The Catholic Standard: The Amazing Hypocrisy in Debating Catholics

[jemfinch]

Because infinity is infallible.

I believe in infallibility and infinity, and I have no idea whatsoever what you’re talking about.

Jeremy

 

[rr1213]

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?”.

I don’t think that it is unfair at all. The Catholic Church states that it is the ONE TRUE CHURCH meanings other Churches or faith communities are not. Most Protestant Churchs I know of do not claim to be infallable or teach in an inerrant manner, but the Catholic Church does in certain circumstances. Now, if it should be proven that the Catholic Church has erred in an area where the Church claims that it CANNOT err, then where does that leave the Catholic Church? The result is that the Protestant feels no need to defend every belief and aspect of Protestant teaching but the Catholic must defend each and every aspect of Catholic teaching…at least on those matters where the Church itself claims that the teachings cannot be in error.

 

[tequilamac]

I believe in infallibility and infinity, and I have no idea whatsoever what you’re talking about.

Jeremy

A person cannot simultaneously claim not to believe in infallibility while claiming to believe in infinity. If infinity were fallible and subject to error, it would not be infinity but finite. Infinity by it’s very nature must be infallible. That which is infinite cannot be found to be wrong. Once it is wrong and not infinite anymore it has become finite. Therefore in order to believe in infinity one MUST believe in infallibility. The question of who is infallible and who isn’t though is open to debate. If one claims Christ is infallible than the Church he founded is capable of speaking infallibly. And it is infinite. If one denies that the Church Christ founded is capable of speaking infallibly in Christ, than the Church is not infinite and neither is Christ. And Christ would not be infallible as well. Once one denies the infinite and the infallible in the Church Christ founded, it is a waste of time for them to create new “Christian” churches as they have already denied Christ in the first place. This is what is wrong with the Protestant schism. While the Church may have corrupted in areas at the time of Luther, she still retained her capability of being infinite and also her capability of speaking infallibly in Christ. But Luther and Zwingli and the others denied she had the ability to speak infallibly in Christ thereby denying Christ’s infallibility and continued to found new churches in His name. They founded their Churches in the name of Him they denied. It’s a tangled web. Because infallibility is intricately wrapped up in the infinite. One cannot have one without the other. No way.

 

[Teakafrog]

I don’t think that it is unfair at all. The Catholic Church states that it is the ONE TRUE CHURCH meanings other Churches or faith communities are not. Most Protestant Churchs I know of do not claim to be infallable or teach in an inerrant manner, but the Catholic Church does in certain circumstances. Now, if it should be proven that the Catholic Church has erred in an area where the Church claims that it CANNOT err, then where does that leave the Catholic Church? The result is that the Protestant feels no need to defend every belief and aspect of Protestant teaching but the Catholic must defend each and every aspect of Catholic teaching…at least on those matters where the Church itself claims that the teachings cannot be in error.

So, you’re saying that protestant churches are, by definition, fallible, and therefore errant? And since the Catholic Chruch has proven it IS correct on all infallible teachings, it is therefore the True Church.

 

[rr1213]

So, you’re saying that protestant churches are, by definition, fallible, and therefore errant? And since the Catholic Chruch has proven it IS correct on all infallible teachings, it is therefore the True Church.

Objection! Counsel has mischaracterized the witness’ testimony.

 

[Mersenne]

Because infinity is infallible.

No it’s not. For example, pi goes out to infinite digits, but the digits of pi lack the qualities to be regarded as infallible. I can see how a lot of infallible things might be infinite, but I don’t think all infinite things are neccisarily infallible.

 

[Mersenne]

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.

I didn’t say I don’t not believe in it. I don’t believe in it. It does not follow that not believing in infallibility neccisitates infallibility, as I already explained, but apparently you have problems with logic and literacy.

 

[tequilamac]

No it’s not. For example, pi goes out to infinite digits, but the digits of pi lack the qualities to be regarded as infallible. I can see how a lot of infallible things might be infinite, but I don’t think all infinite things are neccisarily infallible.

I’m sorry. We are not talking about pi here we are talking about God. So perhaps we should substitute eternal for infinite. However, something that is a mistake requiring correction to continue would hardly be considered infinite or eternal.

 

[tequilamac]

So, you’re saying that protestant churches are, by definition, fallible, and therefore errant? And since the Catholic Chruch has proven it IS correct on all infallible teachings, it is therefore the True Church.

Exactly. Because their foundation is based on the assumption that the Church lacks the infallibility of Christ which is a denial of who Christ actually is. Their foundation is based on a falsehood which absolutely makes them fallible, false and errant. It really does not matter if it is Lutheran or Calvinist, or what. They are all, every single one of them, based on a false premise of who Christ is.

Once one denies that Christ meant** for the apostles to speak infallibly through succession, the door is opened to personal interpretation of all Scripture which implies that the individual is more infallible in their own interpretation than say a council of bishops gathered together which of course is to deny that a council gathered in his name is not speaking for him and is obviously unscriptural.

It is a tangled web the Protestants have woven. Now it is true that the Roman Church in particular has a somewhat cumbersome theology- hence the Pope’s thoughts on the elimination of Limbo for instance. And it is true also we have become a Church of Marthas rather than Mary’s that Protestants can use as an opening for attack.

But there is nothing the Church has done, or can do in the past 2,000 years that eliminates her responsibility to speak infallibly in His name. For this reason, any other Christian religion must necessarily be lacking in the fullness of Christ.

For instance sola scriptura.

When a church clings to sola scriptura it is putting the individual’s interpretation of scripture in the infallible mode which even though Christ clearly said and can be found in scripture “Whenever two or three are gathered.”

However, sola scripturists do not have an answer for that. How an individual interpretation of scripture is more profound and correct than an ecumenical council is left unexplained by sola scripturists. They cut their noses off to spite thir faces with their rules. And they got their by denying in the first place who Christ really is.

 

[I_Leatherman]

I didn’t say I don’t not believe in it. I don’t believe in it. It does not follow that not believing in infallibility neccisitates infallibility, as I already explained, but apparently you have problems with logic and literacy.

Undoubtedly, my literacy is ‘necessarily’ problematic.
But, infallibility, as a concept is an odd one. If you Like Totally don’t believe in that infallibility thing - then logically you are stating an infallible belief, and your belief in an infallible belief - sigh so oddly denial is acceptance as also acceptance is acceptance.
=> it must be real.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Undoubtedly, my literacy is ‘necessarily’ problematic.
But, infallibility, as a concept is an odd one. If you Like Totally don’t believe in that infallibility thing - then logically you are stating an infallible belief, and your belief in an infallible belief - sigh so oddly denial is acceptance as also acceptance is acceptance.
=> it must be real.

The word is awful.
Basicially all that the Church is saying is that she is the original Church, and that Jesus promised not to allow her to be subverted by the enemy, so that she would teach a false gospel.

It is worked out witha bit more sophistication that that, so the Pope can pronounce ex cathedra, or in solemn council with the bishops, but the root of it is largely common sense. Can we be sure that the Church is the real thing? Yes we can.

 

[Mersenne]

I’m sorry. We are not talking about pi here we are talking about God. So perhaps we should substitute eternal for infinite. However, something that is a mistake requiring correction to continue would hardly be considered infinite or eternal.

We’re not talking about god, we’re talking about infalibility. Infalibility can be applied to a lot of things other than god.

 

[mrs_abbott]

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.

That’s good because ministers and priests alike are humans and very much capable of making mistakes. I wish ALL clergy would take that approach. Most do but some don’t.

 

[Mersenne]

Undoubtedly, my literacy is ‘necessarily’ problematic.

It apparently is, because I’ve had to point out your logical error over and over and over again, an error, mind you, that a 10 year old could point out.

But, infallibility, as a concept is an odd one. If you Like Totally don’t believe in that infallibility thing - then logically you are stating an infallible belief, and your belief in an infallible belief - sigh so oddly denial is acceptance as also acceptance is acceptance.
=> it must be real.

False Dichotomy. I’ve already explained how my lack of belief doesn’t require infallibility on my part. If you’d like to go back to that post and actually address the points I made instead of ignoring them and carrying on as if I said nothing, I’d appreciate it.

 

[Mersenne]

Can we be sure that the Church is the real thing? Yes we can.

How?

 

[I_Leatherman]

How?

Er…he just told you…

 

[I_Leatherman]

It apparently is, because I’ve had to point out your logical error over and over and over again, an error, mind you, that a 10 year old could point out.

Oh…dear me, I must have missed it. Tell me again?

False Dichotomy. I’ve already explained how my lack of belief doesn’t require infallibility on my part. If you’d like to go back to that post and actually address the points I made instead of ignoring them and carrying on as if I said nothing, I’d appreciate it.

No. I showed the logic of my idea, and you just disagreed with no explanation. You did say explicitly that you did not believe in it, then you said it was possible but unlikely.

My point is that whichever one you do believe in …er…means you do believe in infallibility as a concept.

 

[maesoph]

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.

The most extreme example of this comes from the Bible…

With the fate of my immortal soul at stake…

Do you have the original, inspired manuscript of the Bible in English?

Uh, No…

Do you have the original, inspired manuscript of the Bible in any language?

Uh, No.,…

Well, do you have a complete, apostolic era manuscript of the Bible?

Uh, No… but we have a lot of fragments…

Do these fragements all agree?

Uh, No… but most of the differences are gramatical in nature.

OK, so the Bible doesn’t meet the criteria set before us for infallability - neither does the Papacy really - so what is Christianity based on???

 

[Mersenne]

Oh…dear me, I must have missed it. Tell me again?

False Dichotomy

No. I showed the logic of my idea, and you just disagreed with no explanation

No, I clearly provided an explanation, you’re just illeterate. Let’s go through it again, shall we?

here’s where I disagreed with you.

Nope.

and here’s the rest of the post where I explained why

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.

So you’re assertion that you can either believe in infallibility or your belief is infallible is obviously wrong. I pointed out how I can not believe in infallibility without being infallible. Do you want to address this point or do you just want to keep posting smiley faces like a 12 year old girl?

I also pointed out in very very simple terms and you ignored it. It is a false dichotomy. Do you want to address that or continue to be willfully ignorent and pretend like I’m posting nothing? Or are you ignoring it because you don’t know what a false dichotomy is? Look it up on wikipedia and get back to me. I also said it in other terms.

I don’t believe in it. It does not follow that not believing in infallibility neccisitates infallibility

If you disagree with this point the onus is on you to provide a reason why. You are the one making a possitive assertion. Or did I go over your head again? You’re basically saying that no one can ever believe in anything without being infallible, which is clearly ridiculous. You might as well be claiming you ate the sun. If you are going to claim you ate the sun, please, my dear sir, understand the burden of proof is on you.
I Leatherman:

You did say explicitly that you did not believe in it, then you said it was possible but unlikely.

How are those two things incompatible? What does “not believing” in something apply to you? If someone says to me “Will the cowboys win the superbowl?” and I say “I don’t believe so” does that imply that I’m god?

My point is that whichever one you do believe in …er…means you do believe in infallibility as a concept.

er…false dichotomy. Care to address that or are you just going to stick your fingers further in your ears?

 

[Mersenne]

Er…he just told you…

er…no he didn’t. Which of the following statements proves Catholicism is THE ONE TRUE RELIGION

Basicially all that the Church is saying is that she is the original Church, and that Jesus promised not to allow her to be subverted by the enemy, so that she would teach a false gospel

The church is the one true church because the church says so? If that’s really what you find a compelling arguement then I understand why it’s taking so long to explain basic logic to you. Oh, and by the way, if you send me a million dollars you’ll be happy forever. Don’t believe me? Well, I have proof! I say so.

It is worked out witha bit more sophistication that that, so the Pope can pronounce ex cathedra, or in solemn council with the bishops, but the root of it is largely common sense.

And that doesn’t offer any arguement at all.