A Proof Against Catholicism

[1ke]

And what does that mean? I take the Bible at it’s word? So if someone said the Resurrection really happened, could I accuse them of being a literalist too?

I suggest the section of the Catechism on the senses of Scripture.

How old are you? You say you are having serious doubts. It seems to me you have been very poorly catechized and that is likely the source of those doubts. The faith has not been explained to you in a logical fashion, nor has Church teaching regarding interpretation of Scriptures.

May I suggest that instead of plunging in the middle, you take a systematic approach? Get a copy of the Catechism. Study it and begin studying the bible through Catholic scripture studies. Get a Catholic Study Bible. Also, begin reading the documents that the Catechism references in its footnotes. And, start reading Catholic theology such as the book I previously referenced.

 

[tonsofquestions]

I suggest the section of the Catechism on the senses of Scripture.

which of the sense listed in the link is this verse in:

*The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ's victory and also of Christian Baptism.84

2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written "for our instruction".85

3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, "leading"). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.*

None of them seem to apply other than the literal sense. It is not allegorical, as it is not a type or sign of anything. It has nothing to do with morality. And what is it leading us to? It is not a “sign” of anything. None of the spiritual senses seem to apply. Why do you disagree, and what spiritual sense do you believe this verse is in and why?

 

[divinedisciple7]

Why have you guys let this non serious questioner make you guys go in circles ? All he wants is to show how funny it is to make Catholics jump through loops. And I am sure you guys have had him roll on the ground. He obviously is just a “devil’s advocate” wanting to waste our time and energy. (Just so you know, I do not mean you are evil, but rather that you are here for causes not of God)

To the person who started this chain:

If you are serious, study the catechism, go to RCIA, study the early and apostolic church fathers and doctors of the Church. Do all this with an open heart and mind to the possibility that this Church is true. Study and pray for faith.

I pray for the softening of your with all my love through the Heart through the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

 

[tonsofquestions]

Why have you guys let this non serious questioner make you guys go in circles ? All he wants is to show how funny it is to make Catholics jump through loops. And I am sure you guys have had him roll on the ground.

Gotta love how every so called Catholic seems to think they have been given the right to judge me and my intentions without ever having met me. How very…charitable.

 

[divinedisciple7]

I judge your actions my brother. Who you are I will most likely never know. In this long lost fantasy land of the internet your words and online actions state who you are to the world. Look at the doggy circles you have put these brothers and sister in Christ to go through to try to help you understand. And what do you do ? Ask the same questions over and over. You actions dictate a lack of seriousness. I have friends and a brother that your actions and words remind me of. Cynical and non-desirous for understanding and lacking the humility to understand that they will not understand everything about God. There are certain things we can understand because he revealed it to us. And if you want to understand the things of God, then one first must have faith and be willing to humble themselves to look from how God has taught us to look upon the world. And faith is a gift, which if you do not have, my dear brother (if you are a sister by the way, I apologize) then pray for it. And how does God teach ? Through that organization that Christ instituted and that He proclaimed the gates of Hell shall not overcome.

And what of this “oh look another catholic judging me without knowing me” ? What of it ? Am I perfect or have I stated so ? I will not engage in a circling conversation with you for Ihave not the energy to go in circles if the person is not willing to listen, even if they have ears.

Once more, I pray that our Lord Jesus Christ may soften your heart. And If I sinned in anything I say, I pray He forgive me and if I have offended you, it is not my intention offend.

May God have mercy on us all, especially us Catholics, for unto those that more is given, more is expected.

 

[RobNY]

tonsofquestions,

The real question is: what is the literal sense of the Scripture? Perhaps we can find a way of interpreting the literal sense to mean something such that we come to no contradiction. I would suggest that we need to interpret this verse in such a way as to deny that it really implies that there is true ignorance in Christ.

The French Dominican Francoise Dreyfus begins his book, “Did Jesus Know He Was God?” with a discussion of “the problem of the ignorance of Christ”-- not implying that He was ignorant, but the question of whether He was. He singles out the verse Mark 13:32 as a point of controversy.

I am reviewing his discussion, and I will get back to you when I am prepared.

God bless,
Rob

 

[tonsofquestions]

tonsofquestions,

The real question is: what is the literal sense of the Scripture? Perhaps we can find a way of interpreting the literal sense to mean something such that we come to no contradiction. I would suggest that we need to interpret this verse in such a way as to deny that it really implies that there is true ignorance in Christ.

The French Dominican Francoise Dreyfus begins his book, “Did Jesus Know He Was God?” with a discussion of “the problem of the ignorance of Christ”-- not implying that He was ignorant, but the question of whether He was. He singles out the verse Mark 13:32 as a point of controversy.

I am reviewing his discussion, and I will get back to you when I am prepared.

God bless,
Rob

I look forward to it.

 

[prodigal-sun]

There is a separate conversation going on about how to tell the difference between a contradiction and a paradox. I asked the person what his criteria was for differentiating between the 2, he said he trusted the Church. I asked why he trusted the church, he said because Jesus said to. I asked why he believes what Jesus said, he said because Jesus is God. I asked why he believes Jesus is God and am waiting for a response. Until I am given a rational explanation for the difference between a contradiction and a paradox, the point is moot.

Oh my you are quite dense aren’t you. Is this where you think that convo went to… really, why not try to understand rather than blather on as if you are some kind of theolospher. It really is not impressing anyone.

Your OP states that you have proof of the churches fakery… hohum.

YOu go on to try and prove the church wrong with a seemingly ultraimportant contradiction ( in reality a paradox, the fact you can’t see it as a paradox is far beyond the point and only adds to the proof of your ignorance)

YOur so called contracdictions and questions are answered skillfully & truthfully but still seem to think you are right and have discovered something that no one else in the history of christianity has gleaned.

Good luck with your new religion I’m sure you will be in the fore front of al those others sects & cults in no time!!!

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

And what does that mean? I take the Bible at it’s word? So if someone said the Resurrection really happened, could I accuse them of being a literalist too?

literal meaning != (not equal) to literalist meaning.

 

[tonsofquestions]

literal meaning != (not equal) to literalist meaning.

What’s the difference?

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

What’s the difference?

the literal meaning is the meaning conveyed by the human author

a literalist meaning is the meaning derived from the words themselves, which, many times, is not right since it does not take into account the context, historical, geographaical, etc.

Catechism of the Catholic Church **116 **The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”

 

[tonsofquestions]

the literal meaning is the meaning conveyed by the human author

a literalist meaning is the meaning derived from the words themselves, which, many times, is not right since it does not take into account the context, historical, geographaical, etc.

Catechism of the Catholic Church **116 **The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”

And how do we know what the author’s original meaning was?

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

And how do we know what the author’s original meaning was?

Thats what the the above quote from the CCC answers if you read it.

And in the case where there is still a problem, the Church will infallibly declare it, as in the case of the Eucharist, where the literal meaning was in fact the literalist meaning, that the bread truly becomes the Body of Christ.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

What follows is a proof exposing what I think is a contradiction in Catholicism. I am very interested to hear your feedback and refutations.

#1) God the Son consists of both a human and a Divine nature.

#2) God the Son’s Divine nature knows everything, omniscient, I believe the word is

#3) God the Son cannot say anything that is untrue

#4) God the Son said that God the Son(which would include both his human and his Divine natures) does not know everything.

Knowing from #3 that God the Son cannot say anything that is untrue, coupled with #4 we get, specifically:

#5) God the Son’s Divine nature does not know everything

#2 clearly contradicts #5, which would seem to imply there is a contradiction in the Catholic faith.

Please give your feedback and tell me which of my points you disagree with. Thanks.

The knowledge Christ had through his Divine nature was infinitely perfect.

The knowledge Christ had through his human nature was not infinite.

Three kinds of knowledge:

Celestial- His soul from the moment of it’s existence enjoyed, like the angels the immediate vision of God, and in that vision beheld all things past, present, and to come.

Infused- His soul was endowed with all that knowledge which God gave the angels at their creation.

Experimental- His soul had the ordinary knowledge which men obtain in everyday life from the use of their senses and reason. However we must understand that all the knowledge so acquired was already in his possession through other channels.

 

[morriec]

TofQ

The Catholic Church does not expect that all Catholics understand all teachings of the Church although we should all strive through reading of scripture, prayer, the catechism, etc.to do so.

But the Church does expect us to be obedient to these teaching even if we do not fully understand. My question - yes or no - are you obedient to these teachings and specifically are you obedient to the Church’s teaching on the the nature of the second person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ?

 

[Timbothefiveth]

But He said the Son does not know, which would imply that no part of him, human or Divine, knew. Put since he was Divine, he would know.

I don’t think the Holy Spirit knows that either though. So, what I would theorise about him being all knowing is that he is all-knowing like the Holy Spirit is, he knows all except that.

the Son’s Divine nature does not know everything

#2 clearly contradicts #5,

My problem is not necessarily that Jesus’ knowledge is limited, but that he says the Son(as in, the second person of the Trinity), does not know. So it is not only that his humanity’s
knowledge is incomplete, but that he seems to imply that his divinity’s knowledge is incomplete as well.

Well, I think that that does have that one exception. Of course, he said that it will only be known to the Father, so the Holy Spirit would have that exception too.

 

[tonsofquestions]

I don’t think the Holy Spirit knows that either though. So, what I would theorise about him being all knowing is that he is all-knowing like the Holy Spirit is, he knows all except that.

Well, I think that that does have that one exception. Of course, he said that it will only be known to the Father, so the Holy Spirit would have that exception too.

I was pretty much done with this thread, I’d decided we would simply have to disagree, but this guy points out something I hadn’t realized. Since only the Father knows, wouldn’t that mean the Holy Spirit doesn’t know either? And the Holy Spirit does not have the problems Jesus does about being bound by his humanity, etc. If the Holy Spirit is divine and all knowing, how does only the Father know when the end of the world will come?

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

I was pretty much done with this thread, I’d decided we would simply have to disagree, but this guy points out something I hadn’t realized. Since only the Father knows, wouldn’t that mean the Holy Spirit doesn’t know either? And the Holy Spirit does not have the problems Jesus does about being bound by his humanity, etc. If the Holy Spirit is divine and all knowing, how does only the Father know when the end of the world will come?

The Holy Spiit is God

 

[tonsofquestions]

The Holy Spiit is God

Yes, but He is not the Father, and since Jesus drew distinctions between God the Son and God the Father in terms of who knows what, isn’t it reasonable to assume that when Jesus said “only the Father”" that he was talking about God the Father?

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Yes, but He is not the Father, and since Jesus drew distinctions between God the Son and God the Father in terms of who knows what, isn’t it reasonable to assume that when Jesus said “only the Father”" that he was talking about God the Father?

and one of the attributes of God is…all knowing. This wasn’t that hard TOC.