I'm not a Catholic because

[Sufjon]

Well thank God. There is something seriously wrong with the whole of humanity…for don’t you know that by one man…

 

[dingodile]

In the end, I’m not a Catholic because even though I believe Jesus did found an ekklesia, a congregation, I believe that almost immediately mortal ego went to work on it, to turn it into something else. This isn’t really surprising, when you consider how quickly even the simplest teachings can be warped through oral transmission, even today. In particular, I have grave doubts about the alleged link between the “inspired” status of scripture and its supposed inerrancy. I don’t see the two concepts as linked. Indeed, I believe that the twin notions of inerrancy and infallibility have done much damage.

We have no good reason to suppose that we have a completely accurate record of what Jesus actually said on any given occasion, and even less reason to believe that we have an inerrant interpretation of what he meant. What we do have is a fragmentary record of parts of his life, and some of his sayings, and their effects on some of the people around him. Even that much is powerful enough to be a source of inspiration to any who make the effort to learn about it, but it’s not enough to build a labyrinth of unchangeable rules, which is unfortunately what much of Christianity (not just Catholicism, either) has become.

I don’t expect to persuade anyone, and I have no interest in doing so. I’ve read all of this thread, and many others, since coming here, and this sums up my answer, at this moment, to the question posed in the title.

 

[CopticChristian]

In the end, I’m not a Catholic because even though I believe Jesus did found an ekklesia, a congregation, I believe that almost immediately mortal ego went to work on it, to turn it into something else. This isn’t really surprising, when you consider how quickly even the simplest teachings can be warped through oral transmission, even today. In particular, I have grave doubts about the alleged link between the “inspired” status of scripture and its supposed inerrancy. I don’t see the two concepts as linked. Indeed, I believe that the twin notions of inerrancy and infallibility have done much damage.

We have no good reason to suppose that we have a completely accurate record of what Jesus actually said on any given occasion, and even less reason to believe that we have an inerrant interpretation of what he meant. What we do have is a fragmentary record of parts of his life, and some of his sayings, and their effects on some of the people around him. Even that much is powerful enough to be a source of inspiration to any who make the effort to learn about it, but it’s not enough to build a labyrinth of unchangeable rules, which is unfortunately what much of Christianity (not just Catholicism, either) has become.

I don’t expect to persuade anyone, and I have no interest in doing so. I’ve read all of this thread, and many others, since coming here, and this sums up my answer, at this moment, to the question posed in the title.

You have pointed out the essence of your own dilema. You are lost. Not hopelessly lost, yet lost. This presents a sad situation. This summation suggests that you have no certainty at all. Very sad.

 

[dingodile]

You have pointed out the essence of your own dilema. You are lost. Not hopelessly lost, yet lost. This presents a sad situation. This summation suggests that you have no certainty at all. Very sad.

What’s sad about it?

Do you think fulfillment depends upon certainty? I don’t.

 

[CopticChristian]

What’s sad about it?

Do you think fulfillment depends upon certainty? I don’t.

I find it sad that you have no certainty. This is my sadness and your joy.

 

[dingodile]

I find it sad that you have no certainty. This is my sadness and your joy.

My joy? I suggest you confine your observations to things you can actually observe. I never claimed that lack of certainty is a cause for my, or anyone else’s, joy. That’s your invention. But I accept it, without any sadness. It’s the human condition that our worldviews are so very underdetermined by what we can actually know. I see no reason to be sad about it.

 

[CopticChristian]

My joy? I suggest you confine your observations to things you can actually observe. I never claimed that lack of certainty is a cause for my, or anyone else’s, joy. That’s your invention. But I accept it, without any sadness. It’s the human condition that our worldviews are so very underdetermined by what we can actually know. I see no reason to be sad about it.

In your world not mine!

It is sad for me and by suggesting it was your joy you have confirmed for me that we share the same emotion for your view.

 

[dingodile]

In your world not mine!

It is sad for me and by suggesting it was your joy you have confirmed for me that we share the same emotion for your view.

No. I guess I was unclear. The absence of certainty is neither a source of joy nor sadness for me. It’s not something I covet.

 

[geoformeo]

In the end, I’m not a Catholic because even though I believe Jesus did found an ekklesia, a congregation, I believe that almost immediately mortal ego went to work on it, to turn it into something else.

That’s fine if that is your conclusion, but what evidence are you basing that on? How do you really know that it turned into something else? And if this ekklesia was established as the visible body of Christ on Earth, and if Jesus really did resurrect and is who He said He is, and if He promised to guide the Church to all truth and that the gates of hell will never prevail against His Church, then how can you make that conclusion?

Sure, mortal ego went to work on it: they were (and are) called heretics. But it was precisely the guarantee of the Holy Spirit to have the authority and right judgment to declare what was heresy and what was not. But your whole argument is a logical fallacy: it is an argument from personal incredulity and seemingly attempts to side-step the actual data that we do have from history, archaeology, and the fact that we still have a living, breathing Catholic Church that is nearly identical to what it was 2,000 years ago.

This isn’t really surprising, when you consider how quickly even the simplest teachings can be warped through oral transmission, even today.

So I suppose that everything that has ever been orally transmitted has been warped? If not, why not, and how can you say what has been and what has not been warped? OK, yes, it is easy to warp oral transmission, but my goodness 99% of everything we believe we hear from somebody else, either orally or having read something that somebody else reported on/experienced. Just because it is easy to warp something doesn’t mean that all which is capable of being warped has been warped. Even written transmission can be warped; does that mean we should reject everything that has ever been written too?

In particular, I have grave doubts about the alleged link between the “inspired” status of scripture and its supposed inerrancy. I don’t see the two concepts as linked. Indeed, I believe that the twin notions of inerrancy and infallibility have done much damage.

I haven’t seen anything explicitly stated whereby you justify your rationale for this statement. If God exists, can He not inspire? And if He started a Church, can He not grant His wisdom to His Church to decipher what is inspired and what is not? You make mention of questioning inerrancy, and yet you have made no case for error. Whence are these errors you speak of?

We have no good reason to suppose that we have a completely accurate record of what Jesus actually said on any given occasion

For heaven’s sake, 2 of the Gospel writers were eyewitness Apostles (Matthew and John), a third was a scribe for Peter (Mark), and Luke traveled with Paul (who traveled a LOT, mind you) and got first-hand info from the Virgin Mary. What more can you ask for? I suppose you are of the mind, then, that any history pre-radio or TV (only ~100 years) is questionable at best?

and even less reason to believe that we have an inerrant interpretation of what he meant. What we do have is a fragmentary record of parts of his life, and some of his sayings, and their effects on some of the people around him. Even that much is powerful enough to be a source of inspiration to any who make the effort to learn about it, but it’s not enough to build a labyrinth of unchangeable rules, which is unfortunately what much of Christianity (not just Catholicism, either) has become.

Only the eyewitnesses would be the ones who could have an inerrant interpretation of what He meant. Hence, they were the first pope and bishops and why apostolic succession is so critical. You are looking only at Scripture, and completely missing the unwritten Sacred Tradition that fills in where Scripture is “lacking”, the both of which are guided by the Church’s teaching authority (Magisterium).

I agree that we would be really grasping at straws if all we had was the Bible to go off. Which is how, unfortunately, Protestantism is trying to stay afloat, and has resulted in division after division. The Catholic Church is the only one that has the legitimacy to back up its claims and demand faithfulness to “unchangeable rules”.

I don’t expect to persuade anyone, and I have no interest in doing so. I’ve read all of this thread, and many others, since coming here, and this sums up my answer, at this moment, to the question posed in the title.

Thank you for your postings on this thread. Though I may have come across harsh on this post, no ill-will is intended. I just gather a sense of nihilism from you, which in and of itself is a logical fallacy (a belief in nothing is a belief in and of itself).

 

[joe370]

Originally Posted by dingodile

In the end, I’m not a Catholic because even though I believe Jesus did found an ekklesia, a congregation, I believe that almost immediately mortal ego went to work on it, to turn it into something else.

Are you also not a protestant for the same reasons?

I embraced that way of thinking until I realized that that was tantamount to saying:

Mortal ego defeated God’s divine plan for His church as spelled out in passages such as John 16? Nah…

Who do you think is going to win in the following scenario:

Mortal ego comprised of ravenous wolves in sheep’s clothing trying to demolish Jesus’ church by altering doctrinal truth, never stopping until the great harvest when Jesus returns?

Or

The Will of God and His divine plan for His Church?

 

[dingodile]

Thank you for your postings on this thread. Though I may have come across harsh on this post, no ill-will is intended. I just gather a sense of nihilism from you, which in and of itself is a logical fallacy (a belief in nothing is a belief in and of itself).

I take no feeling of harshness from your words, so no worries. I’m busy today but I’ll try to reply fully later or tomorrow. The only point I’d like to make now is a brief response to the charge of nihilism.

I think you are guilty of a false dilemma if you suppose that one must choose between infallibilism and nihilism. A nihilist believes in nothing, that no beliefs are ever warranted and knowledge is impossible. I don’t accept any of that. Just as science doesn’t depend upon a belief that the scientific method is infallible, rational belief in general doesn’t require a belief in infallibility. This isn’t nihilism.

More later.

 

[dingodile]

Are you also not a protestant for the same reasons?

I suppose anyone who rejects Catholic infallibilism is a Protestant, no?

I embraced that way of thinking until I realized that that was tantamount to saying:

Mortal ego defeated God’s divine plan for His church as spelled out in passages such as John 16? Nah…

This presupposes that we fully and correctly understand the plan. As you know, sincere intelligent people disagree on the proper interpretation of these and many other “proof-text” passages. Moreover, scripture itself is replete with descriptions of mortal failure to understand God’s plans.

Who do you think is going to win in the following scenario:

Mortal ego comprised of ravenous wolves in sheep’s clothing trying to demolish Jesus’ church by altering doctrinal truth, never stopping until the great harvest when Jesus returns?

Or

The Will of God and His divine plan for His Church?

Maybe being guided into “all truth” is a prediction of an eventual outcome, rather than a guarantee of infallibility.

 

[dingodile]

That’s fine if that is your conclusion, but what evidence are you basing that on? How do you really know that it turned into something else? And if this ekklesia was established as the visible body of Christ on Earth, and if Jesus really did resurrect and is who He said He is, and if He promised to guide the Church to all truth and that the gates of hell will never prevail against His Church, then how can you make that conclusion?

I didn’t assert that the Church that Jesus founded “turned into something else,” because I don’t know exactly what it was that he was founding. I can’t simply assume that what the Church turned out to be is exactly what Jesus had in mind.

My evidence is inductive. The oldest gospel is generally accepted to be Mark’s, and it probably wasn’t written until about 40 years after the death of Jesus. We don’t know, and cannot know, how much of the teaching of Jesus had already been distorted by then. We don’t know how much of the teaching was never properly understood in the first place. You want to know my evidence for the teachings of Jesus having been distorted or partially forgotten or misunderstood. My answer is simply that this sort of thing happens all the time, even with people who are trying their best to get it right. People are fallible, you see. I don’t think I need to adduce any special evidence for that. Rather, the burden is on anyone who claims that mortals are ever infallible.

Similarly, you interpret the “gates of Hell” passage to imply that any error in transmission of the teachings would be tantamount to the gates of Hell having prevailed. That interpretation, however, is itself open to question.

Sure, mortal ego went to work on it: they were (and are) called heretics. But it was precisely the guarantee of the Holy Spirit to have the authority and right judgment to declare what was heresy and what was not.

That may be the right interpretation, or it may not be. I find no evidence that the people within the Church were less susceptible to error than anyone else.

But your whole argument is a logical fallacy: it is an argument from personal incredulity and seemingly attempts to side-step the actual data that we do have from history, archaeology, and the fact that we still have a living, breathing Catholic Church that is nearly identical to what it was 2,000 years ago.

No, it’s not based solely on personal incredulity. As I’ve pointed out, there is ample inductive evidence of human fallibility in the creation, transmission, and interpretation of written records.

So I suppose that everything that has ever been orally transmitted has been warped? If not, why not, and how can you say what has been and what has not been warped?

I can’t, and neither can anyone else. And this is precisely why, if I claim to have an infallible reconstruction of the philosophy of Socrates, you’d be wise to be skeptical. This doesn’t mean that I necessarily have Socrates all wrong but only that there’s good reason to doubt that I’ve made no error at all.

OK, yes, it is easy to warp oral transmission, but my goodness 99% of everything we believe we hear from somebody else, either orally or having read something that somebody else reported on/experienced. Just because it is easy to warp something doesn’t mean that all which is capable of being warped has been warped. Even written transmission can be warped; does that mean we should reject everything that has ever been written too?

It only means that anything that could be warped cannot be used as the basis of allegedly infallible teaching. This is why infallibility just isn’t an option for mortals. It doesn’t mean that everybody should stop believing what they believe or teaching what they teach. It only means that they should recognize the possibility of error in it.

I haven’t seen anything explicitly stated whereby you justify your rationale for this statement. If God exists, can He not inspire? And if He started a Church, can He not grant His wisdom to His Church to decipher what is inspired and what is not? You make mention of questioning inerrancy, and yet you have made no case for error. Whence are these errors you speak of?

Who established that inspiration entails infallibility? Again, the burden isn’t on me to defend the claim that mortals are fallible. This is common knowledge. The burden is on you to defend the claim that sometimes they’re not. It’s entirely circular to rest your argument upon the allegedly infallible interpretation of the very sources whose infallibility is in question.

The argument comes to:

1. According to scripture and tradition, the Church is infallible when it teaches on faith and morals.
2. The Church discerns what is true scripture and true tradition, and what the correct interpretation of them is.
3. The matter of what is true scripture and tradition and their correct interpretation is itself a matter of faith and morals.
4. Therefore the Church’s position on what is true scripture and tradition and their interpretation is infallible.

I don’t see how this can fail to be circular reasoning.

…continued in next message.

 

[dingodile]

…continued from previous post.

For heaven’s sake, 2 of the Gospel writers were eyewitness Apostles (Matthew and John), a third was a scribe for Peter (Mark), and Luke traveled with Paul (who traveled a LOT, mind you) and got first-hand info from the Virgin Mary. What more can you ask for? I suppose you are of the mind, then, that any history pre-radio or TV (only ~100 years) is questionable at best?

Some history is more questionable than other history, but all of it is fallible, yes. The discipline of history is inherently fallible, so you can’t bootstrap yourself from fallible history to infallible doctrine without cheating somewhere.

This isn’t nihilism or radical skepticism. I’m not saying that I don’t believe historians. Good historians indicate the degrees of confidence with which they reach their conclusions.

Now, you may attempt to escape from the circularity of the argument by adding an additional premise:

1. God wouldn’t leave his Church without infallible guidance.

That’s fine, but then the shoe of personal incredulity is on your foot this time.

 

[joe370]

I suppose anyone who rejects Catholic infallibilism is

a Protestant, no?

Sure, but What I meant was:

Are you not a Protestant because even though you believe Jesus did found an ekklesia, a congregation, you believe that almost immediately mortal ego went to work on it, to turn it into something else.

This presupposes that we fully and correctly understand the plan. As you know, sincere intelligent people disagree on the proper interpretation of these and many other “proof-text” passages. Moreover, scripture itself is replete with descriptions of mortal failure to understand God’s plans.

 

[dingodile]

Sure, but What I meant was:

 

[Miriam1947]

joe370;8530896:

I don’t really know what it is to be a Protestant. I’m not a member of any Protestant church, if that’s what you mean. I was raised a Protestant as a child, up until about the age of 13 or so, but I was pretty oblivious to theology. As far as I know, I was never baptized. I think I’d remember, but I can’t be certain.

It’s possible, I think, although there may be some conflict with free will in the idea. But I’m unclear on that point, so I grant the possibility.

If I tell you that I will guide you to my house, the guiding isn’t over until we get there. It’s like a GPS. You miss the turn and it says “recalculating route” and then it tells you where to go from there. The concept of guidance doesn’t exclude the possibility of wrong turns. Cashing in this rather grotesque metaphor, the Holy Spirit could be continuously engaged in “recalculating route” as the supposedly infallible Church makes one wrong turn after another. But in the end it arrives at the destination, as Jesus promised.

Why would God do it this way? I’m not really comfortable trying to figure out why God would do things one way rather than another, and I don’t have a lot of patience for others who claim to be able to do this. I think Job got the definitive smackdown in this regard. I’ll say this much: Gathering together all that I personally know about the human condition, I can only conclude that God is willing to allow us to have to deal with uncertainty and tentativeness.

Maybe that’s our object lesson in humility: Despite our desire to eat of the forbidden fruit, we must accept that in the mortal realm our worldviews are always underdetermined by the facts we can discern.

I can live with that.

Edit: And here I am arguing, when I didn’t intend to do so!

I really like this post. I was not a Catholic because I knew if I became one I would have to go to church every SINGLE Sunday. And that meant I would have to be aware and think about God.

It is truly amazing how one’s life can change.

 

[joe370]

dingodile;8529424]I
My evidence is inductive. The oldest gospel is generally accepted to be Mark’s, and it probably wasn’t written until about 40 years after the death of Jesus. We don’t know, and cannot know, how much of the teaching of Jesus had already been distorted by then. We don’t know how much of the teaching was never properly understood in the first place

.

Perhaps that is why God promised to guide His church into all truth until His return? If the HS is not involved in some way, preserving the doctrinal truths taught by Jesus Christ in the first century, then what you are suggesting is truly a possibility. I guess it comes down to faith in the end.

Similarly, you interpret the “gates of Hell” passage to imply that any error in transmission of the teachings would be tantamount to the gates of Hell having prevailed. That interpretation, however, is itself open to question.

Wouldn’t it be rather negligent on Jesus’ part to say “and the gates of Hades will not overcome it” - and then fail to tell His apostles what it meant, who of course would pass that interpretation on to the next generation?

That may be the right interpretation, or it may not be. I find no evidence that the people within the Church were less susceptible to error than anyone else.

Are you looking for some sort of scientific/empirical evidence so that you can know with certainty and finally believe what Christianity teaches? Proof in a scientific sense is certainly relevant in the world of matter, but not in the realm of the spirit. Christianity doesn’t seem to offer proof, with certain exceptions of course (miraculous apparitions) - instead it invites faith .

No, it’s not based solely on personal incredulity. As I’ve pointed out, there is ample inductive evidence of human fallibility in the creation, transmission, and interpretation of written records.

It seems like everything becomes suspect because all we have is human fallibility in the creation, transmission, and interpretation of written records, secular or otherwise.

It only means that anything that could be warped cannot be used as the basis of allegedly infallible teaching. This is why infallibility just isn’t an option for mortals.

How do you know that God is not infallibly guiding His church? Of course I understand your skepticism. I can’t prove that God is guiding His church into all truth, therefore you have every right to be skeptical. In a real sense, we all operate every day on faith alone. Much of our faith rests on trust, because there is no way to prove matters of faith. I personally believe Christianity as a historical fact because of the dynamic and vital life of the Catholic Church over a period of 2,000 years, but I cannot prove the divine aspects of Christianity.

Who established that inspiration entails infallibility?

Well, I doubt that the holy spirit inspired the apostles to teach and write fallibly - right? Then again I can’t even prove that the apostles were guided by the Holy spirit or that the HS even exists.

Again, the burden isn’t on me to defend the claim that mortals are fallible. This is common knowledge. The burden is on you to defend the claim that sometimes they’re not. It’s entirely circular to rest your argument upon the allegedly infallible interpretation of the very sources whose infallibility is in question.

All humans are fallible. It takes faith to believe that God inspired the writers of the Bible to teach and write infallibly - right?

The argument comes to:

1. According to scripture and tradition, the Church is infallible when it teaches on faith and morals.

Only if God is still present in His church, for only God is infallible.

1. The Church discerns what is true scripture and true tradition, and what the correct interpretation of them is.

Only if God is still present in His church, for only God is infallible.

1. The matter of what is true scripture and tradition and their correct interpretation is itself a matter of faith and morals.

Yes it’s a matter of faith.

1. Therefore the Church’s position on what is true scripture and tradition and their interpretation is infallible.

Only if God is still present in His church, for only God is infallible.

I don’t see how this can fail to be circular reasoning.

It is circular reasoning if you leave God out of the picture. It’s all about faith…

 

[joe370]

dingodile

I don’t really know what it is to be a Protestant. I’m not a member of any Protestant church, if that’s what you mean. I was raised a Protestant as a child, up until about the age of 13 or so, but I was pretty oblivious to theology. As far as I know, I was never baptized. I think I’d remember, but I can’t be certain.

I understand.

If I tell you that I will guide you to my house, the guiding isn’t over until we get there. It’s like a GPS. You miss the turn and it says “recalculating route” and then it tells you where to go from there. The concept of guidance doesn’t exclude the possibility of wrong turns. Cashing in this rather grotesque metaphor, the Holy Spirit could be continuously engaged in “recalculating route” as the supposedly infallible Church makes one wrong turn after another. But in the end it arrives at the destination, as Jesus promised.

Maybe God’s GPS is divinely tweaked. LOL…We both agree that no one in the church is infallible - right? The idea is that only God is infallible and only God can infallibly guide fallible people into all truth.

Good analogy; the guiding isn’t over until we get there, just as Jesus’ church, being guided by the holy spirit isn’t over until Jesus returns, and it certainly didn’t exclude the possibility of wrong turns for there were many. The question remains:

Did God make good on His promise to guide His church into all truth until the end of time, in spite of the many wrong turns? No one can prove it, that’s for sure, but I have faith that God does…

Why would God do it this way? I’m not really comfortable trying to figure out why God would do things one way rather than another, and I don’t have a lot of patience for others who claim to be able to do this.

Really good point! My bad…

I think Job got the definitive smackdown in this regard. I’ll say this much: Gathering together all that I personally know about the human condition, I can only conclude that God is willing to allow us to have to deal with uncertainty and tentativeness. Maybe that’s our object lesson in humility: Despite our desire to eat of the forbidden fruit, we must accept that in the mortal realm our worldviews are always underdetermined by the facts we can discern.

I can live with that.

Well said. I guess we kind of have to live with it…LOL…

 

[dingodile]

.

Perhaps that is why God promised to guide His church into all truth until His return? If the HS is not involved in some way, preserving the doctrinal truths taught by Jesus Christ in the first century, then what you are suggesting is truly a possibility. I guess it comes down to faith in the end.

Or maybe what God was especially concerned about what creating a community, a kind of extended family, that would endure, and He was willing to let them take the long road toward doctrinal perfection.

Wouldn’t it be rather negligent on Jesus’ part to say “and the gates of Hades will not overcome it” - and then fail to tell His apostles what it meant, who of course would pass that interpretation on to the next generation?

Negligent? Well that’s an interesting thought. I’d say it’s utterly consistent with the glimpses we get of God’s ways in the Old Testament. God sends his message and leaves it to us to work on, nudging us from within, by strategically placed private revelations.

Are you looking for some sort of scientific/empirical evidence so that you can know with certainty and finally believe what Christianity teaches? Proof in a scientific sense is certainly relevant in the world of matter, but not in the realm of the spirit. Christianity doesn’t seem to offer proof, with certain exceptions of course (miraculous apparitions) - instead it invites faith .

It’s a good question, but the answer is no. I’m not looking for scientific evidence. I don’t care about certainty. From what I can see, certainty hasn’t been the most beneficial delusion that humanity has had. I have, after decades of struggle, some degree of faith. Like Kant, I am filled with wonder by the starry skies above and the moral law within. That inner moral compass is as miraculous as anything, even though I know well how easy it is to misread it.