Why do people who say they are Catholic continue to say so when they do not follow the teachings of the Catholic church?

[TedDC]

I have an objection to your response. You raise a single example, which is not necessarily applicable to all. This is the fallacy of hasty generalization. By way of example, if a person in a family is lactose intolerant, by your “logic” you would conclude that all persons in the family must be lactose intolerant.

OK, for now I’ll claim only that the dogma of the Assumption of Mary is man-made. Can you prove me wrong?

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

OK, for now I’ll claim only that the dogma of the Assumption of Mary is man-made. Can you prove me wrong?

According to my understanding, the Assumption of Mary was the bodily taking up of Mary bodilly into Heaven. This would this is also known as the Dormition of Theokotos in the Eastern Tradition. You assert this dogma was man made in by Pius XII in 1950. However, dogma is defined as being an established belief or doctrine. The corporeal assumption of Mary and the belief in the assumption has set prior to 1950, in fact for centuries, as exemplified in the treatise *De Obitu S. Dominae, *a fourth centry document. Benedict XIV asserted in De Festis that to deny the assumption is impious and blasphemous. Your assertion that Assumption of Mary dogma was invented in 1950 by Pius XII is proven false.

 

[TedDC]

According to my understanding, the Assumption of Mary was the bodily taking up of Mary bodilly into Heaven. This would this is also known as the Dormition of Theokotos in the Eastern Tradition. You assert this dogma was man made in by Pius XII in 1950. However, dogma is defined as being an established belief or doctrine. The corporeal assumption of Mary and the belief in the assumption has set prior to 1950, in fact for centuries, as exemplified in the treatise *De Obitu S. Dominae, *a fourth centry document. Benedict XIV asserted in De Festis that to deny the assumption is impious and blasphemous. Your assertion that Assumption of Mary dogma was invented in 1950 by Pius XII is proven false.

OK, fine - the dogma was created by men centuries ago.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

OK, fine - the dogma was created by men centuries ago.

We are back, in essence, to your orginal claim. Once again, it would be fitting for you to appropriately defend your claim. Please provide your observational evidence.

 

[TedDC]

We are back, in essence, to your orginal claim. Once again, it would be fitting for you to appropriately defend your claim. Please provide your observational evidence.

Let me ask a question: where DID the dogma come from?

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Let me ask a question: where DID the dogma come from?

It comes from an understanding based on sensus fidelium.

 

[SteveGC]

This is yet another fallacy in Catholic apologetics: equating “belief” with “truth”. So often, arguments put forth as proof that something is true are really just proof that it has been believed for a long time.

Just because something has been believed for a long time does not mean that it’s true. That’s referred to as the “fallacy of antiquity”.

Ted, I’ll save you (and all of us) alot of time (although I think you actually revel in prolonging this sort of thing)…

We cannot give you scientific evidence that men of the Church are infallibly guided by the Spirit of God. That’s the only type of evidence you will accept for that, is it not?

Well, news flash…no one can give that to you. All we have is historical record of men proclaiming, behaving and living as if this was this case, and historical record that some of what the bible contains actually did happen. That’s never going to be enough to “prove” scientifically that the human leadership of the Church is the conduit through which Christ shepherds His flock throughout all time.

You can play this game of “prove this doctrine”, and “prove that doctrine”, but at it’s core, the question will always return to the original “prove to me that the Catholic Church truly speaks for God”. And the answer will always be, we can’t. If we could, Ted, the ENTIRE WORLD would be Catholic, don’t cha think??

So you win that one, brother. By the way, why haven’t we heard from you what is truth? Not belief, but truth. Only fair that we get a chance to refute some of your claims, no?

 

[rinnie]

This is yet another fallacy in Catholic apologetics: equating “belief” with “truth”. So often, arguments put forth as proof that something is true are really just proof that it has been believed for a long time.

Just because something has been believed for a long time does not mean that it’s true. That’s referred to as the “fallacy of antiquity”.

Oh okay then the Apostles taught that Jesus was indeed the Son of God. The Apostles testified that everything that they are saying is the true word of God. They passed it down word for word to one another to the present age which is what we call Sacred Tradition.

Now lets go to your point here. You are saying thats what they believed and said but does not make it true, Then tell me how can you believe the words of the bible then?

Or do you reject the words of the bible? I do not believe you answered my question.

Next if you do indeed accept the words in the bible how did they get there. Was there a bible fairy or something?

 

[rinnie]

On the contrary, the burden of proof rests with the Church to support its extraordinary claim that all of that paper was written by God.

The Church does not need to prove anything. Jesus said you are either with me or you are against me. Jesus says he knows us by the fruit we produce.

You either produce good fruit or bad fruit. You either obey and believe in the word of God and obey his Church which he states is the Pilar of all truth.

Or you disobey his word and disobey the Church which is the pilar of all truth.

You have free will Ted to accept his church as the Pilar of all truth or reject it. If God gave you that choice and you refuse to accept it, and if the Son of God comming here and dying on the cross could not prove anything to you, and hundreds of readings in the bible with thousands to testify to it, what do you feel we can do?

If you believe that Jesus Christ is indeed the Son of God and did indeed do as he said he send the advocate the Holy Spirit to guide the Church into all truth what more proof could you need.

I mean if you reject the Holy Spriit leading the Church as Christ promised there is no proof. You either believe Christ or you don’t.

God does not prove himself to anyone. As he said to Thomas you only believe because you have seen, blessed are those who believe and have not seen. We believe. We do not put the LORD to the Test. THE LORD WILL NOT BE PUT to the test.

 

[rinnie]

Ted, I’ll save you (and all of us) alot of time (although I think you actually revel in prolonging this sort of thing)…

We cannot give you scientific evidence that men of the Church are infallibly guided by the Spirit of God. That’s the only type of evidence you will accept for that, is it not?

Well, news flash…no one can give that to you. All we have is historical record of men proclaiming, behaving and living as if this was this case, and historical record that some of what the bible contains actually did happen. That’s never going to be enough to “prove” scientifically that the human leadership of the Church is the conduit through which Christ shepherds His flock throughout all time.

You can play this game of “prove this doctrine”, and “prove that doctrine”, but at it’s core, the question will always return to the original “prove to me that the Catholic Church truly speaks for God”. And the answer will always be, we can’t. If we could, Ted, the ENTIRE WORLD would be Catholic, don’t cha think??

So you win that one, brother. By the way, why haven’t we heard from you what is truth? Not belief, but truth. Only fair that we get a chance to refute some of your claims, no?

Just like we cannot prove George Washingon was our president. Its history. GOd gave us 2 things reason and history. If you do not have reason you cannot accept history. And if you do not have history you cannot have reason.