Again my friend, your assertion that he doesn’t believe it is without basis. Do you believe that the statement of the exact phrase “100% certain” is the only way to convey its meaning? That isn’t true. I provided ample evidence in my quotation that he indeed does believe it’s given the wording he used on multiple occasions which necessarily implies absolute certitude. And again, we already discussed why the Vatican Council didn’t use it. That was simply not the manner of speaking, particularly in an official document. And again I showed that Pope Pius XII taught it, since he tells us we can know with demonstrative certainty, and then I provided a definition of what demonstrative means in philosophy - a sound demonstration is necessarily perfectly certain. You might also note the very title of the Strange Notions article - “How to Perfectly Know the Existence of God”.He doesn’t use it, LT, because he, like William Lane Craig, doesn’t believe that God’s existence can be known with 100% certainty.
Just like the Church doesn’t use it.
Do we have certainty?
Absolutely.
Just not absolute certainty.
And thank you for your consistently charitable and humble posts! That is far more important! Keep it up.
The only mildly threatening claim is, as I’ve said several times, usury. It just requires making the right distinctions and picking up on the subtleties, etc., which in this case takes some care. The rest are pretty ho-hum… they don’t require nearly as much work.For the people asking me to specify the various contradictions in Catholicism and Christianity in general: I won’t do that here. I would potentially start a thread about it, but I’m not particularly interested in that subject. Philosophical puzzles and controversies are interesting to me, but the long history of doctrinal confusion and disagreement is not particularly compelling to me anymore. “Let the dead bury their dead” as Jesus says!
If you want to do your own research, check out:
Of course, there is a long tradition of casuistry, sloppy history, and (frankly) misrepresentation on the part of apologists who try to harmonize the blatant contradictions arising from these issues. The professionals who draw a salary and devote their lives to the legitimacy of the RCC’s claims will of course argue until they’re red in the face that the Church has never contradicted itself. But, where there is smoke, there is usually fire. And oh boy, the smoke is suffocating…
- Usury
- extra ecclesiam nulla salus, read the Athanasian creed then Lumen Gentium
- the Pelagian controversy and the development of Augustinian “original sin”, also the requirement of baptism for salvation and status of children who die prior to baptism
- religious freedom and whether the Church teaches that it is laudable
- what kind of bread must be used for the Eucharist
- the proper baptismal formula and ritual
- the Church’s changing attitude toward Jews
- whether interior conscience is supreme
If I said “goyim,” can you tell me how it relates to usury? Don’t google.ftfy.
Nope, you missed it.LOL. I know that there are all kinds of laws allowing gentiles to engage in practices not allowable for Jews including lending at interest.
What does Basil have to say about it? Don’t google.
Well I’m not going to discuss racist conspiracy theories about Jews and Rothschilds or any of that other nonsense, if that’s what you’re hinting at.
There it is.
Yes, that is an excellent site. Not only does it supply us with detailed information on scientifically proven Eucharistic miracles, but it collects the numerous works of Father John Hardon, a prolific and faithful writer who is being considered for beatification! I certainly hope he is beatified.
Incidentally, there is a whole body of Jewish law and Rabbinic opinion concerning Gentiles. Check out amazon.com/Divine-Code-Rabbi-Moshe-Weiner/dp/0981481124
