Sure. Only within the past 150 years or so has there been real recognition someone could innocently err. It was presumed that all non-Catholics were so due to an evil disposition
I think it’s a little different than a pure adhominum attack because we are when it comes to heresy arguing about belief in the first place. According to Catholic philosophy, faith precedes understanding, and our hearts cannot be hardened against receiving the faith. So to accuse Catholics of being adhominum is a little like accusing th Yankees of playing baseball.
I’ve read all rationalizations for this. They all fail. Any loving human parent would have behaved differently.
I’m not so sure. In the framework of a single natural, lifespan, sure. I accept your premise. But God is dealing with children who are immortal. So sentencing us to die to our mortal existence, but with rebirth into paradise is like taking the car keys away for the weekend. Think scale.
Yes, but what is the definition of justice? God didn’t have to punish the entire human race. He didn’t have to wait thousands of years to send a Redeemer.
I have to confess that I don’t understand why all men are held accountable for Adam’s sin. I am not familiar with the apologetics regarding it. I can guess its kind of clear that we all would have followed Adam’s example anyway. Maybe it was meant to reinforce the notion that we have a responsibility beyond ourselves. I agree it is one of aspects of Christianity that offends the natural mind.
And BTW what if we don’t trust God? What evidence do we really have that He is really all that concerned about men?
God’s perfect justice had to be satisfied, only one perfect (God himself) could satisfy it. And He sent his own son to totally humble himself before men to pay our debt. So I think this satisfies as the evidence that God is “really concerned about men”. And the fact is that even pagans have a notion of justice. It is something real. Injustices offend us too, sometimes to extremes, provoking extreme responses, yet we lack perfection ourselves. How much more then must God be offended. As to the timing of the Christ’s coming, I don’t see how it makes a difference in terms of your question. How were souls born before the Incarnation compromised, even in our imperfect human sense of justice?
Unless, doctrines are evolving, just like life forms. Under that supposition Modernism isn’t illogical at all
And there’s evidence for doctrines evolving even prior to Vatican II, on issues like geocentrism, usury, and no salvation outside the Church. Of course Vatican II would have to represent a major saltational or punctuated equilibrium event.
“Evolving doctrines” are the contradiction. The whole notion that truth is changeable is illogical. I only recently, and it was a huge part in my “conversion”, became familiar with the writings of the 19th century Popes. They saw all of this relativism, evolution of dogmas, ecumenism coming, and they condemned outright. Understanding this lifted the viel of confusion for me. Regarding your specific examples, only No Salvation Outside of the Church is a dogma. And this was also a key discovery for me in “converting”. While the notions of baptism of desire and baptism of blood had been flying around for maybe centuries, and even some Saints have erred on it, they were never proclaimed as dogmas. The Council of Trent was explicit in maintianing that John 3:5 be interpreted literally, as written, with out any attempt at “deeper understanding”. It used those words. So there was no inconsistency prior to Vatican II.
That is a good argument, but there would be a Church with no visible hierarchy, which also contradicts Catholic teaching. There is now no one in the Church (under the sedevacantist thesis) who has any jurisdiction at all. But there has to be a visible hierarchy in the Church; the Church is not an invisible, inchoate mere spiritual organization, according to Catholic teaching. The theologians claimed the means to deal with a heretical Pope would not be lacking. But they were. There is no Catholic today who has not denied some doctrine of the Church, at least implicitly. This has been forced by circumstance.
I understand the problem of visibility which you cite and I have no ready answer for it. Again, the church has taught that heretics fall outside of the Church ipso facto sans need of declaration. I have to judge the situation based on what I can plainly see and understand. I can’t explain all the peripheral complications, such as one (visibility) you point out. But I think I can deny that there aren’t any Catholics who aren’t denying some Dogma. I think my position can be supported dogmatically.
It’s an analogy. A love coerced under threat can hardly be a “freely” given love even though free will is involved. If you do not love Me, He says, I will punish you by extreme torture for all eternity.
Well it is actually kind of a clever analogy and I’m a bit embarrassed that I didn’t see it right off. A time I may have seen it as I used to think that way. A quick thought: The threat really isn’t all that overt. The gun isn’t visible. Many “believers” and I guess all non-beleivers deny there is a gun. Despite the “fires of hell”, Catholics who have written on this (St. Robert Bellarmine comes to mind) claim that the greatest torment of hell is the realization of what was lost, and which could have been so easily obtained. I’m willing to try this with you some more, but as you suggest, another thread is probably appropriate.
If anything, it helps me verify that I didn’t miss anything the first time I was in the faith, and also, don’t forget that I have Catholic family members that I need to keep tabs on.