How certain are you about Catholicism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MichaelLewis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
MichaelLewis:
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.)
Michael
Click to expand...
This is a tough question.

The answer for me would be that I would remain Christian, take my ecclesiology to prayer, and go from there.

I’d like to make a philosophical point that relates to all this.

It is logically possible for Catholicism to not be true in the sense that it not being true does not result in a logical contradiction.

It is also metaphysically possible for Catholicism to not be true in the sense that God could have created a world in which Catholicism were not true (He was free to create a world in which there was no Incarnation or even to not create a world at all).

However that does NOT mean that it is epistemologically possible for Catholicism to not be true. Since I happen to know that Catholicism is true, it is epistemologically impossible for Catholicism to not be true.

In other words, given what I know to be true, it is impossible for Catholicism to not be true. Thus, given what I know to be true, it is impossible for a situation like your example – or any other example including dying and going to heaven and seeing God face to face and having Him tell you that Catholicism is not true – to ever arise.

I hope that makes some sense 🙂
 
Andreas Hofer:
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.
Click to expand...
Faith is the word here. It is all about faith. We place faith in people we haven’t even met. We place faith in situations. We put faith in ourselves. Why can’t we have faith in God?
 
MichaelLewis said:
“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?
Click to expand...

Such an apparition would be contradictory to many such visions already. He has already appear to many saints and visionaries saying that the institutional Church is the real deal.

Odds are that any such an apparition would be delusional or from some demonic spirit or Satan himself.

wc
 
I’m sooooo certain that I reject Protestanism and wish I grew up Catholic! I’ll turn to the CC for answers!!!😃
 
I am 100% certain. I did enough reading of the early fathers and the bible to convince me. The Catholic Faith IS the True Faith.
Love,
Jaypeeto
 
Last spring I was 100% sure I wanted to be Catholic.

After going through RCIA - with a GREAT orthodox teacher, and reading absolutely EVERYTHING I can get my hands on, it all just makes total sense to me. If I am never certain of anything else again, I will always believe that this is the one true way to Jesus.
 
40.png
michaelp:
Sorry, I did not realize that this was a Roman Catholic only poll until too late. I voted that I am certian that they are not, but I am not a Roman Catholic.

Michael
Click to expand...
Then what IS the pillar and bullwork (protector, foundation) of the truth?
[1 Tim 3:15]
 
40.png
tuopaolo:
This is a tough question.

The answer for me would be that I would remain Christian, take my ecclesiology to prayer, and go from there.

…given what I know to be true, it is impossible for Catholicism to not be true. Thus, given what I know to be true, it is impossible for a situation like your example – or any other example including dying and going to heaven and seeing God face to face and having Him tell you that Catholicism is not true – to ever arise.

I hope that makes some sense 🙂
Click to expand...
Yes, it makes sense, thanks.🙂
 
Ghosty wrote:
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).
Click to expand...
Who determines what constitutes a “striking down” vs. a “development of doctrine”? I had been under the impression that the Church had the authority to interpret its own past doctrinal statements. Is that not the case? If not, it isn’t clear that you are in much better shape than the Protestants. If a group of Catholics feel that a new doctrinal statement contradicts an old one, are they justified in rejecting it? Suppose infallibility were expanded, and it was accepted by most people in the Church, aside from a small faction of traditionalists, (condemned by the Church establishment). Would you join them?
Michael
 
40.png
MichaelLewis:
Suppose infallibility were expanded, and it was accepted by most people in the Church, aside from a small faction of traditionalists, (condemned by the Church establishment). Would you join them?
Michael
Click to expand...
I’m no theologian but my understanding is that Vatican I’s definition merely said that papal infalliblity is engaged in such and such a case, not that it is only engaged in such and such a case IYKWIM.
 
40.png
tuopaolo:
I’m no theologian but my understanding is that Vatican I’s definition merely said that papal infalliblity is engaged in such and such a case, not that it is only engaged in such and such a case IYKWIM.
Click to expand...
IYKWIM??
(By the way, I was responding to Ghosty. He is of the view that a more robust understanding of Papal infalibility was procluded.)
 
40.png
MichaelLewis:
IYKWIM??
(By the way, I was responding to Ghosty. He is of the view that a more robust understanding of Papal infalibility was procluded.)
Click to expand...
IYKWIM=If You Know What I Mean
one of my favorite internet acronyms as it just looks pretty 🙂
 
40.png
MichaelLewis:
Code: 
A question for Catholics and soon-to-be Catholics only:
How certain are you that the central doctrines (defined as those which, if they were false, would demonstrate that the Church does not have the special, divinely granted authority it claims for itself) of the Catholic Church are true?
Click to expand...
I’ll wager my soul on it.
 
As certain as the sun would shine tomorrow. My faith is more essential than the air I breath. I’d rather suffocate than turn my back on “THE CHURCH” that has nourished me all my life.👍

BORN A CATHOLIC…DIE A CATHOLIC!!!:clapping:
 
Who determines what constitutes a “striking down” vs. a “development of doctrine”? I had been under the impression that the Church had the authority to interpret its own past doctrinal statements. Is that not the case? If not, it isn’t clear that you are in much better shape than the Protestants. If a group of Catholics feel that a new doctrinal statement contradicts an old one, are they justified in rejecting it? Suppose infallibility were expanded, and it was accepted by most people in the Church, aside from a small faction of traditionalists, (condemned by the Church establishment). Would you join them?
Click to expand...
I first want to point out that I don’t think a more robust Papal Infallibility has been ruled out per se, just that it could never contradict the limits imposed by previous doctrine. Papal Infallibility could theoretically in the future be further defined to include the things the Pope says while eating a ham-sandwich, for example, but could not be further defined to allow for an overwriting of previous Infallible Declarations.
That being said, it’s the Magisterium that is responsible for interpreting Scripture. Lay Catholics, and even individual Bishops do not have this authority on their own. The situation you’ve described actually has come up after Vatican II, when some Catholics felt that the Church backpedaled on certain doctrines from Trent and other Councils. Their mistake, however, is in assuming that their traditional understandings, or even the casual practice of those doctrines, were infallibly or authoritatively set forth for all times. They mistakenly believed that their personal reading and understanding of those doctrines, such as No Salvation Outside the Church, was what had been intended by the old Councils. When the Magisterium officially clarified its position without changing the wording at all, some Catholics left the Church to form their own splinter groups. This was a case of people putting meanings into terms that weren’t there, or taking meanings out that were there, and they didn’t like the Magisterium’s final answer.

The real test is whether or not the Council of Bishops as a whole, or the Pope ex cathedra, proclaim a doctrine that runs counter to other doctrines, for example if they were to say that Jesus wasn’t really God. If that were to happen, the entire basis for the Christian faith would evaporate instantly, and I would have to cease being Christian at all. I believe that’s about as likely as all my atoms exploding in the next five seconds, however. In fact, I believe it’s less likely. If the Church were to expand infallibility in a manner that contradicted any previous rulings, it would be exactly the same as it proclaiming that Jesus wasn’t really God.
 
40.png
Ghosty:
The real test is whether or not the Council of Bishops as a whole, or the Pope ex cathedra, proclaim a doctrine that runs counter to other doctrines, for example if they were to say that Jesus wasn’t really God. If that were to happen, the entire basis for the Christian faith would evaporate instantly, and I would have to cease being Christian at all. I believe that’s about as likely as all my atoms exploding in the next five seconds, however. In fact, I believe it’s less likely. If the Church were to expand infallibility in a manner that contradicted any previous rulings, it would be exactly the same as it proclaiming that Jesus wasn’t really God.
Click to expand...
Good enough. That is in line with what I had thought; that it was a matter of FAITH that the Pope or the Magisterium WOULD NOT contradict themselves, not that it was logically impossible for it to do so. From a non-Catholic’s perspective, the more the Church is willing to ‘stick its neck out’ in this way, the more credible its claims are if it doesn’t lose its head. I’d be very interested in a list of doctrinal claims that the Church has rested its entire reputation on, such that if any are contradicted or don’t hold, the Church is thereby disproved. Could anyone tell me if there is a list like that out there on the Internet (or elsewhere)?
Thanks,

Michael
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top