What's the ONE Catholic Doctrine that you disagree with most?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Porknpie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Perplexity said:
Kliska: Sorry, but I think we’re splitting hairs at this point and avoiding the substantive issue at hand 😛 The sentence exists, the belief that this sentence is true exists. But, does this sentence mean anything? I hope those following this will give that some thought.

Analyzed by predicate logic, the statement “There is only one God” is made of two parts: an existential quantifier and a higher order object called “God.” No matter what sort of higher order object “God” is, it is what gets instantiated by only one.** But, this is intrinsically at odds with divine simplicity**. Think about that folks.
Click to expand...
How do you figure?
 
Peter_J said:
How do you figure?
Click to expand...
Because what gets instantiated is part of what instantiates it. But, divine simplicity precludes having any parts. In other words, YHWH can’t be the only instance of a divine nature because YHWH doesn’t “have” a nature: what we call YHWH’s nature is really just YHWH, but considered precisely insofar as he is YHWH, rather than insofar as he is the cause of being or what have you. Aquinas lays this out in S.T. 1.3.7.
 
Perplexity said:
Because what gets instantiated is part of what instantiates it. But, divine simplicity precludes having any parts. In other words, YHWH can’t be the only instance of a divine nature because YHWH doesn’t “have” a nature: what we call YHWH’s nature is really just YHWH, but considered precisely insofar as he is YHWH, rather than insofar as he is the cause of being or what have you. Aquinas lays this out in S.T. 1.3.7.
Click to expand...
Alright. 🙂

Incidentally, I think you might be the only scholastic pagan I know.
 
Perplexity said:
If the God you believe in (say “YHWH”) did not have an origin, why would you expect any other God to? Part of being divine is transcending the world. Moreover, even if there were a distinction between a “creator God” and “created gods”, there would still be many deities, which is incompatible with monotheism.

While this is an aside to discussing “monotheism”, I think it’s important to mention that according to polytheist thinkers, each God causes all things, only in its own way. For example, Poseidon is said by these thinkers to cause all things insofar as they are mutable, where as Zeus is said to cause all things insofar as they exist substantially, and so forth.

So far, I haven’t seen an argument for monotheism, or a response to my objection to monotheism. What do you think?
Click to expand...
Interesting point:D

I can demonstrate biblically AND logically Catholic & Christian GOD; cane others do the same for the multitude of OTHER gods?

GOD Bless you, and welcome to CAF friend

Patrick
 
PluniaZ said:
No, the Church of Rome cannot err. Period. It never has. And never will. People cite Vatican I as if it limits the scope of Papal Infallibility. On the contrary, Vatican I defines as a dogma that the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra. In ages past, going back to the beginning of the church, it was understood and acknowledged by all that the Church of Rome cannot err.

"After such things as these, moreover, they still dare— a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics— to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access."

Saint Cyprian of Carthage. c. AD 250. To cite just one of many examples from the ancient church.

newadvent.org/fathers/050654.htm
Click to expand...
My friend, that simply is not provable or FACT:o

Thanks for sharing YOU"RE convictions though

GBY
 
PluniaZ said:
No, the Church of Rome cannot err. Period. It never has. And never will. People cite Vatican I as if it limits the scope of Papal Infallibility. On the contrary, Vatican I defines as a dogma that the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra. In ages past, going back to the beginning of the church, it was understood and acknowledged by all that the Church of Rome cannot err.

"After such things as these, moreover, they still dare— a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics— to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access."

Saint Cyprian of Carthage. c. AD 250. To cite just one of many examples from the ancient church.

newadvent.org/fathers/050654.htm
Click to expand...
OH, really?

So the earth is FLAT

strangenotions.com/did-the-church-teach-the-earth-was-flat/
 
Perplexity said:
Kliska: You’ve gotta put more into this exchange bro 😛 What I mean is that while I’ve given an analysis of the sentence “There is only one God”, and explained why it doesn’t actually mean anything if it’s intended to be about the divine, you’ve simply repeated the sentence and said that it was meaningful as a statement about the divine. But, you haven’t given us any reason to agree.

So, what does the sentence “There is only one God” mean? What is it that there’s only one of?
Click to expand...
Not ony can I clarify THAT issue for you

BUT I can prove that YOU & all of humanity] emulate GOD:)

READ Gen 1:26-27 and compare it to John 4: 23-24 and tell us how that is possible:shrug:

GOD Bless you friend

Patrick
 
Porknpie said:
Starting this thread as it was a discussion on another thread… and we didn’t want to get it derailed.
Click to expand...
This thread is just such an invitation for trouble. 😉

Mine is infallibility of the Pope (whom I would much more prefer to call the Bishop of Rome) And I would say this regardless of who is Pope - it has been my main issue all along. And I think I’ve said this all along here.

Along these lines I think over the centuries the Church in certain eras has walked a fine line between interpreting/witnessing the revelation of God, through scriptures and tradition, and adding to this with man-made traditions, undue burdens. I think the Church has been misguided and unreasonable in dealing with other Christians and played a role in schisms, partly to blame - causing much harm. But this is another thread to say the least. :o Ditto the corrupt eras - Holy Roman Empire, scandals, Renaissance, etc.

The Church is sinners, saints - sheep, goats wolves what have you. It can feel like quite the dark night / forest sometimes. Though it is the true original Church all the same.

Sorry for being so vague.
 
Perplexity said:
Kliska: Sorry, but I think we’re splitting hairs at this point and avoiding the substantive issue at hand 😛
Click to expand...
Again, you’ll have to pardon the Logic prof still alive and well within me; that’s what I was attempting to do. The substantive issue isn’t whether or not monotheism exists, but that’s what you set up as an argument. I showed how that is actually a non issue; of course Monotheism exists. I have no wish to argue over the other issues as I see no point to it.

Others here, however, will be happy to jump in and discuss such things, as they’ve already done.
 
PJM said:
My friend, that simply is not provable or FACT:o

Thanks for sharing YOU"RE convictions though

GBY
Click to expand...
I have shared countless primary sources from the first millennium establishing that the Church has always believed in the infallibility of the Church of Rome.

Neither you nor anyone else has cited any primary sources that contradict this.
 
PluniaZ said:
I have shared countless primary sources from the first millennium establishing that the Church has always believed in the infallibility of the Church of Rome.

Neither you nor anyone else has cited any primary sources that contradict this.
Click to expand...
AS STATED you’re statement is wrong.

IF you’re speaking of Infallibility:shrug: [you have not so specified it]

[1] It is HIGHLY conditional

[2] applies ONLY to matters of Faith belief and Morals

Both of which are critically-needed to be included in the type of broad statements your making.

GBY

Patrick
 
PluniaZ said:
Your link shows that the Church did not believe this.

Your profile says you are Roman Catholic. Why are you attacking the dogma of Papal Infallibly?
Click to expand...
😃

MAYBE because your NOT specifying it

God Bless you
 
I could list the doctrines I disagree with, however most of them have already been addressed. What irks me is the high percentage of approved annulments. Seriously? you can’t tell me that there is something wrong with the validity of almost every marriage. 🤷 It’s like we have come into a period of time when the word “NO” is forgotten.
 
Hockeygurl said:
I could list the doctrines I disagree with, however most of them have already been addressed. What irks me is the high percentage of approved annulments. Seriously? you can’t tell me that there is something wrong with the validity of almost every marriage. 🤷 It’s like we have come into a period of time when the word “NO” is forgotten.
Click to expand...
Hi Hockeygurl,
Just curious … What percentage of annulment requests are approved? Does anyone know?

I assume they are using some sort of guidelines for these, no?
 
FollowChrist34 said:
This thread is just such an invitation for trouble. 😉

Mine is infallibility of the Pope (whom I would much more prefer to call the Bishop of Rome) And I would say this regardless of who is Pope - it has been my main issue all along. And I think I’ve said this all along here.

Along these lines I think over the centuries the Church in certain eras has walked a fine line between interpreting/witnessing the revelation of God, through scriptures and tradition, and adding to this with man-made traditions, undue burdens. I think the Church has been misguided and unreasonable in dealing with other Christians and played a role in schisms, partly to blame - causing much harm. But this is another thread to say the least. :o Ditto the corrupt eras - Holy Roman Empire, scandals, Renaissance, etc.

The Church is sinners, saints - sheep, goats wolves what have you. It can feel like quite the dark night / forest sometimes. Though it is the true original Church all the same.

Sorry for being so vague.
Click to expand...
Could not agree more. But before someone posts the conditions of infallibility again, I think from my side it doesn’t always just include the Pope, but the whole church. Be that through one person (the Pope) or the whole Church or the Magisterium. Through history many things just do not add up. EVERYTHING simply cannot be reconciled in order to maintain the infallibility doctrine. Furthermore, even ONE issue puts the entire structure into question purely because of this belief.

Personally I belief the idea of “any infallibility” gave Catholicism many more headaches then they wished for. Just like the 1870 Papal infallibility (Still strange if one examines the exact political circumstances under which this happened at the time) finally killed any EAST/WEST unification. Rome can’t retract it (Else they admit they were wrong) and the East will never except it.

Regards
 
Hockeygurl said:
I could list the doctrines I disagree with, however most of them have already been addressed. What irks me is the high percentage of approved annulments. Seriously? you can’t tell me that there is something wrong with the validity of almost every marriage. 🤷 It’s like we have come into a period of time when the word “NO” is forgotten.
Click to expand...
I used to think the same thing.
But a priest pointed out that there may be.a large number because few are brought up understanding what makes a real marriage.

In a society that does not teach from one generation to the next how to love and honor your spouse; how can we expect anything better then a large number of disqualified weddings?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top