Catholic theology refers to Mary as “the ark” or the temple of the Lord, because the Lord came and filled the temple as He dwelt in Mary’s womb.
In your eyes, no one will ever be able to answer your posts, because you will persistently put forth your infinite theory of circular reasoning. You will never be able to refute the mysteries of the Church through logic and reasoning. The mysteries must be contemplated and celebrated in the heart. Logic and reasoning will always be trapped in the quagmire of the intellect.
No, I will say because Jesus said it. It is from Scriputre. You see, in ancient Israel, giving of the keys was symbolic of giving all authority and power. So, when Jesus gives the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and says “whatsoever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven”, and the “gates of hell shall not prevail against it”, He is conferring this power on the Church until His return in Glory.
Then wouldn’t Mary be the temple, not the ark? By that logic, the temple was destroyed. Does that mean Mary was destroyed?
If that is the case, then why use logic and intellect at all? Why come to a forum to defend your view with logic and intellect? If this is true, then I should be the only one here. However, it is clear from the number of posts I have made in the last 15 hours that I am not. If logic or reasoning cannot be used to prove or disprove the Roman Catholic Church since it is something that must be contemplated and celebrated, then there should be no Catholic Apologists. However, there are. How can one explain that?
This has to be the biggest non-answer I’ve ever read.
You can say that, but you end up begging the question. The only way you know scripture is right as a Catholic is because the church says so, and hence, the Catholic church is right because it says so. It would be like if someone wrote a document that claimed that I am God. Then I say that this document is correct because of my authority. Would you not think it silly that if you then asked why I have that authority, I point back to the document and say because the document has that authority? Well, the only reason the document has that authority is because I said so. That is begging the question. Now, you could say that it is ok if you wanted to argue that the Catholic Church is a self-attesting authority. Of course, then we would get right back to the argument I have been presenting for a long time.
Please…can you be more facetious and obtuse This is not an answer, and if you can offer nothing more substantive than this then I suggest that you not attempt to answer at all. Mickey’s answer is in good faith and is indicative of cathoklic teaching. If you reject it…that’s on you.
Your posts are only logical by your own measure…I have already pointed out many fallacies and evidences that what you espouse is not of God as have the very fine apologists here at CA. Debate til your brains fall out if you wish, but you will not turn any of us from the truth.
The temple was restored in three days.
As Catholics we contemplate and celebrate the mysteries of the Church. However, if someone comes to this forum attacking Catholic doctrine and preaching revisionist theology, then the Catholic Church must be defended. Perhaps there is someone here that is on the fence. We couldn’t let you persuade them into partial truth now could we?
Since you are using logic and intellect to attack–this seems to be your forte–then I suppose logic and intellect must be used to refute your arguments. I would love it if everyone contemplated and celebrated the mysteries of the Catholic Church. There would be no need for this forum. Everyone would pray unceasingly while basking in the uncreated light of God. Just curious MT–what compels you to come here and refute most things Catholic? Perhaps there is a seed in your own heart. May the grace of God provide the fertile ground.Again, the circular discourse. :whacky:
Actually, the only way you know the scritpture is right as a Catholic is because Jesus says so through the church. The Church is Jesus’ voice here on earth, not an association of men that say they speak for Jesus.
Only in your opinion…since you are the only one here that seems to think that way. In the end you have no guarentee that the Bible you claim as sole authority is authentic and inspired, since you reject the very authority of the church that assembled and canonized it, then preserved, copied, and protected it for all the centuries prior to the advent of your new wind of doctrine (SS) in 1517.
I completely agree that scepticism must be avoided, especially in matters as grave as those being discussed here.
Epistemelogical questions based on evidences only are infinitely regressive if neither party can agree on a premise or premises acceptable to both parties engaged in the dispute.
I disagree that we would fall to infinite regression, since both Sola Scriptura Protestants and Catholics would agree on the premises of: inerrancy of Scripture, the authority of Christ, and the authority to teach, passed on to the Apostles after Christs’s ascension, as well as a host of other valid premises more basic (i.e. omniscient God, incarnation of Christ, etc.). Thus, valid discourse on epistemelogical claims regarding the sufficiency of Scripture is possible.
Again, this discourse is not between an atheist sceptic and a Catholic, (which in case, I believe, the argument may fall to infinite regression, since the most basic premise, God, is disputed), but between Catholic and Protestant who hold certain epistemelogical premises in common. Thus, it is up to both sides to provide logical arguments based on agreed premises for and against Sola Scriptura. The “table of contents” question is quite basic, given that both sides agree upon the inerrancy and inspiration of Scripture. It cannot be dismissed as a fallacy, since there is no infinite regression, and a theory for the existence of an inerrant table of contents must be provided by both sides.
I agree, neither side can avoid a circular argument if Scripture’s inspiriation and inerrancy are based on Scripture, which is necessitated by Sola Scriptura. However, the Catholic’s argument is spiral, not circular, appealing to the authority of apostolic tradition for Scripture’s inspiration, which eventually spirals down to the authority of Christ and other premises agreed upon by both parties (though the SS Protestant would deny the validity of some of the steps taken in the above argument). A circular argument is weaker than a spiral argument, and is especially weak if the spiral argument ends in premises agreed upon by both parties.
You are mistaking an assumption for a deduction. The Catholic bases the authority of the Church on the authority of Christ and the apostles in a series of logical steps from the above premises (again, which the SS Protestant would disagree with), thus the Church believes it is authenticated by Christ and apostolic tradition, not by itself. The Sola Scriptura Protestant, however, is left with an (again) much weaker self-authenticating authority.
First of all, where did it originate from? In fact, from reading the text in Epiphanius, it is most likely that he thought of the idea himself as a possibility to try to answer the question of what happened to Mary. No definitive rejection or acceptance is not the issue. They are silent on the matter before Epiphanius. Hence, there is no way to prove it was apostolic, because you cannot trace it before this.
My point was to argue that you cannot argue that this Mary at all! Period. The reason is because the first proponent is not until the eighth century, and because you are forced to contradict other Catholic teachings if you hold to that. The point about the labor pains is that if she had them, then she had original sin, and she was not immaculately concieved. The Catholic Catechism defines immaculately conceived as:
Hence, the dogma of the immaculate conception according to your own catechism is not that Mary contracted the stain of original sin, and then God cleansed her from it, but that she was preserved immune from it. Second, saying that John’s visionary statements cannot be relied upon in this matter ignores the fact that the Bible is inerrant. It is true because it was God writing it, and he was there at the birth of Christ. Second, it is a complete eisegetical assertion to say that these are other children as Mary of the church. The word “children” is still in the context of verse one which talks about childbirth.
.
I think the original poster just contradicted you. She said that you cannot know the truth of the Catholic Church from reason or logic. Hence, she believes that I have used reason and logic. I will allow the readers of this thread to decide whether you have brought up any fallacies in reasoning.
To start off, I dont think the debate has to be as philosophical as your making it. We should be able to ask short answer questions and go from there. You make the claim that we want to avoid skepticism, but with each question you run off a list of why that questions cant be answered due to a technicality here and there. You dont need to reply to this part I will try to explain it better a bit later.
I must have misunderstood your definition of “evidence” becase real-life and historical evidence is the foundation of this debate.
It is really funny to see this. The problem is you have just refuted your own proposition. These are scholars that have served on papal commissions. If they were so bad, why hasn’t Rome censured them? You are, again, having to engage in private interpretation. How do you know if you are right since you are fallible? Isn’t this the same argument you used against me?