Sign into an existing account

Before I say anything, Snark, let me just say to both you and @AugustineOfHippo2 that I understand these debates can drag out for inordinate periods of time. One or more of us may not have the time, energy, or interest in doing that. I'm happy to discuss these things in the context of a debate because I enjoy it, and disagreement of this kind is never a bitter thing. I poke and prod, I come by it honestly, and depending on the dispositions of the people I'm speaking with, this can be taken as an annoyance, at best, or an insult, at worst. It's always up to you whether you want to get deeper into the weeds or just walk away agreeing to disagree.

Someone I met here (both of you may remember him) called PeaceSeeker introduced me to this debate. I'm neither Protestant nor Catholic -- I suppose I would consider myself culturally Christian. I tend to lean heavily into thinking about God through a Christic framework, and I'm averse for various reasons to relying on other non-Christian frameworks to do the 'daily work'. That said, I am convinced of a much greater connection between Christianity and its antecedents, those which Christians later came to call 'pagan'. But I'm not approaching either of you from a devotional place, meaning with commitments to one particular camp or another.

For what it's worth, I'm a theist.

I apologize for the bloated introduction. I'm just letting you know that if you don't walk away from a thread, it's my habit not to. So, at any point you want to let it be, you may need to say to me: let's stop this or pause for now. I'll never take that move personally if you make it.


The point of my post was just to claim that this is not established by Scripture alone. Nowhere does Jesus call anybody the Pope, nor his Vicar on earth, nor the head of an institution who can pronounce doctrines ex cathedra. Nor does Jesus talk about how the office of the Pope will commute after Peter's death, or how the procedure of a conclave should work, such that instead of Jesus doing the appointing, a group of presbyters will vote to decide who the next Holy Father will be.

This is all emanating out of claims about an apostolic tradition and its origins in an original deposit. None of the verses mentioned in the OP can justify belief in these things in and of themselves. This is why I referenced the oral (by which I simply mean 'unwritten') tradition.

Without trying to get into disputes about the authorship or dates for the gospels, I just wanted to point out that initially, at the time we are talking about a deposit of the faith and the original apostolic teachings, there is no writing recording these things. The Catholic claim relies on there being a complete deposit with the transmission of an unbroken tradition from the earliest apostles on down the line, meaning it had to be oral. Only by accepting this on faith do you get justification for the assumption that later writings by early Church fathers are actually communicating what was given by Jesus to the apostles.

For a surface-level example of this, we don't see any serious place for Mary in the early Church. Nothing anyway that reflects the development of later doctrines concerning her elevated status: but it is taken on faith that these beliefs were there, between the apostles, and weren't fleshed out as writing until centuries later when certain needs arose (often needs related to defending the Church against heresy).

My point here is that this requires belief in an oral transmission of a great deal that was not written down but only appears textually later on.


I think it is clear from Scripture that Jesus instructed the apostles to evangelize, to baptize, to form ecclesia. I don't think it is clear from Scripture alone that the cultic structure of the Church with the Holy See in Rome is what Jesus instructed. I just don't think you're getting that explanation from Scripture.

moving on to @AugustineOfHippo2 's message; I'll reply here for convenience


The difference here is that their writings were not canonical re: Scripture. If what they said amplified what was said in Scripture in any way, then it could only have been sui generis or it would have to originate in the deposit of faith and been transmitted orally.


Sure; I'm using the term 'oral' in an explanatory sense. If we take something said by an early Church father -- call it "X" -- as being binding de fide, and "X" is not explicitly stated in Scripture, then "X" is either something that father wrote himself, or he is pulling from a tradition he received, i.e., something oral.


For sure. But none of this is scriptural. They are claims that depend on evidence one does not get from Scripture. These are passed down in a different way, be it orally, or through artifacts, or what have you. The claim of the OP is that Catholicism can be justified scripturally. I'm saying I don't think it can be.


You too. We're getting our first snow. I love it.

And here we have the fundamental heresy of the Catholics; they do not believe in God's Word, who IS Jesus Christ, his Son, that was sent to us that we may believe in and on him and HAVE eternal life.

The Catholics believe in only flesh and bone. They have not the spirit and believe not in the Lord Jesus for their salvation. They believe in doctrines of men taught for commandments of God that they may disregard God's very Word!