The Catholic Standard: The Amazing Hypocrisy in Debating Catholics

[Integritus]

Everybody believes in infallibility. It’s just a matter of who you believe has it.

---

I came to realize the above is true. Though first of all, I’d like to clarify that my thread title speaks of no one in particular, just those who act or think unreasonably.

It is utterly amazing to see that when certain Non-Catholic Christians (and really, I hesitate to be so dishonest when even giving them this polite label) begin the curious and inquisitive path to challenging Catholicism on the grounds of its authenticity and authority, they will apply the highest level of standard in which not a single item, fact, or truth must be contradicted, left obscure, or not brought up. Every point of historical foundations, every doctrine (since we actually do say what is it right down to the last hair), every moral, every event, every action, and every criticism must be questioned. Practically, Catholicism is on high trial from those who I am referring to. And really, it’s all fine with me, I think it’s good and may we never be tired of the doubters, because the Church’s teachings are true, and because this may be God’s way of making these souls, if converted, to wholly affirm in their hearts this is completely the truth, and undo the decision their ancestors made long ago out of ignorance.

Yet, in the meanwhile, while they sit in the comfort of their own particular Christian creed, they will not apply the same methodology of challenging (the Catholic standard) to their own claimed legitimacy. For these, it’s all about being on the offensive, but no defense. Self-critical analysis is either largely ignored, prejudiced, or blantantly false. Their church’s true beginnings, man or God? “Who cares”. What are your full doctrines? “Not sure”. Who has authority in cases of dispute? “Nobody really”. Why do you believe the things that you do? “He who taught me”. And who taught him and so on? “Not sure”. Can the leader (pastor) of your church emphatically bind a teaching or interpretation on you, even though you believe something else? “Not really”. Are you being disobedient? “Surely not!” Of course, I am speaking generally, but the matter is still unresolved by its nature.

Essentially, it will come down to who you believe has the truth? Keyword there is “believe”. In other words, who has the true authority to teach? Why is this important? Because the nature of man. Man is always disagreeing, changing, rivaling, and cunning. And yes, even able to change or disagree with previous interpretations or meanings he once thought true (ie: as the case with the Holy Bible or any other book). Perhaps you believe that you yourself possess the final means to truth, and surely men believe this today; there is even men who deplore the whole capacity of attaining truth or if there even is truth at all, though this “notion” however becomes de facto a truth unto themself if they believe that. Still though, how many people decry the Pope’s (though really the Magisterium’s) infallibilty on faith, only to grant someone else or even themself virtual infallibilty in matters of Christian doctrine or morals? Therefore since everyone virtually believes in infallibility, the question that truly begs is “Who has it?”.

 

[Pug]

Perhaps that is just natural, given that they already have arrived at a belief system and are then looking outward from that.

For example, I am Catholic. If a Mormon were to ask me to believe in the Book of Mormon, well, I would be very skeptical and would question every little thing. Why? Because I already adhere to a system, and that system says to me that I have no reason to accept the book of Mormon.

However, if I were coming from a more unconvinced position, I might be more likely to entertain the idea of believing in the Book of Mormon or the Koran or whatever. I think it is easier to convince people the first time around than the second. Mind you, I also think a certain type of humanism or skepticism is something people can get convinced of the first time around. Anyway, that is my first though upon reading your post.

 

[mark_a]

Perhaps you believe that you yourself possess the final means to truth, and surely men believe this today. . . . . Still though, how many people decry the Pope’s (though really the Magisterium’s) infallibilty on faith, only to grant someone else or even themself virtual infallibilty in matters of Christian doctrine or morals?

That’s a great presentation!

You observations remind me of what JPI said when he was elected, “May God almighty have mercy on you all for what you’ve done!”

Seems that so many religious leaders strive in their own church to be thought of as infallible, but the one who gets infallibility from the Church strives not to get it.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

The Catholic Standard: The Amazing Hypocrisy in Debating Catholics

Now there’s a nice irenic title to inspire a calm exchange of thoughts, Detritus.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

Well, Fr Ambrose, I can see your point (I think !!), but I have to say, I come from a FIERCELY antiCatholic background, and one of the things my former religion (the JWs) frequently mocked, laughed at, ridiculed, and, frankly, griped about, was the Catholic claim of papal/magisterial infallibility. And we rank and file Jehovah’s Witnesses went along with the mockery, blissfully ignorant of the fact that we rank-and-file JWs invested our Governing Body in Brooklyn with a level of infallibility that the Popes have never DARED to claim. We couldn’t question one jot or tittle of any sentence of any article that appeared in THE WATCHTOWER magazines, nor any statement, however inherently trivial, that appeared in any other Watchtower Society publication. To question ANYTHING, however trivial the matter, was seen as evidence of a wicked degree of pride and apostasy.
So I can attest that it is true that those who mock infallibility the loudest, have another infallible authority themselves, whether they realize it or not.
God bless,
Jaypeeto4 (aka Jaypeeto3)

 

[Integritus]

The Catholic Standard: The Amazing Hypocrisy in Debating Catholics

Now there’s a nice irenic title to inspire a calm exchange of thoughts, Detritus.

Hence my very reason for a disclaimer in the very first couple of sentences in which I say “I speak of nobody in particular, only those who act or think unreasonably.” In other words: unjustly, unfairly, improperly, illogically.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Hence my very reason for a disclaimer in the very first couple of sentences in which I say “I speak of nobody in particular, only those who act or think unreasonably.” In other words: unjustly, unfairly, improperly, illogically.

Fair enough. I know now what you want us to discuss. Is it ok to name names? Hard to deal with this topic unless you give examples and that will mean identifying people.

 

[Mersenne]

Everybody believes in infallibility. It’s just a matter of who you believe has it.

I don’t believe in the infallibility of anything.

 

[I_Leatherman]

I don’t believe in the infallibility of anything.

Is that an infallible belief?..:bigyikes:

 

[tequilamac]

I don’t believe in the infallibility of anything.

Then I suppose you also reject the idea of infinity as one cannot accept infinity unless there exists infallibility.

 

[Teakafrog]

Well, Fr Ambrose, I can see your point (I think !!), but I have to say, I come from a FIERCELY antiCatholic background, and one of the things my former religion (the JWs) frequently mocked, laughed at, ridiculed, and, frankly, griped about, was the Catholic claim of papal/magisterial infallibility.

I came from a generic evangelical protestant background, but I know exactly what you’re saying. I remember actually saying to a Catholic once (may God have mercy on my soul), “So you mean you’re gonna let some old man in Rome decide how many children you have when he doesn’t have to feed, clothe, and care for them?” That was the attitude, that you weren’t thinking for yourself if you believed in any higher authority except God Himself.
Of course, eventually, I began to really think for myself, and began an intense (self-directed) study of the bible, whereupon I found these odd apocryphal books. Hmmm. You mean that was the real bible that Jesus used and Luther threw them out? Hmmm. More study, and eventually, even though I didn’t want to, I came to believe that the Catholic Church is the one, true, holy, and apostolic Church founded by Christ Himself.
Why did I not realize that before? Lack of information. Lack of desire. Laziness. I just absorbed what I had been spoon-fed all my life without making any effort to find out what was true. It was good enough for everybody else, right? Surely when people told me that Catholics worship statues and the Pope, they were right?
That’s why people remain protestant. They refuse to do the mental work necessary to find out the Truth. Jesus only founded one Church, it lasted for 1500 years, and since then men have founded Churches, not Jesus. But if you are happy and content in your own little tiny dark corner of the spiritual world, and do not seek out the real Truth, you will never find it.
In a way, it drives me crazy that people refuse to look at the facts, because it would make them uncomfortable. Guess what, it was extremely uncomfortable for me, turned all my family against me–they think I’m certifiably crazy now for being Catholic, lost all my friends at church, lost my comfort zone. Most of all, I lost the ability to be my own Pope. I could no longer decide what was right and wrong. I had to listen to Jesus, through his apostles and their successors. THAT is what keeps people in protestantism. They don’t want to give up their own papacy over their own lives. Authority. Pride. The idea of I must be right, everyone else wrong. It’s all pride.
So yeah, I see the point of this line of thought. I was there. But I gave up my own papacy to yield to the real one. May God bring more and more people to the Truth, as He did this unworthy servant.

 

[Della]

teakafrog:

Most of all, I lost the ability to be my own Pope. I could no longer decide what was right and wrong. I had to listen to Jesus, through his apostles and their successors. THAT is what keeps people in protestantism. They don’t want to give up their own papacy over their own lives. Authority. Pride. The idea of I must be right, everyone else wrong. It’s all pride.
So yeah, I see the point of this line of thought. I was there. But I gave up my own papacy to yield to the real one. May God bring more and more people to the Truth, as He did this unworthy servant.

This is true of many Protestants, but I wouldn’t say the vast majority. Most people are sheep, just as Jesus described us, and many of the sheep are but lambs. They trust their leaders are telling them the truth. This is why Jesus was particularly hard on those who lead others. They will have to answer for their not seeking out the truth much more than the lambs they led. And I believe many a lamb will enter heaven while their shepherds won’t.

 

[SORROWS]

I came from a generic evangelical protestant background, but I know exactly what you’re saying. I remember actually saying to a Catholic once (may God have mercy on my soul), “So you mean you’re gonna let some old man in Rome decide how many children you have when he doesn’t have to feed, clothe, and care for them?” That was the attitude, that you weren’t thinking for yourself if you believed in any higher authority except God Himself.
Of course, eventually, I began to really think for myself, and began an intense (self-directed) study of the bible, whereupon I found these odd apocryphal books. Hmmm. You mean that was the real bible that Jesus used and Luther threw them out? Hmmm. More study, and eventually, even though I didn’t want to, I came to believe that the Catholic Church is the one, true, holy, and apostolic Church founded by Christ Himself.
Why did I not realize that before? Lack of information. Lack of desire. Laziness. I just absorbed what I had been spoon-fed all my life without making any effort to find out what was true. It was good enough for everybody else, right? Surely when people told me that Catholics worship statues and the Pope, they were right?
That’s why people remain protestant. They refuse to do the mental work necessary to find out the Truth. Jesus only founded one Church, it lasted for 1500 years, and since then men have founded Churches, not Jesus. But if you are happy and content in your own little tiny dark corner of the spiritual world, and do not seek out the real Truth, you will never find it.
In a way, it drives me crazy that people refuse to look at the facts, because it would make them uncomfortable. Guess what, it was extremely uncomfortable for me, turned all my family against me–they think I’m certifiably crazy now for being Catholic, lost all my friends at church, lost my comfort zone. Most of all, I lost the ability to be my own Pope. I could no longer decide what was right and wrong. I had to listen to Jesus, through his apostles and their successors. THAT is what keeps people in protestantism. They don’t want to give up their own papacy over their own lives. Authority. Pride. The idea of I must be right, everyone else wrong. It’s all pride.
So yeah, I see the point of this line of thought. I was there. But I gave up my own papacy to yield to the real one. May God bring more and more people to the Truth, as He did this unworthy servant.

Very well written post. I admire your journey and courage.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

This is true of many Protestants, but I wouldn’t say the vast majority. Most people are sheep, just as Jesus described us, and many of the sheep are but lambs. They trust their leaders are telling them the truth. This is why Jesus was particularly hard on those who lead others. They will have to answer for their not seeking out the truth much more than the lambs they led. And I believe many a lamb will enter heaven while their shepherds won’t.

Hi,

I gagree with you. Glad Im not a preacher. My minister always tells us that if we do not believe what he is telling us then we should look it up ourselves in the bible. I have done this on a few occassions and then call and ask him questions. So far so good:thumbsup: I like that fact that he does not put himself up on a pedastool(SP?). He always welcomes any reproof or rebuke. He considers himself a sinner no better or worse then any of us commoners. This makes him much more human and approachable.

 

[Mersenne]

Is that an infallible belief?..:bigyikes:

Nope. I haven’t a good reason to believe that anything I’ve run into is infallible, but that doesn’t mean it’s impossible. Very very very unlikely, but not impossible.

 

[Mersenne]

Then I suppose you also reject the idea of infinity as one cannot accept infinity unless there exists infallibility.

why?

 

[tequilamac]

why?

Because infinity is infallible.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Everybody believes in infallibility. It’s just a matter of who you believe has it…

[snip]

---

It is utterly amazing to see that when certain Non-Catholic Christians (and really, I hesitate to be so dishonest when even giving them this polite label) begin the curious and inquisitive path to challenging Catholicism on the grounds of its authenticity and authority, they will apply the highest level of standard in which not a single item, fact, or truth must be contradicted, left obscure, or not brought up. Every point of historical foundations, every doctrine (since we actually do say what is it right down to the last hair), every moral, every event, every action, and every criticism must be questioned…

[snip]

Yet, in the meanwhile, while they sit in the comfort of their own particular Christian creed, they will not apply the same methodology of challenging (the Catholic standard) to their own claimed legitimacy. For these, it’s all about being on the offensive, but no defense. Self-critical analysis is either largely ignored, prejudiced, or blantantly false… Of course, I am speaking generally, but the matter is still unresolved by its nature.

Essentially, it will come down to who you believe has the truth? Keyword there is “believe”. In other words, who has the true authority to teach? Why is this important? Because the nature of man. Man is always disagreeing, changing, rivaling, and cunning. And yes, even able to change or disagree with previous interpretations or meanings he once thought true (ie: as the case with the Holy Bible or any other book). Perhaps you believe that you yourself possess the final means to truth, and surely men believe this today; there is even men who deplore the whole capacity of attaining truth or if there even is truth at all, though this “notion” however becomes de facto a truth unto themself if they believe that. Still though, how many people decry the Pope’s (though really the Magisterium’s) infallibilty on faith, only to grant someone else or even themself virtual infallibilty in matters of Christian doctrine or morals? Therefore since everyone virtually believes in infallibility, the question that truly begs is “Who has it?”.

It’s perfectly fair to expect a very high standard of intellectual credibility from the CC, because of the very detailed and very lofty claims it makes.​

Other Christians don’t make all these claims - so they can’t be tested by them. The Anglican Communion does not claim infallibility for its bishops as a body - the CC, OTOH, does. So it would be absurd to expect the Anglican Communion to prove the truth of a doctrine it does not claim to hold - but perfectly fair, to expect the CC to do so, because it does hold this.

That is not hypocrisy - it’s consistency; for both parties are asked to make good their theological & doctrinal claims in ways which are appropriate to each.

If Catholicism makes claims, it must expect to be asked to give a justification for them. If they involve or rest upon historical matters or the use of historical evidence, it is fair to ask what basis the CC has for its certainty that it is correct, & that interpretations of the same sets of facts by other churches are not correct, or are not equally correct. The more complex the claim, the more room there is for questions about the details of it. This is what happens when a Church (such as the CC) makes numerous, highly articulate, detailed claims about its credentials: people ask questions; & the explanations given often prompt further questions.

For instance - it can hardly insist that the Assumption be believed as a dogma unless it knows that it happened. The question then arises, “How does it know ? What is the evidence ? How old is the earliest claim that this happened ? How do we know that claim is reliable ?” - and so on. And so it is with any dogma which has an historical content of any kind. The higher the status of the teaching, the more right it is for people to want some kind of assurance that they are believing something that someone in the Church, somewhere, can show is well-founded.

 

[I_Leatherman]

Nope. I haven’t a good reason to believe that anything I’ve run into is infallible, but that doesn’t mean it’s impossible. Very very very unlikely, but not impossible.

If you don’t not believe in it then you do believe in it, and if you don’t believe in it then its true and if you do believe in it then there is infallibility.

 

[Chris7]

There are many variations of, and this is a stretch, religions out there which attempt to follow the Catholic model but do so on the basis of power rather than substance. Kids fantasize about being superman whereas adults fantasize about being prophets; both of which offer a larger than life persona. Being the curious sort I have been to what was supposedly a religious service and what struck me the most was the gullibilty of the so called worshippers. I attended one service where most of the people attending were affluent professionals (doctors, lawyers) and successful businessmen. The guy leading the service, who looked like a throw back to the sixties took out a $100 bill, rubbed it on his forehead and then passed it around the room for those in attendence to do the same. The underlying theme was mastering the God given telepathic powers and belief in ones self as a means of being successful. That night I rubbed elbows with some some mighty high rollers. Afterwards I felt like taking a shower with bleach to feel cleansed.
Another so-called church is run by a lady and her two sons. (brings to mind Ma’ Baker from the wild west) She always has a security detail with her because of the power she commands. She talks to God you know, and I don’t mean perodically but constantly. People come to her like the crowds came to Jesus looking for spiritual wisdom and healing of all ailments. One guy asked her if he should buy a used car off of his neighbor and she told him that she asked God and he said yes, if it didn’t decrease his contributions to the church. As you can imagine, Mom and her two sons are quite wealthy. I learned of this so called church from a guy at work, a guy raised Catholic no less, who wanted me to visit this awesome church. Recently he told me that they plan on adding a school. Can you imagine? These religious imposters give religion a bad name in that the non-believers hold these nutcases up as being the norm and judge us all as being the same.