Tradition and Church are Also God-Breathed, Catholicism is True

Ranking the BEST (and worst) Arguments AGAINST Catholicism (tier list)
Shameless Popery | 15 May 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwim4iDSKe4

Adressing: "only the Bible is God breathed"

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

5:34 A Catholic should actually agree these things are God-breathed:

• Church
• Scripture
• Tradition

And at least the NT Church is according to Scripture God-breathed, since Jesus breathed on the Apostles, but arguably even the OT Church, God breathed into the nostrils of Adam, who began the Patriarchal Church, and all other versions of the OT Church, up to Second Temple, are just salvaging that, without anything really new, like Limbus Patrum or Sheol getting emptied of detainees ...

Scott Wall

@scottwall8419

Where does it say church and tradition are God breathed?

ben bailey

@benbailey3106

@scottwall8419 For the Church at least, the part where God breathed on them. The Holy Spirit is the breath of God, Spiritus means breath. In the Gospels where Christ, God the Son, breathes on the Apostles, and again in Pentacost, where the breath of God descended as tongues of flame on the Church. Now you can have a discussion on what that means and entails, but I would honestly just look about Joe's videos on apostolic succession, you'll get a much better look at the claims there than I, at least, can give

Scott Wall

@benbailey3106 ill look it up but that doesn't answer my question whatsoever. He breathed on individuals, not an institution. And ypundont address tradition whatsoever.

ben bailey

@scottwall8419 I am aware I didn't address tradition, and don't intend to.

Also this was more of a tongue in cheek answer than more than anything else, except to say that those who recieved the Breath of God at Pentacost were the church. If I were to actually try to defend the top guy's claim, we would first need to agree on what God-Breathed means, how you can divide the Church and everyone who make up the Church, and so on. I don't particularly want to have a full discussion on this unless you want to. For a bit about the Church and it's importance explicitly, here's a verse from First Timothy;

1 Timothy 3:15 "but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."

Scott Wall

@benbailey3106 not sure why that verse was posted. No one is contending that the church isn't important.

But the obvious rebuttal is all Christians weren't at pentecost so the whole church wasn't there. The church is the body and we are all members of the body. Not just Christians in a special building. I don't understand how catholics in good conscience can argue anything else.

And any reference to God breathing on tradition? Seems like if it was a biblically supported idea we would have a few before we make entire doctrines over it. But that what most of the rest of christendom has an issue with catholics about and the primary driver why catholics don't accept sola scriptura. Can't make things up

Maybe I should be more clear. Where does is say catholics church and catholic tradition is God breathed

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@scottwall8419 "Where does it say church and tradition are God breathed?"

church
"He breathed on individuals, not an institution."

That "institution" are the individuals, their successors, their subjects.

I actually didn't think of those assembled in the upper chamber in Pentecost, I thought of those assembled the evening of the Resurrection, ten people, Judas was absent because of unrepented treason, Thomas just happened to be absent.

Now when it was late that same day, the first of the week, and the doors were shut, where the disciples were gathered together, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them: Peace be to you And when he had said this, he shewed them his hands and his side. The disciples therefore were glad, when they saw the Lord He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. [John 20:19-23]

Jesus founded a godbreathed "institution" for the forgiveness of sins.

tradition
These things have I spoken to you, abiding with you But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you [John 14:25-26]

So, the apostles were not just godbreathed to forgive sins, but also to retain all that Jesus had told them. The entire NT is too short for that, so, this means the remainder has to be retained in the form of tradition, whether as "unwritten traditions" like celebrating Sunday or as commentary on the OT.

Note, for 3 and 1/2 years or so, Our Lord had been their professor in OT exegesis, as well as doing miracles and teaching them to do such.

So things like (you may agree on the items or not) "the Sabbath was moved to the Sunday" or "Jael killing Sisera symbolises Mary utterly crushing Satan, even before pregnancy, and so being sinless" are not directly in the OT text, because they go beyond, and also not directly in the NT text, because it doesn't involve all of His teachings, they are in tradition, and this kind of tradition is, as per John 14 with John 20, godbreathed.

"Where does is say catholics church and catholic tradition is God breathed"

What's your alternative view on where the godbreathed Church and the godbreathed tradition came after the NT?

Eastern Orthodox? Baptist Continuity?

Anything other than Ruckmanism is a theological trainwreck within Protestantism.

Ruckmanism / Trail of Blood doesn't have the same gross theological absurdity, but is instead egregiously unhistorical, it's based on lying about history or believing (honestly, but stupidly) lies about history.

Adressing: commenting where Joe Heschmeyer said you couldn't believe Trinity and Christology without development of doctrine.

10:29 Trinity and Christology may not have been the first things taught to converts on Pentecost day, but I'd say some of the ensuing days.

They are still Apostolic doctrine.

The first people heard of the Trinity was probably when Apostles baptised "in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti" (but in Aramaic) and asked "what does that mean?"

There are two views on what is meant with Apostles baptising in Jesus' name, and perhaps it's not the "Jesus' name was exceptionally the formula" ....

Adressing: so many Catholics aren't very excited about the faith or living with God ..."if that's what they are doing"

15:18 The ones using that, did they ever read about "thirtyfold fruit"?

Adressing: both "Catholicism is the Harlot of Babylon" and Heschmeyers "no, it's Pagan Rome"

25:33 I have an argument which both refutes the usual extreme Protestant use, and also salvages part of what it implies.

Can a Catholic faithful be a member of the Harlot of Babylon?

If not, why is God calling out faithful from it, is it just a specific warning to Catholics at a specific time to leave the Geographic locality?

One Pope avoided massacre by taking it that way, he probably thought the end times were there, they weren't.

So, people who are already faithful, therefore Catholics (that's what faithful means), can in some sense, apparently, be part of the spiritual landscape of Babylon, much as Jews hearing identic words in the time of Cyrus had been part of the cityscape of Babylon the city of Nebuchadnezzar.

Adressing: Catholics don't have a personal relation with Jesus, it's blocked by the sacraments.

36:39 The personal relationship, ideally, is a real one, but it happens in the imagination, subjectively to us.

Except the part that happens outside, through sacraments.

Now, if we went to 1600 AD and asked who between Francis of Sales, Catholic bishop of Geneva, residing in Annecy, and Theodore Beza, a chief pastor of Geneva after John Calvin promoted this kind of personal relationship, well, it seems Introduction to the Devout Life is not attributed to Theodore Beza. Protestants start promoting this during Pietism, as a reaction against the Enlightenment impiety, and the famous Lutheran Pietist Schartau actually translated Introduction to the Devout Life, and not anything Beza wrote. It can be added, he left out some of the chapters on the Eucharist, as too Papist for his taste.