In Defense of Papal Tradition

I watched this video and I really don’t think this video creator did his homework on the subject. There were universalists withing the early church that were not condemned as heretics and he would no doubt strongly agree that universalists were heretics. These guys were mostly from the school of Alexandria where Arius and Athanasius would both emerge from. Origen and Clement of Alexandria were both universalists. There were minor disagreements in the early church that would eventually end up becoming anathematized by the church in response to the divisions that would come up later. This in no way disproves the claims of the Roman Catholic Church as some of this has even happened with the Roman Catholic Church itself. Thus, minor differences in terms of transubstantiation, universalism, and creationism were tolerated until they were eventually ruled out. Views on Mariology also differed when it first came up in the 4th century C.E. This does not disprove Mariological views in the Roman Catholic Church and a vast majority of Christians are in agreement on many concepts such as her status as Mother of God (Anglo-Catholicism, Roman Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy). Same goes for prayers to saints. Hard to refute these traditions.


About newenglandsun

A student. Male. Passionate. Easily offended. Child-like wonderer. Growing in faith, messing up daily.
This entry was posted in I'm Lazy. Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to In Defense of Papal Tradition

  1. I thought it would be necessary that at around 10:51-12:34, it isn’t at all clear in the slightest sense that he agrees with consubstantiation.
    And at 12:44-13:44, he makes an error in insisting that Roman Catholics reject pre-millenialism. No one nowadays believes this can safely be taught but that doesn’t make it anathema.
    His confusion might be stemming from the condemnation of Joachim de Fiore as a heretic for his teachings of the Apocalypse which painted the Roman Catholic Church as the villains.

  2. james jordan says:

    The new pope is a Calvinist.

  3. james jordan says:

    Its clear from the similarity of his behavioral patterns with the Calvinists. What is the greatest passtime of Calvinism? To call people Pelagians. The first month or so of his papacy that seems like all we heard out of him. Everyone’s a Pelagian, traditionalists are Pelagians for offering me a collection of rosaries, Pelagian this, Pelagian that. Plus, like the Calvinists, he is so into the nonsense that “we’re all just redeemed sinners” that he can’t even condemn homosexuality, but said “Who am I to judge homosexuals?” He’s a Calvinist — or if you prefer, a Jansenist. In any case, if you think he’s a good pope, you’re a loony tune.

    • “But the French Reformer, not conceding a possible state of pure nature, attributes to the first man, with Luther (in Genesis 3), such perfection as would render God’s actual grace unnecessary, thus tending to make Adam self-sufficient, as the Pelagians held all men to be.”
      Barry, William. “Calvinism.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 3. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. 8 Sept. 2013 .

      “Who am I to judge homosexuals?” was an accurate statement of Pope Francis I’s. That does not reflect Calvinism at all. That just simply reflects grace. You might have a problem with God’s grace if you think such a statement like that is Calvinistic. Again, I would urge you to read what the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia has to say on Calvinism as well as Pelagianism if you think calling something Pelagian is “Calvinistic”.

      Pelagius taught that Adam and Eve’s original human nature was perfect. Absolutely perfect. Which is utterly false. Their nature was selfish and greedy at the beginning. We as humans inherit this nature from them. That does not mean we do not have free will. Calvinists teach that Adam and Eve were perfect, then when they sinned, we inherited their literal sin. Which is false. In Augustinian teaching, Original Sin is the idea that we as humans inherit the guilt of our first parents’ (whoever they may be), sin because we are part of the human race. And thus are born into a state of privation of grace.

      Eastern Churches teach slightly different and focus on another aspect of Original Sin but in order to not be a Pelagian, you have to hold that human nature is not self-sufficient and has never been self-sufficient at any point in time. Hopefully that makes sense. God bless!

      Here’s an article on Original Sin by the way.

      • james jordan says:

        “That does not reflect Calvinism at all. That just simply reflects grace.”

        You think that only because you’re a Calvinist too, but too stupid to know it.

      • Calvinists believe in predetermination thus denying our free will.

      • james jordan says:

        Catholicism also believes in predestination. Have you not read the Catechism? And that heretic Augustine is the one who started the whole predestination nonsense because he was the first idiot to take Romans 9 seriously. For 300 years everyone ignored that chapter of Satanic spew until him.

      • Didn’t I already explain predestination to you?

        Maybe this will help.

        Predestination just refers to God’s intentions for us to be saved. It is NOT predetermination (aka Calvinist predestination).

      • “Nor should you take away from Pharaoh free will, because in several passages God says, I have hardened Pharaoh; or, I have hardened or I will harden Pharaoh’s heart; for it does not by any means follow that Pharaoh did not, on this account, harden his own heart. For this, too, is said of him, after the removal of the fly-plague from the Egyptians, in these words of the Scripture: And Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also; neither would he let the people go. Exodus 8:32 Thus it was that both God hardened him by His just judgment, and Pharaoh by his own free will.”
        (On Grace and Free Will, Ch. 45)

      • james jordan says:

        All Augustinians are Calvinists.

        “Pelagius taught that Adam and Eve’s original human nature was perfect. Absolutely perfect. Which is utterly false. Their nature was selfish and greedy at the beginning.”

        Only Calvinism teaches that Adam and Eve were perfect.

        Pelagius taught neutrality, not perfection. Adam and Eve were created neutral, capable of doing either good or bad, by freewill, and so are we.

        Calvinism and Augustinianism on the other hand teach that Adam and Eve were perfect but lost this perfection and become corrupted by “the fall” and we inherit this corruption which is a compulsion to sin.

        You don’t even know the most basics, my friend. And you know why? Because the information you have on Pelagius all came to you from Calvinists. You didn’t study the issue in the original sources like I did. You trust the Calvinists for your information, and its bitten you.

      • Yes, we do inherit a corruption from our first parents. This corruption is the unholy human nature.

        Even the Eastern Orthodox believe that corruption is transferred.

        This is not Calvinism, this is simply human logic. They had an opportunity to get it right, obey, and pass down a holy human nature. Calvinism asserts that only Adam and Eve have free will. I do not hold to this.

        Maybe you are a Calvinist and can’t admit it so you just want to consider others Calvinists? But calling the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Catholic Church, and the Eastern Orthodox Church “Calvinist” for teaching that human nature is fallen due to Original Sin is unfair and untrue. You need to revise your arguments my friend.

      • james jordan says:

        There is no mention of such a fallen nature in the text of Genesis 3. And really, by fallen nature you actually mean “born damned to hell” — no mention of that either.

        In fact, quite the contrary, the “Fall” raised man’s nature according to the text of Genesis 3. When God kicked them out of the garden he said : “Behold the man has become like Us, knowing good and evil….” — man is now higher than the apes. Now he knows morality. Before, he was just basically like an animal.

        You require quite a bit of eisogesis — of injecting your nonsense back into the Old Testament, to make this stupidity of yours work.

        Nobody reading Genesis would come to your conclusion about original sin, nor will anyone who dares reads it once without brainwashing not come away saying they were lied to by the Roman Calvinist Church concerning “original sin.”

      • james jordan says:

        “Nothing contradictory.

        I wasn’t bringing up the fact that Genesis does NOT call what they did a “sin” nor can you find any reference to it in the Old Testament where its called a “sin” — but now that you brought it up, that’s true. Sin requires moral responsibility and they had none until after they did this non-sin disobedience. Because this non-sin disobedience is how they received the knowledge of good and evil which would make them responsible in the future.

        But none of this touches the fact that none of your system is found in Genesis. Its all made misinterpretation from thousands of years after the text was written!!!

      • The word yada, as the article correctly points out, means many things. One of these things is “knowledge of experience”. Thus, when Adam and Eve sinned, they gained the knowledge of experiencing good and evil.

        Yada can also mean “have sex with” as well. It can also just simply refer to general knowledge.

      • james jordan says:

        As someone points out in the comments there, it says “Behold the man has become LIKE ONE OF US, knowing good and evil” … meaning they know it in the same way that God knows it. Does God know evil through experiencing it? If not, then theoretical knowledge is required here.

        Yada can also mean “have sex with” as well. It can also just simply refer to general knowledge.”

        Please. Your linguistic knowledge is abysmal. That’s not a meaning of the word. That’s a figure of speech.

      • You don’t think God experienced good and evil when he saw Satan fall?

      • james jordan says:

        I don’t think you understand the meaning of “experienced” at the link you provided. And as for Satan’s fall, that’s nowhere in the Old Testament. Its made up mythology based on misinterpretation of a passage in Ezekiel that is just making fun of the King of Babylon.

      • Does it matter? All that matters is that the word can carry that interpretation.

        The fall of Satan is in tradition.

      • james jordan says:

        Oh, and before you bother coming back with this: the snake in Genesis 3, is literally a snake. “The snake was the most cunning beast of the field that the Lord God had made” it says very matter of factly. Of course the snake at that time had legs according to the allegory. Its an allegory. The fall story never happened. Trying to make it a literal historical occurrence is what THOUSANDS of years later called forth the MISinterpretation that the snake was Satan in disguise. But the fact that the snake is just a snake — “The snake was the most cunning beast of the field that the Lord God had made” — demonstrates the story is an allegory not literal history, because — obviously — snakes don’t talk.

      • I never called Genesis 1-3 literal. The spiritual truth is carries about Original Sin is 100% accurate though. The snake is symbolic of the Devil. The NT book of Revelation comments on this fact. Sorry.

        Revelation 20:2 – And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, (RSV Catholic Edition)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s