B
bogeyjlg
Guest
Sorry. Perhaps bet is the wrong word, but I do not know how else to say it.
- Status
T
TNT
Guest
It is not just whether Catholicism is certain.
It is also a question of the severe UNCERTAINTY of other recent so-called “christian” belief systems (including E. Orthodoxy) that have no authority or historical pedigree to the only Authorized Founder who promised, as Almighty God, that He would protect the Universal teachings of His ONLY Church. NO subsequent Church received such a promise…NONE.
If the Founder failed in this necessary promise, then all Faith in Him is vain.
The Marks of the True Church of Christ are
ONE
HOLY
Catholic
Apostolic.
You must find these in any church that claims its own certainty.
It is also a question of the severe UNCERTAINTY of other recent so-called “christian” belief systems (including E. Orthodoxy) that have no authority or historical pedigree to the only Authorized Founder who promised, as Almighty God, that He would protect the Universal teachings of His ONLY Church. NO subsequent Church received such a promise…NONE.
If the Founder failed in this necessary promise, then all Faith in Him is vain.
The Marks of the True Church of Christ are
ONE
HOLY
Catholic
Apostolic.
You must find these in any church that claims its own certainty.
M
MichaelLewis
Guest
“so-called” by the Catholic Church I believe, right?
Really, so if Jesus came to you in a vision and explained to you that he never intended to establish an institutional church, there is absolutly no way you would accept that? It’s Catholicism or Jesus was a fraud?
G
Ghosty
Guest
If Jesus said such a thing now, then He would have been lying at least once. By definition He’d be a fraud in your example, unless you don’t believe the Scriptures are wholly true.
T
TNT
Guest
MichaelLewis said:
** so-called" by the Catholic Church I believe, right?**
No. It’s in the Catholic Bible though. So, in that respect, yes.
** if Jesus came to you…**
You can hypothosize all you like. It proves nothing whatsoever to any position, whether pro or con.
M
MichaelLewis
Guest
Well, isn’t it at least possible that Protestant interpretations of “on this rock” and other verses that seem to support Catholicism are correct? After all, as Cathoics often point out, scripture is not self-interpreting. I’m not trying to argue that Catholicism is false, just that if it were Christianity might not be hopeless.
I wonder how many Catholics see Catholicism as absolutly inseperable from Christianity, such that if they were to come to believe that the Church was false, they would give up Christianity completely.
M
MichaelLewis
Guest
TNT said:
I thought it was in the Catechism.
I know it doesn’t PROVE anything. I just wondered if you could ever believe in Christianity without a formal Church.
Michael
H
huskerfan
Guest
Michael,
Other than saying you don’t think you are my brother…you haven’t answered many of my direct questions. I find it fascinating how educated you are! What is it you are looking for? Broad question…how about what can’t you find? Still too broad…why can’t you accept what we believe? That may be more than I want to know. I’m just not sure what to ask you. You are fascinating in how you can draw people into discussions and always have a very…hmmmm…not sure how to say this…debateable…does that work?..and yet almost educated answer. God doesn’t want us to know all things and to understand them yet. That is for the afterlife. You are looking for answers that are already there and those we haven’t even been given yet.
Other than saying you don’t think you are my brother…you haven’t answered many of my direct questions. I find it fascinating how educated you are! What is it you are looking for? Broad question…how about what can’t you find? Still too broad…why can’t you accept what we believe? That may be more than I want to know. I’m just not sure what to ask you. You are fascinating in how you can draw people into discussions and always have a very…hmmmm…not sure how to say this…debateable…does that work?..and yet almost educated answer. God doesn’t want us to know all things and to understand them yet. That is for the afterlife. You are looking for answers that are already there and those we haven’t even been given yet.
M
MichaelLewis
Guest
But you didn’t ask any, did you? You just said we should agree to disagree. Or maybe you are talking about my defence of my poll on this thread? I’m not trying to prove anything, except maybe that my poll was fairly well constructed.
Can you give me an example of a “debatable…yet almost educated answer” that I have given? Maybe I can make it less ‘debatable’ and more ‘educated’.
I’m not being disingenuous, if that is what you mean.I’m looking to understand, I’m looking for truth, I’m looking for a distraction from my studies. I like Christians and I find Catholicism very interesting.
I can’t accept anything without good reason (once I’ve realized I don’t have a good reason). I don’t need all the answers, but I’ll take what I can get. I must say that part of my purpose here is to see if Catholicism is interally coherent. If it isn’t, than there is no need to do any further work to try and discover if it is true. (Not that I think it is more likely to be true than many other religions; as I said, it interests me, so I’d be more likely to look further into it than most other religions if it seemed like it even COULD be true.)
Michael
T
tuopaolo
Guest
That would just mean that it wasn’t truly a vision of Jesus. Simple answer.
M
MichaelLewis
Guest
Fair enough, but suppose the Pope made an infallible statement to the effect that the Catholic church was wrong in claiming special authority. That Jesus had visited HIM and informed him of this truth. Would you reject Christianity or become a protestant (or perhaps Orthodox)?
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
I chose the second option from the top, not because I have doubts about Catholicism but because I feel articles of faith involve less certainty, and rightly so, than articles of pure reason.
T
tuopaolo
Guest
That’s not possible and let me tell you why.
For a Pope to make an infallible ex cathedra statement he has to intend for it to be binding on the Catholic Church by virtue of his authority as the successor of St Peter.
Think about that for a moment and you’ll realize that:
It’s impossible for someone to intend to make a statement binding on the Catholic Church by virtue of his authority as the successor of St Peter if he doesn’t believe that he possesses said authority.
So a Pope couldn’t for example make an ex cathedra statement that he is not the successor of St Peter because it’s not possible to intend something as the successor of St Peter when one doesn’t believe himself to be the successor of St Peter
Let me know if that makes sense.
M
MichaelLewis
Guest
Ok, I can see your point. Here is a slight modification:
The Pope states infallibly that he was visited by Jesus last night, and was told that he would be visited again in six days and be given a special anouncement to be given to the whole church exactly week from the present hour. This announcement will be true, the Pope infallibly assures us, whatever it might be. The Pope (still a faithfull Catholic) awaits the second revalation. In a week, at the appointed time, he anounces that Jesus appeared to him again, and told him the Cathoic Church has no special authority. What would you conclude then? (In principle of course, anyone could have been designated to make the second anouncement.)
T
tuopaolo
Guest
There’s a slight ambiguity in how you worded your example. Does the Pope infallibly state that what Jesus announces to him six days later will be true or that what the Pope announces six days later as having been announced by Jesus will be true?
If the former, then there’s always a possibility that the Pope would misunderstand what Jesus meant. But let’s say the Pope infallibly and additionally stated that he would not misunderstand what Jesus would tell him six days later because He promised to interiorily illuminate him to convey His meaning. In that case, what I would conclude is that the infallible statement was true and that Jesus did visit him six days later but that he decided to lie about what Jesus told him [Popes are not immune from mortal sin; infallibility is distinct from impeccability, something only Jesus and Mary enjoyed]
If the latter, let me know first before I try to answer
G
Ghosty
Guest
There is no logical Protestant interpretation of the “keys of the kingdom” passage, that’s the whole problem with Protestantism. Furthemore, the Protestant beliefs presuppose that God would mislead His Church, because the Church was Catholic as we understand it from the very earliest writings. To go further with your point, if Scripture is not self-interpreting, and God didn’t leave any infallible method of interpretation, then what possible use is Scripture? Scripture is either understood in the context of the Catholic Church, set up from the beginning as the interpreter of Scripture, and attested to in Scripture itself as well as non-Scriptural writings, or the Bible today is just very expensive toilet paper. Perhaps you’re forgetting that it was the Catholic Church that put Scripture together in the first place; without the Catholic Church, we wouldn’t even know what Scripture was, let alone how to interpret it. I think the Church is well within her rights to interpret her own book. That’s another point of logic that Protestants miss out on.
If the Church has no special authority, then the Pope couldn’t have made an infallible statement in the first place, now could he? Furthermore, that’s still not how infallibility works. The Pope would have to be speaking on matter of Faith and Morals with the intent of teaching and binding the entire Church. Saying that something will happen in six days is neither a matter of Faith, nor Morals, and therefore couldn’t be infallible to begin with. The second announcement would then be suspect, because it could not be infallibly guarenteed. You’re back to your previous example which tuopaolo already more than adequately addressed.
This doesn’t even go into the fact that the Church has stated that private revelations are never binding on the faithful in general.
M
MichaelLewis
Guest
The latter. The announcement itself has been infallibly declaired to be true, and it occures just when it has been infallibly predicted to occur, by the person who has been infallibly designated to make it (the Pope, though it could be anyone of course). Furthermore, it had been infallibly declaired that the meaning of the anouncement won’t be symbolic. It will have a common-sense meaning that should be taken at face value, a message directly from Christ to the people of the Catholic Church (Perhaps the Pope will deliver it sucessivly in all the languages and dialects on Earth, and in each language it will have the same common-sense meaning.)There’s a slight ambiguity in how you worded your example. Does the Pope infallibly state that what Jesus announces to him six days later will be true or that what the Pope announces six days later as having been announced by Jesus will be true?
If the former, then there’s always a possibility that the Pope would misunderstand what Jesus meant. But let’s say the Pope infallibly and additionally stated that he would not misunderstand what Jesus would tell him six days later because He promised to interiorily illuminate him to convey His meaning. In that case, what I would conclude is that the infallible statement was true and that Jesus did visit him six days later but that he decided to lie about what Jesus told him [Popes are not immune from mortal sin; infallibility is distinct from impeccability, something only Jesus and Mary enjoyed]
If the latter, let me know first before I try to answer
Michael
G
Ghosty
Guest
I am one of those Catholics, in the sense that I believe that without the Catholic Church there is absolutely no way for us to surely know what the truth is. The thousands of different and opposing Protestant denominations are a very good demonstration of this. Without the guiding hand of the Church, which Protestants reject by definition, they simply can not agree on what is truth and what is heresy. There are Protestants who believe that eating a certain way is sinful, and Protestants who believe that there effectively is no sin, and both extremes claim the authority of their interpretation of Scripture. Without the guiding hand of a central authority, Scripture becomes unnavigatable and meaningless. Christianity stands or falls with the Catholic Church because it is only through the Church that we even know what Scripture is. Literally speaking, Christianity* is* the Catholic Church, and Protestants are merely trying to reinterpret the Church’s teachings.
M
MichaelLewis
Guest
I understand that the Catholic church put the Bible together. But perhaps, while the council of Nicea was inspired so as to properly codify the Bible, Christ reveals the correct interpretations of it to individual believers in accordence with divine providence. Concerning the Church always being Catholic, it might be that the form is spiritually just irrelevent. Sure, the church was unifed at one point, that was a good thing for it practically speaking at the time. But that was never anything more than an expediency.
Well that’s kind of the point. You would have a contradiction, and that would prove the Pope’s ‘infallible’ statements are not infallible.
What exactly is a matter of faith then?
Why can’t the Pope make an infallible declaration concerning the range of Papal infallibility? Isn’t Papal infallibility at least a matter of faith? If ‘matters of faith’ are tied to interpreting scripture, for instance, (I’m just speculating now, until you tell me just what they are) the Pope could say that Peter’s keys allow him to speak infallibly outside matters of faith and morals, then proceed with the anouncement of the anouncement.
Michael
G
Ghosty
Guest
If that’s the case then we have absolutely no way of knowing who is right and who is wrong, and Christ has given us a Church that is not at all universal. The Scriptures themselves attest to the fact that the Apostles were to go and make disciples of all nations. A universal Church, one that speaks to all nations, must have a universal Truth, otherwise it is only a matter of private revelation and interpretation. A faith that is based purely on private revelation is absolutely worthless to those who do not receive such private revelation, and it is impossible to determine from the outside who actually is receiving such a revelation, or even if you yourself are receiving the Truth and not simply being delusional. Christianity then becomes an intangible spectre, something that can’t be pinned down or defined, as every single individual can claim divine inspiration. Christianity would cease to exist as a definable concept in such a scenario, as it largely has in Protestantism. It would be a meaningless category, lacking any substance.
A matter of faith would be something like “Jesus rose from the dead”. It’s an article of faith that has the assurance of infallibility so long as it doesn’t contridict the already-standing deposit of faith. An actual example of the Pope making an infallible statement regarding faith is that Mary was conceived without Original Sin; it was spoken ex cathedra, and does not contridict previous Church teaching in any way.
If that was how infallibility had been defined, you’d be correct. The reality is, however, that Papal Infallibility was defined by Bishop’s Council, using the authority to granted to the Apostles in concert by Jesus that whatever they bound on Earth would be bound also in Heaven. Since Papal Infallibility has already been defined infallibly, a Pope can not “redefine” it in a manner that is contrary to what has already been laid out. The Church can not strike out doctrines that it has proclaimed infallibly, as they are taught “for all time” (another stipulation on Papal Infallibility as well).
- Status