Debating with protestants who just won't listen


You mean infallibility? Yes. Except that you haven’t been able to prove it scripturally only repeat yourself over and over as if it is true. The only thing infallible is God’s word alone.


No, I was referring to the CC having the fullness of Christ.

Catholics do not extract doctrine from Scripture, as our separated brethren must do, having been separated from the Sacred Tradition. The Gospel was whole and entire when it was delivered to the Church, before a word of it was ever written. The fullness of that Gospel, God’s Word present in the Church, did not magically disappear like a popped soap bubble once some of it was written.

You reject the testimony of the Scriptures that the Word of God was placed in the Church, and that the Apostles commanded that it be preserved. You reject God’s promise with regard to His Word stated in Isa. 55:11. It is you that refuses to accept what the Scriptures say.

As to infalliblity, this is a negative gift, meaning that it prevents the Church from teaching error. To be fallible requires a PERSON, with intellect, and will. One who cannot make choices cannot qualify to be fallible, or infallibly. Scripture is not a PERSON, so cannot be infallible. Scripture is inspired, and inerrant.

This was the greatest mistake made by the Reformers, trying to replace what they considered corrupted leadership with a more authentic source (Scripture). In trying to force the Holy Scriptures into a role they were never meant to have, they inadvertantly made themselves the PERSONS who interpreted and acted on the Scriptures. Since they did not have the gift of infallibility (something they freely admitted) what was created was a never ending plethora of interpretations that has never ceased to cause divisions from that time until this!

You cannot infuse, tgG, the Holy Scriptures with qualities they do not possess. You cannot make them to have the characteristics of a PERSON, no matter how much you would like to do so. Ultimately, Sola Scriptura boils down to everyone making their own interpretation, and these are as common as there are belly buttons.


Who delivered the gospel to the Church? … was it the Church? or was it the holy Spirit? … if it was the holy Spirit, then, since He is invisible, the evidence is in the record called holy scripture. If oral teaching was sacred and infallible, then let it be evidenced by the scriptures.

You can believe that non-sense if you want to. I do not. It’s almost like having a shadow government running the country even though we have three branches of government. The source of authority is behind the scenes calling the decisions.

“The gospel was whole and entire when it was delivered to the Church before a word of it was ever written,” is a deception. None of the N.T. authors made any claim to infallibility in their oral preaching and teaching. They all knew they were fallible, yet God did preserve an infallible record despite the infallibility of each N.T. person. To claim an oral tradition as doctrine which eventually was recorded as scripture, as some kind of pre-scripture, is beyond the biblical evidence. It is a subjective theory. We find very few references to tradition in scripture, and even the ones we find come under suspicion by our Lord. But you go ahead and swallow that. I do not. By the way, maybe it is you who is separated. I am not.


no… I really do not reject what the scriptures say. I am in reality to what is actually said. It is you who have a shadow government called sacred tradition. It is elusive because it does not support the foundation.


2nd Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.


This is a lot of double talk. Where did this GIFT of infallibility come from? Who’s idea was it? and on what basis do you answer? I agree that scripture is infallible. But to say that the Church is infallible as if the Church and scripture are one and the same, is insane. The Church must interpret what scripture says and means. In that interpretation they are subject to error. If you think that the CC is not subject to error when they (you) use scripture (as you do often on this site) as a means to justify a belief, you have elevated yourself above the Apostles themselves.
It all requires your interpretation or the interpretation of someone in your CC past, to tell you what any particular scripture means. You say that the Church is infallible because you have the word of God. Well… that is a glossing over of the real issue here . We too have the word of God, we too pray and seek God, we too repent of our sins and cry out to our savior. we too, ask for, and receive, the anointing of the Holy Spirit who teaches us all things. 1st. John 2. and by His influence we come to greater truths as did Luther when he finally understood why the JUST should live by faith. The “truth” does not come, as much, by education. It comes by revelation. It is revealed to those who are hungry enough to come and get it.


And what traditions would those be?.. Paul didn’t name them? He didn’t record them… nor did others come along and agree with them. Why not. We don’t know… there is no record of them But there is one divinely inspired record called holy scripture. This was an INTENTIONAL record to indoctrinate God’s people with the truth. If we can agree on that then we do well.


I do not have a problem with the Septuagint as a whole. But, as we’ve already covered here, certain books within the Septuagint called the Apocrypha were deliberately ignored by both Jesus Christ and the Apostles and gospel writers. Their silence and reluctance to call these books the word of God is defining to those who have ears to hear.


Apostolic succession most certainly seems to be one of them.

Are you a member of an ancient, apostolic Church?

So then this particular piece of scripture doesn’t “count” somehow???

If anything, it points to the insufficiency of scripture as the sole source of revelation.

Sure. The NT of which started being written about 20 years after the Church began, would be finished 70 years after the Church began, would be canonized 300 years (or so) after the Church began and would be read by a largely literate laity 1500-1800 years after the Church began.

See the problem here?

But not the sole source. The bible sprang from the Church, not the Church from the bible.


What apostolic succession? Please tell me how the word of God taught this and everyone agreed? Please show Peter’s successor as an eye-witness to the resurrection as is the condition to be a successor, found in Acts 1.

so… no… this is not even close.


No no. We don’t need to discuss papacy yet. We Catholics even think the Orthodox have some validity in their claim to being “The Church” due to their succession.

So are you asking for a scriptural basis for Apostolic Succession?

Whoa, must have missed this last part.

Paul wasn’t an eye-witness to the resurrection… So Paul wasn’t really an apostle?


I can agree that this is part of why there was a reformation attempt within the CC.


Paul was never one of the twelve apostles who will judge the 12 tribes of Israel. His apostleship is in a secondary class of apostle. Even today we have the office of apostle in some circles who will dare to recognize it from Eph. 5. But Paul’s witness was only to hear the voice of Jesus after the resurrection. He would not qualify to be one of the twelve. Especially seeing that they already filled Judas’s place with the twelfth person.


So you DO believe in apostolic succession!!!

Now we just have to determine if your ministers are valid and licit. Congrats on getting a little closer to the true church!


Actually I think I was wrong on my last statement. But I still think Paul was of a secondary class of Apostle. Not because he didn’t see the resurrection, but because there were only 12 appointed apostles to that class and no more. I was wrong about him not seeing the resurrection. He made claim to it in 1st. Cor. 9:1.


Brother, if you ain’t Catholic, you’re probably wrong on a lot of 'em.

So, my bible quoting friend, do you have scripture to support your theory of “Paul, Second-Class Apostle”?


If I gave you the biblical references would it make any difference to you. Na … not really. Because you regard the traditions of men more important than the word of God. But here it goes anyway.

We know that Paul was an apostles but not listed as one of the 12 apostles listed in Acts 1. The original twelve minus Judas, had a special place to judge the 12 tribes of Israel. Mathias took his place and the number was complete.

But as for Paul, we read, “Paul a slave of Christ Jesus called as an APOSTLE and singled out for God’s good news.” Romans 1:1.

We know that James, who wrote the epistle of James was also an Apostle, but was not included in the original 12 because he, at the time did not follow Christ nor did his brother Jude who wrote his famous one chapter epistle.

Paul said, “But I didn’t see any of the other APOSTLES except JAMES the Lord’s brother.” Gal. 1:19.

These were two apostles who were not counted in the list of 12. These two are considered a secondary class. Actually to be technical, they were a third class of apostle out of four.

  1. Jesus was the chief apostle

  2. The 12 were secondary apostles, called transitional

    Paul and James, and probably Jude were a third
    class apostle. Meaning they came along as
    transitional apostles.

  3. And lastly are all other apostles after the ascension of Christ listed as a ministry Gift in Ephesians 4.

But does any of it really matter to you … na…


Actually the Bible matters a lot to me because it is arguably the greatest tradition to come out of the church.

But where you run a foul like so many other Protestants is that you don’t have an authoritative Church to actually interpret scripture for you.

So you’re forced to take descriptive statements and pretend that they’re prescriptive because the Bible is obviously not sufficient to answer every question you have but it’s all you’ve got because again you lack an authoritative Church like Christ established.


Vonsalza your answer is right out of the CC textbook to refute non-catholic believers.

I wasn’t asking for your authority or the CC’s authority. I do not find my authority in the frailty of men. My authority, along with anyone who believes in the Lord Jesus Christ, comes directly from Christ and His word.
Again, you and others like to make these pronouncements and declarative statements over me to define me, as if you actually could, you do not come close.
But again, you side stepped my theological points because you do not know what you are talking about. You, reflected back again over to me, personally, rather than engage in the issue. This is all you do.

Why wasn’t Paul listed in the group of 12 apostles, yet called an apostle?


Christ’s word is an excellent source of authority, but how do you know what consists of Christ’s word and what does not?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit