There were only a few Bishops involved. It was not every Bishop. The Magisterium consists of every Bishop in the whole world, united with the Pope. These were only a few Bishops, and they were most emphatically not united with the Pope.
Wow do you have any more information about this church burning down? That’s interesting.
Rejecting what is true is not rational. The proof you reject is not false. You simply refuse to accept it. That happens often in life.
More pointedly faith perfects reason. Like a telescope is to the eye faith is to reason.
This is not true. There are all types of facts and all types of proofs. Would I ask you to prove 2+2=4 without using mathematics? Nor, would I ask you to prove the truth of the Catholic faith by using mathematics.
Again, if you reject everything accept what can be “proven” by materialistic means you reject much. That does not make faith relative or incorrect. It means you refuse to accept what is true.
Actually, the Gospels were written between 65 and 95 AD, within the old age of many of the Apostles, and possibly even penned by them, as the Early Fathers believed them to be. But they all existed by 110 AD, when St. Ignatius of Antioch was already quoting from them.
It requires faith in the principles of mathematics, to believe that 2+2=4. There are many assumptions being made in that little calculation, and one could challenge those assumptions in order to prove the calculation incorrect, or at least, cast doubt on the idea that it is always true. First, that one is counting; second, that the objects one is counting are all of the same type (because, two apples plus two birds does not equal four of anything - it remains two apples and two birds - so when we say “2+2=4” we are assuming that all four of the objects are apples, or all four of the objects are birds) - third, we are assuming that the written symbols correspond to whole integers - “2” isn’t some hippy’s child’s name, for example.
Very good point. Let’s go back 200 years to 1809. Here are a few more examples of objective truths that existed before man had the means to measure them. You can find scores and scores of scientific discoveries over the centuries that man had no “rational proof” of yet, they still existed as objective truth. Examples:Why not? It is objectively true that I was born on a certain day, and was given a certain name. The only way I know my birthdate and my name is by faith. There is no scientific way to prove either of these facts, nor are they mentioned in any history books that I am aware of - yet, they are facts.
It’s the same with Church teachings. They are true whether anyone believes them, or not. The perpetual virginity of Mary is an existing fact that will continue to exist (that is to say, she will remain perpetually a virgin) whether anyone believes in it or not. The Church teaches it, because it’s objectively true - it’s not just an emotional opinion, or a myth that helps us make sense of something else. In the same way that we can believe our parents when they tell us our names and our birthdates, we can also believe the Catholic Church, when it teaches us about the truths of the Catholic faith.
The only person who has the authority to declare doctrine is the Pope, and only under very particular conditions.
Prove that please.Actually, the Gospels were written between 65 and 95 AD, within the old age of many of the Apostles, and possibly even penned by them, as the Early Fathers believed them to be. But they all existed by 110 AD, when St. Ignatius of Antioch was already quoting from them.
Yes, but if pressed you can prove the statement and clarify. Faith will alwyas be required in a clarification on Catholicism.
I’m sorry, that argument does not hold water.
Thank you for your reply. Can you elaborate? I thought declarations made by ecumenical councils were considered infallible.
I have never heard of an ecumenical council that was not ratified by the sitting Pope. (One of the reasons why the Orthodox in schism have never had an Ecumenical Council is that the Bishop of Rome would not be able to attend, to ratify any findings they might make at such a Council.)
I’m partial to chapter 8, of the Epistle to the Smyraens, written around 106 to 107AD, by St. Ignatius, disciple of St. John, appointed by St. Peter, and believed to be the child who sat on the lap of the Lord when He spoke to the Apostles. It pretty good proof of the Catholic Church, in my opinion.
It reads the same from a Protestant source for the writings of the early Church fathers.
See Bolded
So NO Catholic Church doctrine declared by a Pope or ratified by a Pope has been recanted. Correct?
The Epistles were written by a disciple to St. John, that was appointed by St. Peter. It is “believed” he was the child who sat on the lap of the Lord when He spoke to the Apostles.
I used believe in the appropriate place, just as I used, in my opinion in the appropriate place. What you did not quote when responding was the part where he was a disciple to St. John and was appointed by St. Peter. He knew, and learned from, the Apostles directly.
Who then, even based on the Bible received the teachings as second hand, passed on to him.
Ok, it’s easy for me to see where this is, and has been going. Reject whatever Catholics produce, because after all nothing from them can be trusted. The whole time, refuse to say what Church you’re affliated with and what proof you have that it is the one true Church. By what authority do you speak?
The Bible canon was not defined until around 400AD. The Bible only had 3 eyewitnesses to Christ author it. Matthew, John and Peter. The others learned from oral tradition.