- Status
N
Novocastrian
Guest
I don’t think it was a straw-man, and I apologise if I phrased it so that it can be construed that way. Put simply, if you think Augustine’s argument works re: the title ‘Catholic’, then you have serious, serious problems when someone comes to you and asks for the ‘evangelical’ church or the ‘orthodox’ church.
Either you send them to an Evangelical church or an Eastern Orthodox church while employing a mental reservation along the lines of, “Well, they were clearly asking for the so-called Orthodox church”, etc.; or you can claim that you’d just send them to the local Catholic church, while explaining that that was the truly evangelical and/or orthodox church. Either way, Augustine’s argument is useless if you want to claim that Roman Catholicism is also orthodox and evangelical.
Edit: I’m very open to correction, so if you could lay out semi-formally how I make a straw-man argument as opposed to a good one, I’d very much appreciate your taking the time to do so.
P
PRmerger
Guest
N
Novocastrian
Guest
I hope I’m not the kid who hits the pole!
G
GKC
Guest
E
Eric_Hilbert
Guest
Since we are headed toward the magic 1000 point, lets not waste posts with pictures.
P
PRmerger
Guest
That there would be problems if someone asks me where the local Orthodox church is in no way refutes my position.
That’s like saying: You can’t know who the Fighting Irish are because there are numerous football teams named Lions, Tigers and Bears.
We all know when you ask, “Did the Fighting Irish win today” to whom you are referring.
“Did the Lions win today?” Not so much.
N
Novocastrian
Guest
It’s not at all. The Fighting Irish don’t also claim to be Lions. The Roman Catholic Church *does *claim to be the true evangelical and orthodox church.
R
rinnie
Guest
Because it was. If it wasn;t you have put yourself in a more ackward position then the RCC. Because Luther recanted what he said in his document.
So if Luther did not agree with the Church, then recanted and agreed. How do you defend him?
How can you crucify the RCC and not Luther?
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
I did address what you were presenting on Post #16. The thread did get trimmed down and the references to the posts you based your argument were trimmed. But after looking at them it became apparent that they did not use the argument for what you take it to be. Thus, I say that your point of origin for the argument in your thread is a straw man.
Eric took my gif away
R
rinnie
Guest
Pretty much here what I believe we can agree on is not the means of Captial punishment at that time, but putting fear in people goes against the word of God.
Am I correct to assume what is being said here is a killing of someone for being a heretic goes against the Holy Spirit?
Am I correct to assume what is being said here is a killing of someone for being a heretic goes against the Holy Spirit?
N
Novocastrian
Guest
I have to admit that I don’t understand why I’m wrong to see the argument being used this way. After all, from what I can tell, that is how PRM used it a few posts ago: "I will simply paraphrase St. Augustine when I say this: The Catholics who won are the Catholics to whom you would refer a stranger, if you are wishing to be helpful, who comes to your town and says, “Where is the nearest Catholic Church?” "I did address what you were presenting on Post #16. The thread did get trimmed down and the references to the posts you based your argument were trimmed. But after looking at them it became apparent that they did not use the argument for what you take it to be. Thus, I say that your point of origin for the argument in your thread is a straw man.
Eric took my gif away
Now, I’m willing to accept that the underlined clause modifies the argument as deployed in its current context, but surely you can see that Augustine’s argument, as outlined in Contra Epistolam Manichaei, cannot work for the Roman Catholic Church in the twenty-first century?
N
Novocastrian
Guest
Could you show me this recantation? I’d be very interested to read it, and especially the bit where he makes clear that he previously denied hell.
R
rinnie
Guest
It does and it is. We got the teaching from Christ. He said there is only ONE HOLY CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH.
Now in order for the Church to be one it must be united one and the same with the visible head the Pope.
Now how can you say the Church can be one if it does not go by all of the teachings of Peter?
N
Novocastrian
Guest
Ok, great, I’m glad you say that. Then you see, I am sure, the problem with Augustine’s argument that we are discussing.
With regard to your latter question, I would simply reply that the Roman Catholic Church requires people to believe dogmas as revealed truth which were not believed in Peter’s day, nor are clearly implied by the deposit of faith received by Peter. I imagine that to say more would be to go off topic.
P
PRmerger
Guest
How does the fact that there are multiple Lions, Tigers and Bears
make it false that when we say, “Did the Fighting Irish win today?” we all know to whom we are referring??
Again, I would find it curious if, when a stranger comes to your town and asks, “Where is the nearest Catholic Church” you wouldn’t know what she means.
We all know that were you to direct her to my Church she would be satisfied.
G
GKC
Guest
In that instance the proximate agent (the sentience that is involved, causally), would be the person who threw the switch.
GKC
R
rinnie
Guest
Because the Holy Spirit continues to teach and lead the RCC can indeed reveal Dogmas that may have not been revealed in the day of Peter.
With that said, there is still no new revelation. All dogma is defined with the True word of God. Jesus didn’t forget to tell us anything.
Anything the Church teaches must be taught with sound doctrine. While our understanding grows with the help of the HS the doctrine does not change.
Like the unchanging teaching of the Church is hell is the unquechable fire and is eternal. 1034 ccc
I have continued to read the Papal Bull and the truth still remains. Luther said the burning of heretics goes against the will of the Holy Spirit.
The Church defends the unchanging truth that hell is the unquenchable fire and is eternal.
You claim the Church is wrong on defending this truth, Luther claimed it was true in #33 of his Thesis.
The Church disagrees.
The Church never taught they had authority to burn human heretics on this earth, if they did teach it as Church Dogma it would still be a teaching.
Read what Luther presented to the Church.
The Church also holds its teaching on Purgatory which is a temportal fire that can burn away sin.
One burning of heretics is purgatory, one is hell. It is not against the will of the Holy Spirit as Luther stated and is defined in the Papal Bull. Purgatory is a temportal burning, hell is eternal.
Luther did not state that the RCC claimed authority to burn human heretics exercised this authority and was wrong. Read what he said. I refuse to continue to keep repeating myself.
The RCC never claimed or condoned the burning of human at the stakes. That was Roman Law. If you want to accuse the RCC of having authority at that time to decide is someone was a heretic of the RCC then you have a case. They do.
And they still do. If someone is considered a Heretic of the RCC they will excommunicate them from the RCC and still have authority to do so then as they have in the past.
They claim the authority today as yesterday as today. You are Peter and you have the keys to the kingdom. The Pope still has them.
Luther nor any Protestant reformer has had the Authority to rid him of something given to him by Christ.
- Status