B
BlackFriar
Guest
You believe the truth of the infallibility of the Catholic Church rests on miracles?
- Status
D
De_Maria
Guest
I believe the truth of the infallibility of the Catholic Church rests on God’s omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence.
A
adf417
Guest
R
rcwitness
Guest
No, I don’t think so. Id say Truth rests on itself.
But miracles grab people’s attention and show God is working.
But miracles grab people’s attention and show God is working.
B
BlackFriar
Guest
Yes I agree miracles do demonstrate the reality of a supernatural realm we do not understand. But there still seems to be a wide chasm as to whether miracles confirm anything more than the faith, whatever that may be, of the actor…if he/she even has any re the alleged miracle worked at their hands.
The content of that faith seems irrelevant given that the supernatural seems to break into all sorts of belief systems some of which are allegedly mutually exclusive.
The content of that faith seems irrelevant given that the supernatural seems to break into all sorts of belief systems some of which are allegedly mutually exclusive.
Last edited:
A
AlNg
Guest
Some miracles have a natural explanation. For example, an image of Mary in the sky could be due to a cloud formation. After praying, a man recovers from an illness, but others have also recovered from a similar illness by following the advice of their doctor. Can you give me an example of a verified recent miracle where a soldier comes back from war in Iraq or Niger with one leg blown off by a bomb. He has completely lost his leg. Then the family prays, a miracle occurs and overnight the missing leg comes back completely?
Last edited:
B
BlackFriar
Guest
Why must the “supernatural” be considered only on the basis of “miracles” … that seem to defy known “laws”. Why cannot “wonders” be reasonably entertained also?
A
adf417
Guest
B
BlackFriar
Guest
Talking to AlNg…
Last edited:
D
De_Maria
Guest
I’d like to know also.adf417:
Talking to AlNg…
B
BlackFriar
Guest
See Post #168…
A
adf417
Guest
There is no post #168 - yet.
Peace!!!
Peace!!!
B
BlackFriar
Guest
So if you can accept my testimony that there is a true post #168 and an apparent “168/XXX” you will have achieved enlightenment, learnt the skill of distinguishing appearance from reality and hopefully accept that what one swears must be true and infallible often is not.
Good luck with the quest.
Good luck with the quest.
Last edited:
A
adf417
Guest
You continue to post things no one has alluded to. Here you state “what one swears must be true and infallible often is not“ which is a true statment however the other side of the coin is equally true in that “some things one swears to be true is in fact true”.
Peace!!!
B
BlackFriar
Guest
But not in your case re post #168.
We are all fallible in such things…including authorities in charge of belief systems.
D
De_Maria
Guest
What does that have to do with the infallibility of the Catholic Church?adf417:
But not in your case re post #168.
We are all fallible in such things…including authorities in charge of belief systems.
No one said that you were infallible.
No one said that we were infallible.
But the Word of God says that the Church is infallible.
A
adf417
Guest
I highlighted your “but” above because it is the key…even when considering authorities in charge of belief systems.adf417:
But not in your case re post #168.
We are all fallible in such things…including authorities in charge of belief systems.
Peace!!!
S
Sir2v4
Guest
Jesus told his disciples, he who hears you, hears me.
D
De_Maria
Guest
Not to me. Some Bishops confirm infants. Some don’t. If the Bishops of Malta have been given the go ahead, that means that they are acting in obedience to the proper authority. I’m sure some people will object. But then, look at the response to the implementation of Vatican II.De_Maria:
<<MALTA, January 13, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – The bishops of Malta have given the green light to divorced and civilly remarried Catholics in their dioceses to receive Communion if they are “at peace with God.”>>
We see that some bishops say yes and others say no. Does this not indicate that the Church is not united on this question?
G
Gorgias
Guest
A couple of things to keep in mind:AlNg:
Not to me. Some Bishops confirm infants. Some don’t. If the Bishops of Malta have been given the go ahead, that means that they are acting in obedience to the proper authority. I’m sure some people will object. But then, look at the response to the implementation of Vatican II.De_Maria:
<<MALTA, January 13, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – The bishops of Malta have given the green light to divorced and civilly remarried Catholics in their dioceses to receive Communion if they are “at peace with God.”>>
We see that some bishops say yes and others say no. Does this not indicate that the Church is not united on this question?
- infallibility is exercised by a bishop (or a few bishops) only when they’re acting in concert with all bishops and with the pope. If Malta is doing something unilaterally, it does not mean that infallibility attaches – nor does it mean that it is a proof that infallibility is disproven!
- an individual bishop may make a mistake in the area of “faith and morals”. Infallibility doesn’t protect him from error.
- the Church continues to be united, even if one or a few of its bishops are acting in a way that’s not consonant with the rest of the Church (and, as a result, might be in need of fraternal correction to bring them back in line). Of course, the other dynamic that folks tend to forget is that the Church moves s…l…o…w…l…y!
- Status