Protestants: Could you please do us all a favor??

[SHW]

I would say that fallibility requires elements not contained by the Holy Scripture. Scripture does not discern and make choices. Scripture cannot take responsibility for it’s actions/decisions and their consequences. These are qualities of persons, not writings.

The scriptures are inerrant and inspired. They were designed to be used by the Church, whose infallible guidance is made possible by Christ.

 

[Little_Katie]

Here’s what I don’t understand…

This is a Catholic forum. Why would you come here unless it is to talk about or learn about Catholocism. I don’t get why there are so many people here who have a very negative agenda against Catholocism and yet they join the forum?

Do they just enjoy arguments?

 

[Memaw]

Hence, whatever your Magisterium says and writes cannot be considered “infallible” either since what the say and write don’t make choices.

Based on your definition only the persons themselves who make up your “Magisterium” can be deemed infallible. But then they experience only bouts of infallibility. So it begs the question, who is to determine when these bouts of infallibility actually occur? The Magisterium? SHW stated that Scripture can’t testify of itself. If that’s so, wouldn’t that same principle hold true of your Magisterium? And since they experience only bouts of infallibility, what guarantee do you have that what they say and write at any given time is inerrant?

However, we do know that the Scriptures are inerrant because they’re theopneustos: God-breathed. And God IS, infinitely, infallible.

MD,
Seems you have misunderstood a lot. Funny how those that think they know all about it really don’t know anything at all. Bouts of Infallibility ??? that is funny. You need a one on one with Scott Hahn!! Our guarantee comes from Jesus Christ Himself!!, God Bless, Memaw

 

[moondweller]

Don’t you have the same “problem” with Scripture? I.e. who’s to say which writings are Scripture and which aren’t?

No, that’s a different issue completely.

 

[moondweller]

MD,
Seems you have misunderstood a lot. Funny how those that think they know all about it really don’t know anything at all.

Ah-huh!

Bouts of Infallibility ??? that is funny.

Believe me, I think it’s funny too.

You need a one on one with Scott Hahn!!

Scott Hahn needs a one-on-one with me.

Our guarantee comes from Jesus Christ Himself!!

Yes, that is what you’re told, so that is what you believe.

 

[Memaw]

Here’s what I don’t understand…

This is a Catholic forum. Why would you come here unless it is to talk about or learn about Catholocism. I don’t get why there are so many people here who have a very negative agenda against Catholocism and yet they join the forum?

Do they just enjoy arguments?

L.K.,
I think they do or just to try to cast doubt to Catholics that do not understand their Catholic Faith as well as they should. They really should start a forum of their own and then they can argue over whose interpretation is right and if they should Baptize infants or not or if divorce and remarriage is permitted over and over again, or is birth control and abortion OK. Lots of things they could argue over.
Personally I think they know deep down that the Catholic Church is the One, True, Church founded by Jesus Christ and that scares them so they have to try to “defend” their cause.
God Bless, Memaw.

 

[Memaw]

Ah-huh!Believe me, I think it’s funny too.Scott Hahn needs a one-on-one with me.Yes, that is what you’re told, so that is what you believe.

That I would love to see. Why don’t you try listening to some of his tapes or reading some of his books. Catholic Answers have them. Go to the top and click on Shop. Then we can talk. OK, God Bless, Memaw

 

[Little_Katie]

L.K.,
I think they do or just to try to cast doubt to Catholics that do not understand their Catholic Faith as well as they should. They really should start a forum of their own and then they can argue over whose interpretation is right and if they should Baptize infants or not or if divorce and remarriage is permitted over and over again, or is birth control and abortion OK. Lots of things they could argue over.
Personally I think they know deep down that the Catholic Church is the One, True, Church founded by Jesus Christ and that scares them so they have to try to “defend” their cause.
God Bless, Memaw.

Either that or some of them are just “trolls” that enjoy looking for a place to cause conflict.

 

[Worthy5]

No, that’s a different issue completely.

And its an issue you have not dealt with.

 

[Worthy5]

yes the church interpreted verses such as: Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 … as revealing a stationary earth that stands at the center of the universe. It’s since changed its position. That’s an admission by any objective standard.

This interpretation was the basis upon which the church charged Galileo with error. I guess some people here will say the CC never interpreted scripture this way (this contention is obviously proven wrong by the facts), while others take the position that while the church did erroneously interpret these verses, the matter to which they pertained is not a matter of faith and morals (and the church never officially invoked infallibility during the Galileo affair or ever with regard to interpretation of those passages).

This might be fine if we were talking about the Eastern Orthodox Church, who takes a much more narrow view of infallibility. However, this claim seems like semantics when coming from Rome. Obviously there’s a different history. It’s Rome who protestants initially broke with; and it’s Rome who has largely taken up the banner of fighting what they describe as protestant heresy. Most of this so called heresy lies in protestant interpretation of scripture.

So on one hand we see the RCC claiming it’s infallibly correct and protestants are wrong with regard to scripture, basing that authority on it’s alleged infallibility as “the church” – yet on the other hand when they’re conclusively proven wrong about anything they turn around and say they never invoked infallibility (how convenient). These claims IMO lack integrity and credibility. They constructively invoke infallibility with regard to scriptural interpretation; because when examining the state of mind of any person or entity we look at their actions not just their words.

There’s all sorts of elaborate arguments they use for this, but they all amount to the same thing. Whenever they do something bad or they’re shown to be wrong they say the matter didn’t concern an infallible proclamation of the church (conveniently – always after the fact). However, when it suits their purposes (i.e. when they’re “battling” alleged protestant heresy) they’re always quick to point to their so called infallibility.

IMO this doesn’t pass the smell test.

So HID are you going to answer my prior posts to you or not? Just curious. You seem to have alot to say.

 

[dianaiad]

Here’s what I don’t understand…

This is a Catholic forum. Why would you come here unless it is to talk about or learn about Catholocism. I don’t get why there are so many people here who have a very negative agenda against Catholocism and yet they join the forum?

Do they just enjoy arguments?

I haven’t read this entire thread, Katie, but I notice from the title that it’s not “Catholics, you suck!” or anything, but rather “Protestants, could you please do us all a favor??”

True, the favor asked was that the Protestants learn more about Catholicism before they actually start criticizing it, and I’m in full sympathy with that request: I wish everybody who criticized Mormonism would actually, y’know, LEARN about it first. However, that’s not going to happen, for Mormons OR Catholics.

I guess the point is, this particular forum, "non-Catholic religions’ is for the discussion of NON-Catholic religions, not Catholicism. That’s why it’s labeled ‘non-Catholic religions.’

This is the second time in three hours that I have seen this plaint–'what are you doing in a Catholic site?" Well—we’re here because, quite frankly, we were invited.

Now consider: what if there were a…oh…Baptist site, and there was a sub-forum dedicated to ‘non-Baptist religions’ on it. Catholicism is under discussion there–and somehow or other you come to hear about it, and find out that some really weird and inaccurate things are being said about Catholicism on it. So–you go there and correct the inaccurate information, and then stick around to ‘defend the faith,’ more or less.

…then you get a post from a Baptist criticizing your presence and asking you why you are on a Baptist site discussing Catholicism. Wouldn’t you do a double take at the title of the forum you are on, and go…huh?

How much is anybody going to learn about a religion in a discussion forum that specifically excludes the believers in that religion?

 

[Peter_J]

I haven’t read this entire thread, Katie, but I notice from the title that it’s not “Catholics, you suck!” or anything, but rather “Protestants, could you please do us all a favor??”

True, the favor asked was that the Protestants learn more about Catholicism before they actually start criticizing it, and I’m in full sympathy with that request

I’m also in agreement with the request, the way you just stated it. I’m not in agreement with the request when it’s in the form “Could you please attend an RCIA class (finish it) before attempting to argue Catholic versus Protestant theology”.

: I wish everybody who criticized Mormonism would actually, y’know, LEARN about it first. However, that’s not going to happen, for Mormons OR Catholics.

I agree with you on both points.

I guess the point is, this particular forum, "non-Catholic religions’ is for the discussion of NON-Catholic religions, not Catholicism. That’s why it’s labeled ‘non-Catholic religions.’

This is the second time in three hours that I have seen this plaint–'what are you doing in a Catholic site?" Well—we’re here because, quite frankly, we were invited.

So will you also accept the invitation to attend an RCIA class? J/k

Now consider: what if there were a…oh…Baptist site, and there was a sub-forum dedicated to ‘non-Baptist religions’ on it. Catholicism is under discussion there–and somehow or other you come to hear about it, and find out that some really weird and inaccurate things are being said about Catholicism on it. So–you go there and correct the inaccurate information, ** and then stick around to ‘defend the faith,’ more or less. **

…then you get a post from a Baptist criticizing your presence and asking you why you are on a Baptist site discussing Catholicism. Wouldn’t you do a double take at the title of the forum you are on, and go…huh? **

How much is anybody going to learn about a religion in a discussion forum that specifically excludes the believers in that religion?

 

[dianaiad]

I’m also in agreement with the request, the way you just stated it. I’m not in agreement with the request when it’s in the form “Could you please attend an RCIA class (finish it) before attempting to argue Catholic versus Protestant theology”.

I agree with you on both points.

So will you also accept the invitation to attend an RCIA class? J/k

I might. (grin)

I have this thing, y’see, about learning about a religion only from the believers of that religion. For that purpose, I think I would very much enjoy an RCIA class—as long as the teacher is very aware that I’m there for the purpose of learning about Catholicism, not necessarily converting TO it.

'course, the teacher might get some unusual questions from me–but I’d make him a deal: he doesn’t discuss Mormonism in the classroom, and I won’t get weird on him.

I AM reading the catechism, (well, the online version) though, if that helps.

 

[Memaw]

Either that or some of them are just “trolls” that enjoy looking for a place to cause conflict.

They are the easiest to spot cuz they go from thread to thread doing just that. God bless, Memaw

 

[Memaw]

I haven’t read this entire thread, Katie, but I notice from the title that it’s not “Catholics, you suck!” or anything, but rather “Protestants, could you please do us all a favor??”

True, the favor asked was that the Protestants learn more about Catholicism before they actually start criticizing it, and I’m in full sympathy with that request: I wish everybody who criticized Mormonism would actually, y’know, LEARN about it first. However, that’s not going to happen, for Mormons OR Catholics.

I guess the point is, this particular forum, "non-Catholic religions’ is for the discussion of NON-Catholic religions, not Catholicism. That’s why it’s labeled ‘non-Catholic religions.’

This is the second time in three hours that I have seen this plaint–'what are you doing in a Catholic site?" Well—we’re here because, quite frankly, we were invited.

Now consider: what if there were a…oh…Baptist site, and there was a sub-forum dedicated to ‘non-Baptist religions’ on it. Catholicism is under discussion there–and somehow or other you come to hear about it, and find out that some really weird and inaccurate things are being said about Catholicism on it. So–you go there and correct the inaccurate information, and then stick around to ‘defend the faith,’ more or less.

…then you get a post from a Baptist criticizing your presence and asking you why you are on a Baptist site discussing Catholicism. Wouldn’t you do a double take at the title of the forum you are on, and go…huh?

How much is anybody going to learn about a religion in a discussion forum that specifically excludes the believers in that religion?

I think the one who started this thread had good intentions and I agree that no one should accuse anyone of believing something unless they are sure they really do believe it and the only way to do that is to study their beliefs from their source. You don’t go to ones enemy to find out about them. She suggested the RCIA because that is an instruction class about the Catholic Faith. No one is obligated in any way, if they take the classes. The Catholic Church strongly believes in our free will. Many on these threads are here just to bash the Catholic Church. And they hop from thread to thread to do that. I have been accused by soooo many protestants of worshiping statues and Mary and no matter what I say they will NOT believe me that we don’t do either. They won’t even try to understand what I say. So here we are!!! God Bless, Memaw

 

[humble_in_doubt]

But leaving Andy Dufresne out of it, I think my point still holds …

I would be one such person. More specifically, I would say that members of the Church made that wrong interpretation, but the Church (the spotless body of Christ) didn’t do so. Much as I would say that members of the Church committed attrocities during the Crusade, but the Church (the spotless body of Christ) didn’t do so.

The problem is those members included the sitting pope, numerous bishops, the inquisition, and the congregation. If that isn’t “the church” making a statement I don’t know what is … but I guess it’s hard to argue with people who buy into what is objectively speaking, fantasy.

 

[Peter_J]

The problem is those members included the sitting pope, numerous bishops, the inquisition, and the congregation. If that isn’t “the church” making a statement I don’t know what is …

Wow, major twist to the conversation: you’re more “Catholic” than I am!

 

[Worthy5]

The problem is those members included the sitting pope, numerous bishops, the inquisition, and the congregation. If that isn’t “the church” making a statement I don’t know what is … but I guess it’s hard to argue with people who buy into what is objectively speaking, fantasy.

So HID if the Supreme Court reverses a decision then I guess you no longer accept the Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution. So does that make you an anarchist?

 

[SteveGC]

yes the church interpreted verses such as: Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 … as revealing a stationary earth that stands at the center of the universe. It’s since changed its position. That’s an admission by any objective standard.

This interpretation was the basis upon which the church charged Galileo with error. I guess some people here will say the CC never interpreted scripture this way (this contention is obviously proven wrong by the facts), while others take the position that while the church did erroneously interpret these verses, the matter to which they pertained is not a matter of faith and morals (and the church never officially invoked infallibility during the Galileo affair or ever with regard to interpretation of those passages).

This might be fine if we were talking about the Eastern Orthodox Church, who takes a much more narrow view of infallibility. However, this claim seems like semantics when coming from Rome. Obviously there’s a different history. It’s Rome who protestants initially broke with; and it’s Rome who has largely taken up the banner of fighting what they describe as protestant heresy. Most of this so called heresy lies in protestant interpretation of scripture.

So on one hand we see the RCC claiming it’s infallibly correct and protestants are wrong with regard to scripture, basing that authority on it’s alleged infallibility as “the church” – yet on the other hand when they’re conclusively proven wrong about anything they turn around and say they never invoked infallibility (how convenient). These claims IMO lack integrity and credibility. They constructively invoke infallibility with regard to scriptural interpretation; because when examining the state of mind of any person or entity we look at their actions not just their words.

There’s all sorts of elaborate arguments they use for this, but they all amount to the same thing. Whenever they do something bad or they’re shown to be wrong they say the matter didn’t concern an infallible proclamation of the church (conveniently – always after the fact). However, when it suits their purposes (i.e. when they’re “battling” alleged protestant heresy) they’re always quick to point to their so called infallibility.

IMO this doesn’t pass the smell test.

HID,

so much of all this bantering hinges on you providing for us precisely how The Church *changed *it’s definition of infallibility. That’s what I’m patiently waiting for from you. Give me something to work with, other than your rant that The Church “conveniently redefines the doctrine when it’s proven wrong”. Give us something tangible from history, regarding the definitions used, please.

 

[Peter_J]

So HID if the Supreme Court reverses a decision then I guess you no longer accept the Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution.

I realize this statement wasn’t addressed to me, but I would like to comment that I don’t accept the analogy between a pronouncement made by the Supreme Court and a pronouncement made by the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has infallibility, the Supreme Court does not.