8 Arguements In Rebuttal To Elements Of Catholic Theology

  • Thread starter Thread starter aceweaver
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I sent a PM to aceweaver to come back and see what we thought of his article. He may not agree but it would be a little intellectually dishonest not to at least look at our responses.
 
It’s sad, really, that people are not willing to take the time to find out what others really believe before launching an attack…
I can understand someone wanting to state their own beliefs. (I have been known to do that myself!) But when it comes to rehashing the same old sixpence all over again…When all you need to do, is read a little of the info that is available right here.
I have to say that I think that there is a lot of childish petulance when a person comes on Catholic Answers, & posts this stuff. You know, like Catholics don’t know what they believe in…:rolleyes:
 
40.png
bear06:
I sent a PM to aceweaver to come back and see what we thought of his article. He may not agree but it would be a little intellectually dishonest not to at least look at our responses.
Click to expand...
I am looking at your responses 👍
 
40.png
Reepicheep:
Concerning Point Three in your list, aceweaver. “The idea that he is sinless”…That is a misconception. We do not think the Pope is sinless.
Nor do we think he’s incapable of making mistakes. The doctrince of Infalliblity has a much narrower meaning than that.
Click to expand...
Well he is called Holy Father a term that should only be used for God. Also the idea that he is infalible is a church doctrine I did not make it up. Granted I do not think he is understood as sinless, just that he is percieved in some way to be. That is within his duties speaking for the church. Evil Popes have spoken in evil ways and that is certainly proof that they are falible. No human is infalible. Also he is called the VIcar of Christ. Give me one Biblical reference to back this up. Remember the Bible, open it up sometime. Thanks for replying though. It is a good debate 🙂
 
Good scholarship uses footnotes and citations. When you say “Catholics believe this and that,” it’s good to cite that statement with an official Catholic document. Fortunately, we have a great Catechism (readily available with on-line with search engines).

Had you done this basic research, though, you would have seen a number of problems up-front (because you badly misrepresent Catholic doctrine).
 
40.png
aceweaver:
Well he is called Holy Father a term that should only be used for God. Also the idea that he is infalible is a church doctrine I did not make it up. Granted I do not think he is understood as sinless, just that he is percieved in some way to be. That is within his duties speaking for the church. Evil Popes have spoken in evil ways and that is certainly proof that they are falible. No human is infalible. Also he is called the VIcar of Christ. Give me one Biblical reference to back this up. Remember the Bible, open it up sometime. Thanks for replying though. It is a good debate 🙂
Click to expand...
A Vicar of Christ is a representative of Christ. they represent the authority of Christ because Christ gave the authority to them through Peter. Paul calls the Church the body of Christ, which means it is His representative. Christ gives Peter the keys to the kingdom in Matt.16. This is giving Peter His own authority, hence Peter becomes a representative of Christ. This authority was handed down through the popes.

Evil popes do not prove infallability wrong. The teaching is not that he always is right. The teaching is that he is granted authority by Christ to speak infallibly when addressing the whole Church in an infallible manor on faith and morals. In other words, the pope has to mean to speak infallibly and he has to say it is an infallible statement. Not every statement the pope says falls under this category.

There is no teaching that the pope is sinless or even near sinless. The pope goes to confession every week, which is more than pretty much all Catholics. If he goes to confession, there has to be something for him to confess.
 
40.png
aceweaver:
Well he is called Holy Father a term that should only be used for God. Also the idea that he is infalible is a church doctrine I did not make it up. Granted I do not think he is understood as sinless, just that he is percieved in some way to be. That is within his duties speaking for the church. Evil Popes have spoken in evil ways and that is certainly proof that they are falible. No human is infalible. Also he is called the VIcar of Christ. Give me one Biblical reference to back this up. Remember the Bible, open it up sometime. Thanks for replying though. It is a good debate 🙂
Click to expand...
  1. You did make up your definition of infallibility, though. And no one believes that any pope is/was sinless.
    You do not even have the humility to read the replies that you have been given, which explain it. Certainly, you have not followed the links you have been given, or you would not be so foolish.
  2. Do you know what the word “vicar” even means? I doubt it! I will give you a hint: John Wesley was a vicar; his father Samuel was also a vicar. Do you have a church? If so, you have a vicar.(I would imagine that he is some sort of Christian…So what is your problem???
  3. “Remember the Bible, open it up sometime”??? You would not have a Bible to open up, if it were not for the Catholic Christians you are attacking! Do you imagine that it fell from the sky? No, it was painstakingly brought together, published, & preserved for us all by Catholic priests, monks, & nuns.
    Finally, I am going to assume that you are very young, very uninformed, or both. Otherwise, I would not be so charitable towards your willfulness ignorance.
    God bless you, & help you to become less arrogant & more truly Christian.
 
40.png
aceweaver:
Well he is called Holy Father a term that should only be used for God. Also the idea that he is infalible is a church doctrine I did not make it up. Granted I do not think he is understood as sinless, just that he is percieved in some way to be. That is within his duties speaking for the church. Evil Popes have spoken in evil ways and that is certainly proof that they are falible. No human is infalible.
Click to expand...
IOW:

Aceweaver: “The Catholic Church says X, and X is false!”

Catholics: “The Catholic Church does not say X.”

Aceweaver: “Well, but the Catholic Church says X, and X is false!”

– Mark L. Chance.
 
My thoughts? Hmmm…misleading…unresearched…lack of substance.
Just my :twocents:
 
Thanks for sticking around and reading some of the responses. Please don’t gloss over the responses, but look closer. There are many here who have studied their way back to Catholicism.

If I were you I would read more of the articles on this site. If you are going to write an essay on Catholicism it is better to get it from the horses mouth. Go to the source to make sure that your points are valid and will be read and understood by Catholics.

If you write something about Catholicism it is best to read about Catholicism from Catholics that way we will understand each other. I know you have good intentions, so be honest and if you are going to disagree with Catholicism then disagree with what it really is, and not what people say it is.

What you have posted are common misconceptions about Catholicism, feel free to check into it.

God Bless
Scylla
 
Ahhhhhh…The infallibility of the Pope. An often misunderstood concept. The Pope’s teachings only in Faith and Morals is infallible and that’s because the Holy Spirit makes this so. Remember the “gates of hell will not prevail” statement. If the Pope is allowed to teach error, we would no longer have the 4 marks of the true Church. The Church would no longer be one, holy, catholic or apostolic. Everyone would be doing what the protestants do which is to have 50 million interpretations of the same law. The Pope is only infallible when teaching the truths, doctrines, Faith and Morals, or whatever else you want to call them. It’s all the same. Truth doesn’t change and God has given us the truths and has had them guarded by the Holy Fathers of our Church. In all other areas he can fail and has over the centuries. Like someone already said, the Pope goes to confession. If he was infallible, why would he do so?
 
40.png
aceweaver:
Well he is called Holy Father a term that should only be used for God. Also the idea that he is infalible is a church doctrine I did not make it up. Granted I do not think he is understood as sinless, just that he is percieved in some way to be. That is within his duties speaking for the church. Evil Popes have spoken in evil ways and that is certainly proof that they are falible. No human is infalible. Also he is called the VIcar of Christ. Give me one Biblical reference to back this up. Remember the Bible, open it up sometime. Thanks for replying though. It is a good debate 🙂
Click to expand...
Why do you say that “Holy Father” should only be used for God? The title does not imply any God-like attributes, or take away from God what is God’s alone. Look at Isaiah 22:20-21. That’s where you’ll find the concept of the keys (which Jesus gives to Peter) explained: “…I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand: and he shall be a FATHER to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.” Abraham is also referred to as a “father”—so what’s the big deal?

Of course we accept that the pope is infallible—Catholics just don’t believe it means what YOU say it does. First off, you initially confused “impeccability” with “infallibility”, and now you are continuing to misunderstand the doctrine. And when you say, “Granted I do not think he is understood as sinless, just that he is percieved in some way to be”, who do you have in mind? Who perceives him as sinless? Catholic doctrine doesn’t, and well-informed orthodox Catholics don’t, so just who are you referring to?

You wrote: “That is within his duties speaking for the church.” This is a confusing sentence: are you saying that everytime a pope says something on behalf of the Church, he is infallible? But that’s not the case. I don’t think you know what it is you are criticizing. You need to do some research first.

You wrote: “Evil Popes have spoken in evil ways and that is certainly proof that they are falible”.

There have been maybe a dozen bad popes in 2000 years—not a bad record, really. But even the “bad” popes did not teach error—they were protected from doing so by the promise of infallibility in teaching faith and morals. Infallibility is a negative protection, not a positive one: it is simply a protection from teaching error in faith and morals. I don’t think you understand that.

You wrote: " Also he is called the VIcar of Christ. Give me one Biblical reference to back this up."

Go again to Isaiah 22:20-22. There we have a prime minister, a vicar, receiving the keys. I think you need to understand the Old Testament better, and its prefigurement of the New Testament. If you are saying that if the exact term “Vicar of Christ” isn’t in the Bible, then it can’t be used, then I would ask you to show me where in the Bible is the word “Trinity”, and I would ask you to show me where in the Bible it says that only words that are in the Bible can be used. Presumably terms like “astronaut”, “altar call”, “sinner’s prayer”, “television” would also be forbidden.

You wrote: “Remember the Bible, open it up sometime.”

I would suggest you do the same. Also, learn to spell. It helps your credibility.
 
The funny thing is that Mr. Weaver offers a laudatory piece on on Freakmag about Mel Gibson, who is not only a very traditional Catholic, but who based his film on the Passion upon the visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich. Emmerich’s visions, as well as Gibson’s own beliefs, are hardly compatible with sola scriptura.

Inconsistency in his beliefs seems to follow his inconsistency in spelling.
 
40.png
severinus:
The funny thing is that Mr. Weaver offers a laudatory piece on on Freakmag about Mel Gibson, who is not only a very traditional Catholic, but who based his film on the Passion upon the visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich. Emmerich’s visions, as well as Gibson’s own beliefs, are hardly compatible with sola scriptura.

Inconsistency in his beliefs seems to follow his inconsistency in spelling.
Click to expand...
I totaly agree. I like The Passion Of The Christ. There is alot about Catholic beliefs I agree with. I just happen to have opinions that differ from Catholic beliefs. Which sadly if I was a Catholic I would have been silenced by the Pope by now. No wait I am not silenced that is a good thing. Ha-ha God bless you all it is a fun conversation. I love debate 👍
 
Might I suggest you try to tackle one issue at a time. The shotgun approach is difficult to debate. It’s not like we are going to run out of time or threads. (unless you think we are going to “raptured” this week, in which case it is all moot anyway).
 
40.png
mlchance:
IOW:

Aceweaver: “The Catholic Church says X, and X is false!”

Catholics: “The Catholic Church does not say X.”

Aceweaver: “Well, but the Catholic Church says X, and X is false!”

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...
Mark, as usual:👍 …
Unfortunately, for the purpose of advancing this discussion:
While Aceweaver does :nope: not believe in papal infallibility, he :yup: does believe in :eek: Aceweaver infallibility.
 
40.png
aceweaver:
. I just happen to have opinions that differ from Catholic beliefs. Which sadly if I was a Catholic I would have been silenced by the Pope by now. Ha-ha God bless you all it is a fun conversation. I love debate
Click to expand...
Bring out the :rotfl: comfy chair & the :rotfl: dish drainer!!! :rotfl:
I want to see it when :rotfl: somebody shows up from Rome to stick a sock in AW’s mouth…

Do you really think that the pope has nothing else to do???

Oh, dear…I need more smilies. Lots more…Each little ROTFL=1000 more of the same… Sheeshhh!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top