of course it is.


Which as I shown beforehand, you have not proven.


And the way the Church uses tradition is not the same way she defines it.


I thought my original post (OP) asked for evidence that tradition defined and used in the same sense the Catholic Church does (I refined the question a little). So far I found no such proof to surface. I think what you said here is not what I have argued.


I asked a question.


Although Basil does mention a belief in the idea that tradition is independent of Scripture, the problem here as mentioned before is that He speaks about the ecclesiastical practices of the bishops (e.g. the sign of the cross, baptisms, using oil, etc.) but not of doctrine. Sorry, try again.


Right, and that makes the church look completely ambiguous with its dealings in Scripture.


And, as mentioned earlier, you have yet to prove this.


Don't forget implicit.


I accept the Trinity as fact because there is much support found in Scripture and historical writings. Unfortunately, not all Catholic doctrines are like this where they are supposed to be doctrinally well-supported.


Not for us Protestants.


Not really. You see, if the Church argues for the need of this 'Golden Index' catalog for the Canon, then it's OK for us Protestants to demand the Golden Tradition/Non-Tradition list as well. It's only fair.


The evidence is found wanting.


Like I said earlier, the issue is about how tradition is used (which is what I meant more specifically).


Again, and again, most Catholic doctrines fall right into this category.


I am and you are proving my point.


Protestant Churches do not believe tradition has equal weight with Scripture here; hence, the burden of proof lies with Catholics.

Parker

Look, I do not usually show up regularly because I have two different jobs and I enjoy returning on occasion. I think I have expressed this to you before somewhere along those lines and yes these positions can be very demanding. If you honestly think that I am much of a 'coward or liar' (as implied by some of these posts), then why would I return to this post?

Parker

I think it's really (more or less) a form of name calling, which comes as a personal attack. If the opponent does not agree with someone, the opponent calls the challenger X or Y. I think I would have to agree with Calvinist.

Parker

Then answer these questions, as you have been asked to repeatedly.

1) what evidence do you have from the writings or homilies of the Church Fathers that they did not accept the Assumption of Mary to be true?

2) What evidence do you have that two previous popes have taught against the assumption of Mary?

ive read this thread and i am still in the camp that the Holy Mother Mary was assumed into heaven i haven't seen any good prof from haparker proving otherwise but i will say one thing if i recall haParker wanted records from before 400 A.D but if there not there it could be because the early church didn't have to defend it since it was accepted that mary was accepted into heaven hope i made since just wanted to put in my 2 cent

This is a good point. In the early Church most of the writings were geared towards heresies which were cropping up. As for the rest, haparker will not provide evidence, as there is none. He has argued himself into a corner by claiming that early Church Fathers did not support the assumption and that multiple popes taught against it. Those are the kind of statements which beg for evidence to support them. Yet, despite repeated requests, we have nothing.

Here are some good writings on our Blessed Mother that you may wish to check out. Your profile says you are a candidate right now and I know that when I was coming in through RCIA, Mary was one of the things I had to read a good deal to get my head around. Perhaps one or two of these might be useful for you.

http://www.amazon.com/Mary-Fathers-Chur ... 287&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Mother-Saviour-Re ... pd_sim_b_8

http://www.amazon.com/Dormition-Mary-Ea ... d_sim_b_56

http://www.amazon.com/Queen-Mother-Bibl ... d_sim_b_52

http://www.amazon.com/Mary-Church-Sourc ... pd_sim_b_4

http://www.amazon.com/Patristic-Sermons ... 952&sr=8-4

http://www.amazon.com/Theotokos-Woman-M ... 952&sr=8-1



Peace of Christ,

Which has absolutely nothing to do with your lack of documentation.

Your pattern of speaking in vague generalities continues.

My first statement on my first post on this thread noted that discussions with Protestants (like you) "often is an exercise in the non-Catholic finding reason after reason to reject what is offered is 'proof.'" You are making me look prophetic (not that this wasn't easily predictable). So, in yet another attempt by this Board to make you deal in specifics, rather than vague platitudes, I ask: please explain the criteria for determining when a citation to an historical source "pertains to direct evidence" and when it does not. If citing to a primary historical source such as the writings of St. Basil isn't "direct evidence," then what, pray tell, would ever constitute direct historical evidence in your view? Can you offer some guidance here? If you can't provide that, it's apparent you're just playing the "that's not adequate proof" game.



In my last post, I laid the challenge for you to provide a Catholic source wherein "Tradition" was defined or discussed to mean "Teachings that come unsupported by either the Bible or history" as you (wrongly) assert the Catholic Church defines it. Your reply doesn't attempt to provide that definition.



So are you here finally agreeing that the Catholic Church does NOT define "Tradition" as "teachings that come unsupported by either the Bible or history?" You keep dancing around this question. Please answer for once.



And I'm offering as evidence statements affirming that the early church 1) explicitly recognized there are equally authoritative non-written teachings and 2) accepted as matters of doctrine things (e.g., Mary's PV) that you certainly won't agree are Scripturally based, so your only alternative is to acknowledge these doctrines are based in the main on Tradition (more on this below). So you have evidence that Tradition was described and used then just as it is described and used today.



That's because your original post proceeds off a false view of how the Catholic Church defines "Tradition." We can't provide proof to a question that proceeds off a false premise. That's why I keep insisting you provide a definition of "Tradition" from a Catholic source, because that may be the only way I can hope to correct the erroneous view that resides in your head.



Again, you asked a question based on a flawed premise. But in the further attempt to show how this is the case, I'll ask for information from you:

Please document 1) how the Catholic Church defines "Tradition" (using Catholic-sourced documentation) and 2) where or how in history any Catholic writer has appealed to or used Tradition in a sense contrary to the definition provided. (Or, in light of your later 'what I more specifically meant qualifier,' if you want to focus on how Tradition was "used" then and now, that's fine, too.)

Parker, you are continuing in this notion that there is some disparity between how Catholics today describe Tradition and how earlier generations described it. So the burden falls on you to document that disparity.

By contrast, I've already given one example -- Basil -- who speaks of an equally authorititative non-Scriptural teaching authority (more on Basil below). So your turn: give an example of someone who described (or used) Tradition differently from how the Catholic Church today describes (or uses) it, and provide the words they used in so describing it (or demonstrate how they used it).



Parker, you're not going to be able to skirt by Basil (or a host of other examples that lie waiting in the wings) by trying to claim the authoritative non-written teachings he refers to pertain just to supposed non-doctrinal matters like the sign of the Cross (and even that has Trinitarian implications). You are exhibiting a failure to grasp the extent to which the early church expressed its doctrinal beliefs through its liturgical practices. But I needn't delve into ancient liturgies at this point, as another example should suffice to show that Basil accepted doctrinal matters on the basis of Tradition.

Basil, like pretty much near all of his contemporaries, affirmed the belief in Mary's Perpetual Virginity:

"The friends of Christ do not tolerate hearing that the Mother of God ever ceased to be a virgin." Basil the Great, "Homilia in sanctam Christi generationem," in Patrologia Graeca 31:1468

Now, Basil could only have based his belief on this matter on two possible sources: 1) Scripture or 2) Tradition. Are you going to contend that Basil could adequately ground his belief on Mary's PV on Scripture alone? I am guessing not (though I'd be fascinated were you to make and support that claim). If not, then here before us is a doctrinal belief that Basil (under your paradigm where Scripture and Tradition are essentially separate things) must be regarded as basing primarily on Tradition. And, again, note how Basil asserts this teaching without undertaking some type of historical 'proofing' back through time.

So, again, I am demonstrating through the example of Basil how the early church described and used Tradition as the present Church today describes and uses it. This is the very thing you have asked to see produced. And I have many more examples I can adduce.



You consistently fail to distinguish between assertion and argument. What on earth is "ambiguous with its dealings in Scripture" supposed to mean? That's merely an assertion (albeit a non-sensical one). It would start to take on a semblance of argument if you were to give an example or two and attempt to explain how these show "ambiguity with [Church] dealings in Scripture."



Only for those Protestants who favor this pet argument and who then ignore the logical response that the Scripture/Tradition overlap makes producing a list of "Teachings Which Come Solely From Tradition" impossible. Here you simply ignore my point and regurgitate the same "show me the list" blather. Pet arguments aren't easily abandoned, but this one is beyond saving and deserves to be euthanized.



The Church doesn't argue for a need for a "Golden Index." It merely observes correctly that Scripture itself does not define its own parameters.

This is a case of Protestants mixing the apples and oranges and making a specious argument. "Canon" means "list." Scripture does not by itself identify that list. So historically that list was derived through the witness and practice of the Church (through the "Holy Spirit leading into all truth") in accepting some books as having apostolic origin (and thus authoritative and inspired) and dismissing others as not having the same, direct apostolic origin. But a writing either bears apostolic authority or it does not. It's an either/or matter (apple).

As to Tradition, it is the same Spirit-led witness and practice of the Church which accepts some teachings as properly belonging to the Apostolic "Deposit of Faith," while concluding others do/did not. We are very consistent in our approach to Scripture and Tradition in this regard. But given that all teachings bear the imprint of both Scripture and Tradition to varying degrees, it's not the same either/or "apple" that exists with the question of a book's canonicity. That is, it's not a matter that a teaching can be said to be 'via Scripture only ' or 'via Tradition only.' (It's an 'orange.') So no "Golden Tradition" list which purports to identify teachings that are received apart from Scripture is possible. It's only the fallacious Protestant pet-argument that insists such can or should be done.



At the outset, you phrased it as a matter of how Tradition is "decribed (defined)." Now, you're shifting to say it's a question of "how tradition is used."

The rejoinder to your frequent "I keep asking, but don't ever get an answer" posturing is that you are getting answers; you just keep trying to shift the question to make it seem like you haven't. The "maintain a moving target" technique is one I've seen often before.

Brian

I wonder what evidence he has that Jesus was a protestant and no one knew until Luther.

It's a shame that haparker did not return to read Brian's response.

Bobo doesn't think the reports of Bigfoot are false; hence the burden of proof lies with anyone who disagrees.

"Don't you know that the laying on of hands after baptism and then the invocation of the Holy Spirit is a custom of the Churches? Do you demand Scripture proof? You may find it in the Acts of the Apostles. And even if it did not rest on the authority of Scripture the consensus of the whole world in this respect would have the force of a command. For many other observances of the Churches, which are due to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law..."
St Jerome, Dialogue Against the Luciferians, chpt 8


I can provide ample evidence that shows that Parker does not believe the same way the early Church did.

The bigger problem for parker and protestants like him is the question, why do you refuse to believe and follow what the Early Church believed and followed?

Arguments about 'burden of proof' are inherently stupid.....


If the question under discussion was 'resolved: Protestantism is 100% true and Catholicism a damnable heresy' the burden of proof would be on Catholics, if the question under discussion was 'resolved: Protestantism is heresy' then the burden of proof lies on the Protestants, and if the question under discussion is 'Is Catholicism true?' the burden of proof lies equally on both sides.

But since this is a CATHOLIC message board, and Parker is here as an attacker/aggressor, we're really kind of arguing the second question 'Resolved: Catholicism is true' which means the burden of proof lies with those who reject that proposition, i.e. Parker.

To come here, on a Catholic message board, and proclaim that somehow Catholics are under the burden of proof to prove the truth of Catholicism to him or else he wins by default is just stupid. He is supposed to be here trying to convert US not the reverse.

That would be as dumb as me walking onto, say, a Jewish message board and declaring that the burden of proof is on them to prove that Jesus is not the Messiah or else Christianity wins by default. Hey, when you're in somebody's else's territory, the burden of proof is on YOU.