albert cipriani: Infallible Catholics

[Crumb]

From another thread:

No other religion claims to be infallible and have a 2000 year paper trail of precedent to prove it.

Ok, we can play it straight. What exactly do you mean by "infallible"? and which part of the Catholic religion are you referring to as being infallible? (The pope?)

[beyelzu]

bump, bumpity, bump

[JoeP]

This is a good question.

One detail interests me: "No other religion claims to be infallible" can only be true if we interpret "claim" strictly, i.e. there is stated doctrine or dogma of infallibility. Excluding a rather large middle, are you, Albert, saying that all other religions would admit fallibility? I don't think any strand of Islam admits any fallibility. I think many Christian denominations would not.

[albert cipriani]

“What exactly do you mean by infallible?”

Infallibility is a negative charism, that is, it means the Church’s Magisterium cannot err in matters of dogma or morality. It is not a positive charism, that is, it does not mean, for example, that the Church’s Magisterium has an unbridled ability to interpret perfectly every passage of scripture. It doesn’t even mean that the reasoning the Magisterium gives in support of its conclusions are formally or materially correct. It only means that its doctrinal conclusions are without error. It does not mean that its doctrinal conclusions are perfectly expressed.

“Which part of the Catholic religion are you referring to as being infallible? (The pope?)”

The Pope is infallible only when speaking ex cathedra, that is, from the chair. The last pope never did this. Most of what is infallible comes from ecumenical councils (20 of ‘em), which is called the Extraordinary Magisterium. The other category of infallible doctrine comes from the teachings of the bishops that can be shown to have been taught everywhere and at all times, which is called the Ordinary Magisterium, or may alternately be called the Deposit of Faith. A final more ify source of more questionably infallible doctrine can be adduced for doctrines that are not irreformably defined by a pope or council, yet gain that status by virtue of their constant repetition through the ages.

The single best source of Catholic Dogmas can be found in Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum. It provides all the original source text for all Catholic dogmas. It’s about 400 pages long and contains over 3000 entries. That’s the accessible paper trail of Catholicism. If you are serious, and you claim to reject Catholicism on the supposed basis of its irrationality, well, you should have no trouble at all finding plenty of material in support of your contention. But you won’t be able to.

‘Tis a pity. We’ve got a lousy two-page constitution for only a couple hundred years and have already contradicted it a bunch of times. Yet the Catholic Church hasn’t contradicted itself in 2,000 years. But you guys are derisive of Catholicism yet proud to be American. Go figure. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

[Corona688]

[quote]The single best source of Catholic Dogmas can be found in Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum. It provides all the original source text for all Catholic dogmas. It’s about 400 pages long and contains over 3000 entries. That’s the accessible paper trail of Catholicism. If you are serious, and you claim to reject Catholicism on the supposed basis of its irrationality, well, you should have no trouble at all finding plenty of material in support of your contention. But you won’t be able to. It doesn't matter how long a paper trail is if the fundamental assumptions are wrong. They worshipped the sun and many other gods a long time ago too, and have lots of stone tablets about it, but that papyrus trail doesn't convince you of their correctness, and cathlicism's paper trail doesn't convince me of it's correctness.‘Tis a pity. We’ve got a lousy two-page constitution for only a couple hundred years and have already contradicted it a bunch of times. Yet the Catholic Church hasn’t contradicted itself in 2,000 years. C"mon. Do you seriously, really, believe this? Or are you going to find an excuse to explain how it wasn't REALLY contradicting itself or wasn't REALLY infalliable every time someone finds something? I'm betting the latter. We know you too well.

[albert cipriani]

It doesn't matter how long a paper trail is if the fundamental assumptions are wrong.

Gee, I didn't think it would be such a mental strain for you to distinguish between dogmatic development and fundamental assumptions. Maybe you're hot to discuss the latter, so start your own thread. This thread is about Catholic infalliblity which is about dogmatic development over a long paper trail, not fundamental assumptions.

They worshipped the sun and many other gods a long time ago too, and have lots of stone tablets about it, but that papyrus trail doesn't convince you of their correctness...

To the contrary, every other religion I've investigated convinces me of their incorrectness in that they are all self-refuting, internally inconsistent, and contradictory over time. What paper trail they have is historical, not theological. -- Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

[Godless Dave]

Non-contradictory does not mean infallible.

[Gurdur]

Somebody should ask Albert why he calls himself a "Traditional Catholic" -- which implies he's strongly in favour of the Tridentine Mass --- if he doesn't think the Catholic Church can contradict itself every now and then.

And of course Albert's stance relies on one massive underlying premise -- he claims the Catholic Church does not contradict itself on the grounds that ex cathedra pronouncements are never contradicted (though they might get explained away later).

But this of course doesn't even come near to tackling the whole rest of what the Catholic Church proclaims officially, which has often been contradictory.
Galileo, anyone ?
Or ask why celibacy is normally required of Catholic clergy, but not of Maronite clergy -- and the Maronite Church is an official daughter church of the Roman Catholic one. Or the Anglican clergy who were allowed, while married, into the Catholic Church in the late 1980's and early 1990's.
Or...... how about Papal claims about the Jews ? Care to explain the astonishing volte face reversals over the cneturies on that one ?

Just a couple of small things.

[Ronin]

‘Tis a pity. We’ve got a lousy two-page constitution for only a couple hundred years and have already contradicted it a bunch of times. Yet the Catholic Church hasn’t contradicted itself in 2,000 years. But you guys are derisive of Catholicism yet proud to be American. Go figure. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

And with that simple two-page constitution in only a couple hundred years we were able to support the abolishment of slavery and support equality for women which had been based on the accepted fact that humans are fallible and that society evolves better, more informed and more humane standards over time.

Perhaps you are not proud of these "contradictions" to original "doctrine", but I sure am and you are not supporting the cause of Catholicism by making note of these much needed changes albert.

As for the infallibility of the popes, do you want to discuss the The Bull of Innocent VIII...or should I submit myself to the Inquisitor now?

:spanishinq:

As for arguing from the position of natural reason that fallible humans cannot possess the ability to promote and ascribe an "infallible" doctrine...well, guys, albert has us there because it is claimed that God can supernaturally guide and enlighten men, individually or collectively via the unfalsifiable condition of being "inspired".

Not surprising, only those who accept this standpoint regarding their own particular deity/religion can remain armored against rational dissent no matter how reasoned.

This near-magical condition of "divine inspiration" does not appear to be the monopoly of the RCC, however, and therein lies a good deal of the problem.

:wink:

[Sweetie]

Somebody should ask Albert why he calls himself a "Traditional Catholic" -- which implies he's strongly in favour of the Tridentine Mass --- if he doesn't think the Catholic Church can contradict itself every now and then.

This is albert's baby so he can have it, lol, except I'll comment a little on this post. I am a traditional Catholic but not a Traditionalist. It just means to me that I think that it's irrational to be Catholic and be a Liberal Catholic so I must qualify sometimes with the term "traditional." He may mean something other by it but I thought he made a reference somewhere to the Pope (JPII) as if he was a valid Pope which would mean that he was not a Traditionalist, or at least, not from what my understanding of what Traditionalists are.

And of course Albert's stance relies on one massive underlying premise -- he claims the Catholic Church does not contradict itself on the grounds that ex cathedra pronouncements are never contradicted (though they might get explained away later).

Whatever he claims, he did point out a way for you to investigate these things yourself instead of just throwing aspersions and doubt. He would probably prefer as I do that you deal in specific examples so they can be met with a body of evidence as opposed to making general statements.

But this of course doesn't even come near to tackling the whole rest of what the Catholic Church proclaims officially, which has often been contradictory.
Galileo, anyone ?

This is why he specifies Dogma and dogmatic development. Galileo really has nothing to do with that.

Or ask why celibacy is normally required of Catholic clergy, but not of Maronite clergy -- and the Maronite Church is an official daughter church of the Roman Catholic one. Or the Anglican clergy who were allowed, while married, into the Catholic Church in the late 1980's and early 1990's.
Or...... how about Papal claims about the Jews ? Care to explain the astonishing volte face reversals over the cneturies on that one ?

Just a couple of small things.


In the context of what he is speaking, those are nothing but it's been a while since I argued them so I don't recall specifics. As far as I can recall it is only a rule and not a dogmatic pronouncement, the rule of celibacy can be changed which is why when albert is speaking, he's making that distinction------> Dogma.

[Sweetie]

As for arguing from the position of natural reason that fallible humans cannot possess the ability to promote and ascribe an "infallible" doctrine...well, guys, albert has us there because it is claimed that God can supernaturally guide and enlighten men, individually or collectively via the unfalsifiable condition of being "inspired".

:chin:

Not surprising, only those who accept this standpoint regarding their own particular deity/religion can remain armored against rational dissent no matter how reasoned.

This near-magical condition of "divine inspiration" does not appear to be the monopoly of the RCC, however, and therein lies a good deal of the problem.

:wink:

:chin:


Could you restate?

[Gurdur]

Whatever he claims, he did point out a way for you to investigate these things yourself instead of just throwing aspersions and doubt. He would probably prefer as I do that you deal in specific examples so they can be met with a body of evidence as opposed to making general statements.
You must have missed where I gave three specific examples, plus I drew out the fact that Albert is relying on ex cathedra dogmas, while ignoring the rest of Catholic Church pronouncements over the years, to try supporting his tenuous assertion that the Church never contradicts itself.

This is why he specifies Dogma and dogmatic development. Galileo really has nothing to do with that.
This is why I specifically pointed out the fact that Albert is relying on ex cathedra dogmas, while ignoring the rest of Catholic Church pronouncements (and non-ex-cathedra dogmas) over the years, to try supporting his tenuous assertion that the Church never contradicts itself.

......In the context of what he is speaking, those are nothing but it's been a while since I argued them so I don't recall specifics. As far as I can recall it is only a rule and not a dogmatic pronouncement, the rule of celibacy can be changed
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiighht, which is just one reason why the Church has indeed often contradicted itself --- as soon as you get away from ex cathedra pronouncements.
which is why when albert is speaking, he's making that distinction------> Dogma.
Also right, which is why I specifically noted the fact that Albert is relying on ex cathedra dogmas, while ignoring the rest of Catholic Church pronouncements over the years, to try supporting his tenuous assertion that the Church never contradicts itself.

[Sweetie]

You must have missed where I gave three specific examples, plus I drew out the fact that Albert is relying on ex cathedra dogmas, while ignoring the rest of Catholic Church pronouncements over the years, to try supporting his tenuous assertion that the Church never contradicts itself.

This is the problem, let's get it straight now or let's argue for pages over simple assertions that are misunderstood.

I doubt he's aruging that the Church never contradicts itself, I don't recall him arguing that, he seems to be arguing that the Church never contradicts itself domatically, there is a big difference which I don't think you know or see at present and it's why me and him and maybe any other Catholic that wanders into this thread might get annoyed real fast, lol.


This is why I specifically pointed out the fact that Albert is relying on ex cathedra dogmas, while ignoring the rest of Catholic Church pronouncements (and non-ex-cathedra dogmas) over the years, to try supporting his tenuous assertion that the Church never contradicts itself.

I guess yeah, take that up with him, I didn't notice him asserting that and if he did, it was most likely a misstatement or a statement not in it's full context with correct qualifiers surrounding it.


Riiiiiiiiiiiiiighht, which is just one reason why the Church has indeed often contradicted itself --- as soon as you get away from ex cathedra pronouncements.

There are rules, there are laws, there are ways of handling things in the Church that work at some time and not others, the Church is a government essentially. No, please understand this, all that the Church chooses to do or any manner in which they choose to operate is not guaranteed to be perfect.

The only thing which has anything to do with what we are speaking of is when it comes to a matter of faith and morals. Infallibility only relates to this sphere, not others. Not what they eat for breakfast or who they choose to hire or fire, or whether or not they agreed or disagreed with this or that person before something was made official.

Also right, which is why I specifically noted the fact that Albert is relying on ex cathedra dogmas, while ignoring the rest of Catholic Church pronouncements over the years, to try supporting his tenuous assertion that the Church never contradicts itself.

If that is indeed his claim, then he'll have to restate but I never noticed that was his claim.

[Ronin]

As for arguing from the position of natural reason that fallible humans cannot possess the ability to promote and ascribe an "infallible" doctrine...well, guys, albert has us there because it is claimed that God can supernaturally guide and enlighten men, individually or collectively via the unfalsifiable condition of being "inspired".

:chin:

Not surprising, only those who accept this standpoint regarding their own particular deity/religion can remain armored against rational dissent no matter how reasoned.

This near-magical condition of "divine inspiration" does not appear to be the monopoly of the RCC, however, and therein lies a good deal of the problem.

:wink:

:chin:


Could you restate?


Well, I think my statements are certainly clear. I'm not sure what points you have missed, Sweetie.

Let me try.

Assorted "imperfect" humans can "unfalsifiably" state that, even though they (the human/s) will always be fallible (imperfect)...God (the greatests unfalsifiable) can "inspire" infallible doctrine "through" men/groups of men for the respective adherents to obey.

voila...no rational/reasonable argument can touch that claim.

I'll also restate:

This near-magical condition of "divine inspiration" does not appear to be the monopoly of the RCC, however, and therein lies a good deal of the problem.

Can you disprove the contradictory claim of the Protestant minister that God inspires doctrine contrary to the "infallible" RCC doctrine?

In this way such claims to "infallibility" are unfalsifiable in spite of assorted "divinely inspired" representative men claiming that particular individual power.

[Sweetie]

Assorted "imperfect" humans can "unfalsifiably" state that, even though they (the human/s) will always be fallible (imperfect)...God (the greatests unfalsifiable) can "inspire" infallible doctrine "through" men/groups of men for the respective adherents to obey.

voila...no rational/reasonable argument can touch that claim.

I suppose my problem is, well, I suppose one would have to start at the beginning of why they would believe it really, to get anywhere which unfortunately would begin with why one might believe in God at all.

But this is considered a negative gift, and yes we do believe in the Holy Spirit, we believe for instance, that all twelve of the Apostles had the gift of infallibility as far as public revelation was concerned both oral and written.

It is an article of faith, you may believe or not. I believe it because I think there is a God and like albert, all other belief systems don't cut the mustard so to speak, to me at least. So it's like, if there is a God then what should we be able to rationally expect and if that isn't met, then this cannot be true but if this is true and this is consistent then this is the only thing one can logically conclude therefore you must accept or be...well, whatever I would be, intellectually dishonest.

It's like the idea of a Christ walking into our midst and saying I have something to tell you, do you believe it or not? Do you judge that I speak the truth or not?

It's like St. Paul who cried in the streets, where is the debator of this age, I'll take him one, what have you got to offer me, I'll meet you and I'll show you why. Who walked into a pagan temple and said look, you already have this God, you just don't see Him, you don't know Him but here He is.

Now, we do believe in the living God, the Padre, the Filis and the Spritus Sancte.

The Holy Spirit. Yes, we believe He is active in our lives, He is doing something with each of us and particularily in the Church. We believe that Christ existed, that He had something to tell us, a message, a truth and that truth and message is meaningless if it can't be discerned so we believe He gave us a means to discern it because that's part of the point of His coming.

So yes, consider ridiculous or no, we do believe in a living, moving, acting powerfully behind the scenes God and we do indeed believe that when speaking on matters of faith and morals officially, when the Church is acting in her teaching capacity then she is infallible, the Holy Spirit does indeed protect her from error because God's people need it. God is meeting our needs in this way.

Now, as to the question of whether or not God can inspire this and see it done, that is no question.

An idea you raise is how can fallible humans decide that some humans are infallible because we will only fallibly know it. However that is put, I think that claim can be met but it needs to be broken down. The quote below at least, meets some of the ideas you present.


This near-magical condition of "divine inspiration" does not appear to be the monopoly of the RCC, however, and therein lies a good deal of the problem.

Can you disprove the contradictory claim of the Protestant minister that God inspires doctrine contrary to the "infallible" RCC doctrine?

I would claim that one can not logically be Protestant at all. I have said it before and I'll say it again, I am either Catholic or nihilist and that is not a question of preference, if I had to choose for myself what I wanted to believe I'd probably choose neither.

"If God could make man the organ of His revealed Word, is it impossible for Him to make man it's infallibe guardian and interpreter? For surely, greater is the Apostle who gives us the inspired Word than the Pope who preserves it from error......

Let us see, sir, whether an infallible Bible is sufficient for you. Either you are infallibly certain that your interpreation of the Bible is correct or you are not.

If you are infallibly certain, then you assert for yourself, and of course for every reader of the Scripture, a personal infallibility which you deny to the Pope, and which we claim only fro him. You make every man his own Pope.

If you are not infallibly certain that you understand the true meaning of the whole Bible...then, I ask, of what use to use ithe objective infallibility of the Bible without an infallible interpreter?"

James Cardinal Gibbons

In this way such claims to "infallibility" are unfalsifiable in spite of assorted "divinely inspired" representative men claiming that particular individual power.

I'm really having trouble discerning your arguement here but I think there's more to it than meets the eye, as far as you thinking the objections are so clear and simple as well as the arguements.

Do I feel like delving? Ack, I don't know.

The claim of "infallibility" itself is falsifiable as is too, the claim of the existence of God, or at least as far as I'm concerned, to me it's just all about what you consider to be a "reasonable" test of viability.

But, I alluded to the following idea before but I'll restate it more clearly. In my eyes, the case is that I either accept that the Church and only the Church has this divine gift or I reject Christianity at least entirely. So for me either Catholicism is true and indeed, Catholic claims to infallibility are viable, or I reject Christianity entirely, and for me I think possibly theism entirely. :chin: I always wondered whether or not I would be able to retain Judaism perhaps. Don't think I could retain deism.

I do not think that Liberal Christians for instance, have a good enough grounds to hold the faith, Protestants I think their main test is in question and falls under the weight of Catholic considerations, Mormonism, well I might as well believe in Ishtar, etc., etc.

[Sweetie]

As far as for why I would accept the Church but reject Protestantism, their claims to knowing what Christ "really said," there is a question, as albert raised, of continuity something that Newman studied and wrote about in his "An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine," which of course, caused his own conversion from being an Anglican clergyman to becoming a Catholic Cardinal, and not just any Cardinal, the Father of the Second Vatican Council.

So the idea of Apostolic succesion is one test. The Early Church Fathers and what they taught another. The fact that Protestantism is only five hundred years old and the fact that many of their beliefs indeed, especially their contradictory ones, they have removed a possible test to verify them and it's clear that their belief systems as far as doctrine is concerned, is untenable.

"Principle is a better test of heresy than doctrine. Heretics are true to their principles, but change to and for, backwards and forwards, in opinion; for very opposite doctrines may be exemplifications of the same principle....."

Cardinal John Henry Newman

As well:

"The Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there was a safe truth, it is this. And Protestantism....as a whole, feels it, and has felt it. This is shown in the determination...of dispensing with historical Christianity altogether, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone....."

Which is indeed, an unfalsifiable state of affairs except to test the principle, therefore I reject that unworkable principle which is generally as far as Protestants are concerned, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Now, the question of the infallibility of the Church. Is it falsifiable? There is a test of principle first off, and then albert has already set down another test, the dogmatic paper trail, for instance.

Any other tests you can think of?

[Ronin]

Assorted "imperfect" humans can "unfalsifiably" state that, even though they (the human/s) will always be fallible (imperfect)...God (the greatests unfalsifiable) can "inspire" infallible doctrine "through" men/groups of men for the respective adherents to obey.

voila...no rational/reasonable argument can touch that claim.

I suppose my problem is, well, I suppose one would have to start at the beginning of why they would believe it really, to get anywhere which unfortunately would begin with why one might believe in God at all.

Precisely, Sweetie.

And since "God" and "Divine inspiration" are unfalsifiable and unqualifiable any adherent that asserts that they believe in "God"(s) who "divinely inspire" their doctrine is untouchable.

Granted, you can go on and on about how come your religion is more "divinely inspired" or singularly so from your particular unfalsifiable "God", however, that is where I say the problem lies.

It is equivalent to arguing over pretend friends and the magic power they have, in my view.

But this is considered a negative gift, and yes we do believe in the Holy Spirit, we believe for instance, that all twelve of the Apostles had the gift of infallibility as far as public revelation was concerned both oral and written.

I'm not arguing what you "believe", I'm arguing that it is no more falsifiable as any other supernatural claim.

That is my point.

It is an article of faith, you may believe or not.

I agree and I said as much in my post:

As for arguing from the position of natural reason that fallible humans cannot possess the ability to promote and ascribe an "infallible" doctrine...well, guys, albert has us there because it is claimed that God can supernaturally guide and enlighten men, individually or collectively via the unfalsifiable condition of being "inspired".

He "believes" it (as, I assume, do you) so there is no amount of natural reasoning can touch it.

One first has to believe in unfalsifiable Gods/Goddesses and their unfalsifiable power to "divinely inspire" fallible humans into infallible doctrine.

No claim has any more real weight than the other.


I believe it because I think there is a God and like albert, all other belief systems don't cut the mustard so to speak, to me at least.

I don't doubt that a bit and that is my point. Adherents of other belief systems believe that your belief system doesn't "cut the mustard" in the same way.

They are as unfalsifiable as any proposed divine power I give my lucky rabbit's foot.


So it's like, if there is a God then what should we be able to rationally expect and if that isn't met, then this cannot be true but if this is true and this is consistent then this is the only thing one can logically conclude therefore you must accept or be...well, whatever I would be, intellectually dishonest.

But, Sweetie, the important question (as always in these discussions) which God(s)ess(es) to accept as each claim to "logical" divine inspiration are as unfalsifiable as the other.

It's like the idea of a Christ walking into our midst and saying I have something to tell you, do you believe it or not? Do you judge that I speak the truth or not?

Well, it's also like the invisible fire breathing dragon I keep in my garage that grants wishes, do you believe it or not? Do you judge that I speak the truth or not?

See what I mean?

It's like St. Paul who cried in the streets, where is the debator of this age, I'll take him one, what have you got to offer me, I'll meet you and I'll show you why. Who walked into a pagan temple and said look, you already have this God, you just don't see Him, you don't know Him but here He is.

See my dragon analogy above.

Now, we do believe in the living God, the Padre, the Filis and the Spritus Sancte.

The Holy Spirit. Yes, we believe He is active in our lives, He is doing something with each of us and particularily in the Church. We believe that Christ existed, that He had something to tell us, a message, a truth and that truth and message is meaningless if it can't be discerned so we believe He gave us a means to discern it because that's part of the point of His coming.

See my dragon analogy above.

So yes, consider ridiculous or no, we do believe in a living, moving, acting powerfully behind the scenes God and we do indeed believe that when speaking on matters of faith and morals officially, when the Church is acting in her teaching capacity then she is infallible, the Holy Spirit does indeed protect her from error because God's people need it. God is meeting our needs in this way.

Once again, see my dragon analogy above. Also, I am not saying people don't believe in all sorts of these types of things.

I am saying that albert's is as untouchable to reasonable examination as the next one.

Now, as to the question of whether or not God can inspire this and see it done, that is no question.

Certainly it is a question, Sweetie. It is just an unfalsifiable one.

Again, which "God(s)ess(s)" inspire this and see "it" done?

Why don't you believe in my wish-granting invisible Dragon and the inspiration She inspires?

An idea you raise is how can fallible humans decide that some humans are infallible because we will only fallibly know it. However that is put, I think that claim can be met but it needs to be broken down. The quote below at least, meets some of the ideas you present.

No you missed the point.

I am saying that it anyone making the claim that they were "divinely inspired" by an infalllible unfalsifiable invisible being to promote a doctrine from said being and, therefore, the doctrine is "infallible" will always be untouchable.

That is why there are conflicting "holy men" with claims to "divine inspiration" running around the world.


This near-magical condition of "divine inspiration" does not appear to be the monopoly of the RCC, however, and therein lies a good deal of the problem.

Can you disprove the contradictory claim of the Protestant minister that God inspires doctrine contrary to the "infallible" RCC doctrine?

I would claim that one can not logically be Protestant at all. I have said it before and I'll say it again, I am either Catholic or nihilist and that is not a question of preference, if I had to choose for myself what I wanted to believe I'd probably choose neither.

Precisely, Sweetie, now you are getting it.

"If God could make man the organ of His revealed Word, is it impossible for Him to make man it's infallibe guardian and interpreter? For surely, greater is the Apostle who gives us the inspired Word than the Pope who preserves it from error......

That's is a mighty big "If", Sweetie.

And one that applies to my invisible Dragon as well.

By what authority other than said unfalsifiable invisible beings can either of us say we are more right?

What of all the other unfalsifiable claims and their claims to "Truth"?

Let us see, sir, whether an infallible Bible is sufficient for you. Either you are infallibly certain that your interpreation of the Bible is correct or you are not.

If you are infallibly certain, then you assert for yourself, and of course for every reader of the Scripture, a personal infallibility which you deny to the Pope, and which we claim only fro him. You make every man his own Pope.

What you completely miss is that it is not I who ever claims infallibility, Sweetie, and that makes all the difference in the world between my worldview and those of supernaturalists.

If you are not infallibly certain that you understand the true meaning of the whole Bible...then, I ask, of what use to use ithe objective infallibility of the Bible without an infallible interpreter?"

James Cardinal Gibbons

Answer: None at all.

Now you know a significant reason why I am an atheist.

:yup:

In this way such claims to "infallibility" are unfalsifiable in spite of assorted "divinely inspired" representative men claiming that particular individual power.

I'm really having trouble discerning your arguement here but I think there's more to it than meets the eye, as far as you thinking the objections are so clear and simple as well as the arguements.

Do I feel like delving? Ack, I don't know.

The claim of "infallibility" itself is falsifiable as is too, the claim of the existence of God, or at least as far as I'm concerned, to me it's just all about what you consider to be a "reasonable" test of viability.

As the other adherents of other religion do, Sweetie.

My invisible Dragon awaits your refutations.

But, I alluded to the following idea before but I'll restate it more clearly. In my eyes, the case is that I either accept that the Church and only the Church has this divine gift or I reject Christianity at least entirely. So for me either Catholicism is true and indeed, Catholic claims to infallibility are viable, or I reject Christianity entirely, and for me I think possibly theism entirely. :chin: I always wondered whether or not I would be able to retain Judaism perhaps. Don't think I could retain deism.

I do not think that Liberal Christians for instance, have a good enough grounds to hold the faith, Protestants I think their main test is in question and falls under the weight of Catholic considerations, Mormonism, well I might as well believe in Ishtar, etc., etc.

This is the precise point I am making and have said so:

Not surprising, only those who accept this standpoint regarding their own particular deity/religion can remain armored against rational dissent no matter how reasoned.

I still think you and albert and TomJoe and MissShelby and many members of my own family are really cool folks. The Southern Baptist bunch were a little grouchy with me for awhile, but they've come to see that I'm not a sick degenerate like they've been taught.

:wave:

[Ronin]

Now, the question of the infallibility of the Church. Is it falsifiable? There is a test of principle first off, and then albert has already set down another test, the dogmatic paper trail, for instance.

Any other tests you can think of?

Sweetie, the "dogmatic paper trail" was written by the very men who claim unfalsifiable "divine inspiration" from the equally unfalsifiable invisible "divine being".

Men have been doing that since the first lightning strike, the men of the RCC are simply no different.

[Sweetie]

And since "God" and "Divine inspiration" are unfalsifiable and unqualifiable any adherent that asserts that they believe in "God"(s) who "divinely inspire" their doctrine is untouchable.

Yeah well, albert already and rightly so jumped on you guys for this distinction because it was not part of the arguement. The question is what is infallible, what does it mean, what is included in that?

Though I have already set down a few thoughts on why it's not in fact, untouchable or unfalsifiable. Technically alot of things are unprovable, but that doesn't make them unfalsifiable for practical purposes for the rationalist. It may be for instance, that the existence of God is unprovable or provable but you believe that you have a good enough reason not to accept that God exists, correct? It's the same thing for many of us, there's reason enough for me to hold the existence of God as true. It is falsifiable, I do not believe it unconditionally. Whether or not I can ultimately prove it or disprove my question is not only is it rational to believe it, but is there reason to so as far as tests of falsifiability are concerned, we are on the same wavelength as Christian and atheist so don't bring this unfalsifiable bullhooey up again, k? :P

It is equivalent to arguing over pretend friends and the magic power they have, in my view.

Right, your view being itself unprovable or provable by your stated premise. :yup:

And drop the fairy/pretend imaginary friends crap. It's a condition for me, take it or leave it but that's how it is.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=15465081#post15465081

I'm not arguing what you "believe", I'm arguing that it is no more falsifiable as any other supernatural claim.

That is my point.

Got your point, just think it eats its own tail.

He "believes" it (as, I assume, do you) so there is no amount of natural reasoning can touch it.

False, for me at least. In much the same way that you or I hold that Pro-Life is the most rational stance, so too I think that natural law, with or without divine revelation, asserts that holding the existence of God as a fact is the most rational assumption to hold, it's the only way you may live, think, breathe and be human, but that's kinda cryptic and it too, is another day.

No claim has any more real weight than the other.

I and many others, disagree. How well do you know the case?

I don't doubt that a bit and that is my point. Adherents of other belief systems believe that your belief system doesn't "cut the mustard" in the same way.

Right, which means nothing. Eight out of ten math students can come up with a wrong and/or unworkable answer. Does that mean their answer is the equivalent to the teacher and the other two?

Like I said, how well do you know the cases?

Some thoughts as an aside:
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0020.html

[Crumb]

It is falsifiable
So you will have no problem giving us an example of an observation/event or experiment that would prove to you that the god you believe in doesn't exist then?

Right, which means nothing. Eight out of ten math students can come up with a wrong and/or unworkable answer. Does that mean their answer is the equivalent to the teacher and the other two?
They are equivalent if there is no objective way to test them to determine which is right. In math there usually is though.

If ten people are all making different claims as to what a rock is thinking, is that equivalent to my (and probably your) view that rocks don't have thoughts?

[Sweetie]

It is falsifiable
So you will have no problem giving us an example of an observation/event or experiment that would prove to you that the god you believe in doesn't exist then?

1. Profer a plausible alternative that isn't founded on the idea that logical impossibilities are possible. Who knows, they well may be but I cannot reach that conclusion without assuming that they aren't so then it just crashes in on itself and we might as well not speak at all. Practically speaking then, that idea is useless and unworkable like Sola Scriptura.

2. Profer an arguement that isn't inconsistent with it's conclusion.




They are equivalent if there is no objective way to test them to determine which is right. In math there usually is though.

And I offer reason as the test for religion. Archbishop Fulton Sheen: "The Church is madly in love with rationalism."

If ten people are all making different claims as to what a rock is thinking, is that equivalent to my (and probably your) view that rocks don't have thoughts?

No. My point is simply just because other religions that disagree exist does not mean that they are equally correct and that if you apply reason, that doesn't mean that they will all pass the test unscathed and intact. My view is that they in fact, will not. Only the Church comes out the other side internally consistent, logically plausible, etc. in my view which may not e your view. "There are many angles at which one falls and only one on which he rises." Chesterton

That is why I'm Catholic and not any one of those other religions. Alot of Liberal Christians will say that Christ didn't even have to exist and they'd still be Christian. If you could give me good enough reason to think He didn't in fact exist, I would not be Christian, for instance.

Some Fundamentalists might say that even if you could take them back to the tomb and it could be proven that Christ did not in fact rise from the dead, they would still believe, I would not.

[Crumb]

1. Profer a plausible alternative ...

2. Profer an arguement ...
But any theory should stand on its own regardless of alternatives. I am not supporting an alternative here at this moment. I am looking for you to provide a way to falsify your (Catholicism's) god claim.

For instance, if you asked me for a way to falsify Newton's theory of gravity, I could tell you that if you found two masses that did not attract each other gravitationally that that would prove his theory wrong. (Notice I am not mentioning an alternative explanation) Another thing that could falsify Newton's theory would be to find that two masses that were attracted to each other with a stronger gravitational force than Newton's theory predicts.

Either of these findings would require an abandonment or an alteration of Newton's theory, but I can state them without referring to any alternate theory.

If your god claim is truly falsifiable you should be able to do the same.

[albert cipriani]

Hi Sweetie,
I thought I was alone here. Nice to know I’ve got a partner, and one who is well-read. You’re doing fine handling the heathens without any help from me. But let me know if you want my input on anything. The only thing I noticed is this:

“I specifically noted the fact that Albert is relying on ex cathedra dogmas, while ignoring the rest of Catholic Church pronouncements over the years, to try supporting his tenuous assertion that the Church never contradicts itself.”

Let’s see, the Church has got hundreds of infallible dogmas on the books and there’s only been two ex cathedra infallible dogmas promulgated since the dogma of ex cathedra infallibility itself was defined 100 years ago. Doing the math… 100’s minus 2 is… let’s see, either Albert can’t subtract or you have a vested interest in infallible dogmas not adding up. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

P.S. Sweetie, you might want to check out my Traditionalist website and religious philosophy newsletter:
http://www.geocities.com/albert_cipriani/index.html
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ReligiousPhilosophy/

[Gurdur]

The devolution of all religions is approaching warp speed. The Roman Catholic religion, as a result of its Second Vatican Council in the early 1960's, was the last to join the rout of faith.
From Albert's website.
Well, yeah, looks like my guess about Albert was completely correct.
Not too much fellowship with other Catholics there.

[JoeP]

This is albert's baby so he can have it, lol, except I'll comment a little on this post. I am a traditional Catholic but not a Traditionalist. It just means to me that I think that it's irrational to be Catholic and be a Liberal Catholic so I must qualify sometimes with the term "traditional." He may mean something other by it but I thought he made a reference somewhere to the Pope (JPII) as if he was a valid Pope which would mean that he was not a Traditionalist, or at least, not from what my understanding of what Traditionalists are.
Sweetie, I got a strong sense that there was something here I wanted to understand, but I didn't get it. Can you elaborate?
I doubt he's aruging that the Church never contradicts itself, I don't recall him arguing that
His position was that the Catholic Church is the only one that claims infallibility. In all your interesting discussions of infallibility later in the thread, I haven't seen anything that would help me understand this claim to have any meaning except a petty playground insult.

Except:
If you are infallibly certain, then you assert for yourself, and of course for every reader of the Scripture, a personal infallibility which you deny to the Pope, and which we claim only fro him. You make every man his own Pope.
Infallibility is infallibility in the formal body and process of the Church, and embodies an explicit denial of the possible of certain knowledge by the individual (such as the Protestants, and most extremely the Gnostics, claim). Is this a fair statement?

My reaction to it is that it makes us all children and denies the most important parts of our humanity. It doesn't seem consistent with being made "in God's image". (Except under a theory I have about God's role vs whose image we were actually created in, but that's probably not one to bring up now.)

[Ronin]

Sweetie and albert, you are only making my point for me.

Not surprising, only those who accept this standpoint regarding their own particular deity/religion can remain armored against rational dissent no matter how reasoned.

I understand that Catholicism hapens to be the particular unfalsifiable religious claim regarding an invisible supernatural deity that you accept and now you have shown how you are armored against rational dissent no matter how reasoned.

I'll add that you are also armored against the cognitive dissonance that cannot disprove other unfalsifiable religious claims of equal merit...namely, appeal to documents written by fallible men "divinely inspired", tradition, etc. when there are other fallible men making the same claim to "divine inspiration" and those who's traditions date even further back.

And drop the fairy/pretend imaginary friends crap. It's a condition for me, take it or leave it but that's how it is.

No.

It is the issue that applies directly to the point I address and you cannot refute.

I am not "mocking" your belief, Sweetie, I am saying that it is as unfalsifiable as any of the others and you have to "accept" RC in order to shield yourself against any dissent from others.

Again, going back to my initial response:

...well, guys, albert has us there because it is claimed that God can supernaturally guide and enlighten men, individually or collectively via the unfalsifiable condition of being "inspired".

I admit that I cannot present any argument against any unfalsifiable claim to being "divinely inspired" even in the face of contradictory claims from the representatives of assorted religions.

In my view it is better to live your life as if there are no God(s)ess(es), and try to make the world a better place for your being in it. If there is no God(s)ess(es), you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent God(s)ess(es), S/He/They will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you "believed" in them and/or, more importantly, their human representatives who claim to speak for them.

I don't claim that view is infallible, nor do I claim that it is divinely inspired...it is just practical and requires far less mental gymnastics to live by.

I understand you disagree and I understand why you must.

[Ronin]

By the way, I find this view extremely fascinating:

I have said it before and I'll say it again, I am either Catholic or nihilist and that is not a question of preference, if I had to choose for myself what I wanted to believe I'd probably choose neither.

First, I am amazed that there are only two options to choose from.

Last, I am amazed that you assert that you have no choice and, if you did have a choice, you would choose neither.

The reason I find this so interesting is that my view is that it is certainly possible to choose neither Catholicism nor nihilism and am curious why such freedom of choice is so impossibly difficult for you.

[albert cipriani]

Looks like my guess about Albert was completely correct.
Not too much fellowship with other Catholics there.

Right you are. Fellowship is overrated. You want fellowship, jump ship for the Protestant lifeboats.

Catholicism has seven sacraments. Protestants have, at most, three. So they offer fellowship as a cheep substitute. Don't be taken in by that shell game. -- Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

[Gurdur]

Gosh.
So now we're playing onemanupship with the number of sacraments ???
:eek:

[albert cipriani]

“Sweetie: I am either Catholic or nihilist and that is not a question of preference, if I had to choose for myself what I wanted to believe I'd probably choose neither.”
Ronin: First, I am amazed that there are only two options to choose from. Last, I am amazed that you assert that you have no choice and, if you did have a choice, you would choose neither.”

Since I feel exactly as Sweetie does… Stand aside, Sweetie. I’ll handle this.

Nihilism is the philosophy of last resort, that is, the philosophy for when all philosophies have broken down. It’s the non-refuge of honest scoundrels.

Catholicism stands as the exact antithesis of nihilism. It is a cathedral of consistency, a marbled edifice of reason and poetry. Only trouble is, gee whiz, it’s built over a snake pit of unpalatable dogmas.

We’ve got hell for just about everybody and purgatory for the rest, penance, the cross and a million moral obligations. Only a masochist would be fool enough to choose Catholicism, that is, unless Catholicism just so happened to be the most rational religion. Like Quantum Mechanics, which Richard Feynman :feynman: described as the most absurd theory science has ever come up whose only redeeming feature is that it has proven itself to be experimentally correct, Catholicism has nothing going for it either… except its undeniable truth.

But let’s say Catholic truths ARE falsified. You guys find the bones of Jesus or a new council contradicts a de fide dogma of some prior council or all the bishops are killed such that apostolic succession ceases, then (as when after all the Levite priests in the Jewish religion were killed by the Romans and Judaism ceased to exist as a religion) Catholicism would cease to exist as a religion. It would not be that we ceased being Catholic, but that Catholics ceased to be.

Then, after having been passengers on this world’s premier luxury liner that sunk, how could you expect us to settle for a Protestant dingy or some Unitarian raft or some animist swim team? :rubeyes: We’d rather remain marooned on the nihilistic isle of our discontent with reality than embark on the pretense of having escaped from it in so logically riddled with holes and un-seaworthy a vessel as any other religion. :slice: – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

[Crumb]

What do you mean by nihilism, ac?

(Do you mind if I call you ac? :wink: )

[Ronin]

Since you answered for Sweetie, albert, is that some sort of normal Catholic dichotomy (It's either Catholicism or it's nihilism) and subsequent canned response?

I only ask because you seem prepared and also very confident that is how Sweetie would respond.

[Ronin]

What do you mean by nihilism, ac?

Good question, Crumb.

Is it that other worldviews with ethical and moral systems based on something other than "Christ" are (by default) considered "nihilistic", therefore explaining the dichotomy that the only choices are Catholicism or "nihilism"?

[albert cipriani]

“Since you answered for Sweetie, albert, is that some sort of normal Catholic dichotomy (It's either Catholicism or it's nihilism) and subsequent canned response?”

Right. The nuns drilled us in how to cover for one another back in our CCD classes. It's a secret codicil of Catholic dogma to function as wing men for the ladies… and besides if we don’t we’ll get double-triple detention.

“Canned response?!” I thought it was the most eloquent thing I writ today. Ut oh, here come da nuns! I should have never revealed Catholic secrets to the unwashed. Ow! Ouch! Don’t hit me there! – Albert

[Ronin]

“Since you answered for Sweetie, albert, is that some sort of normal Catholic dichotomy (It's either Catholicism or it's nihilism) and subsequent canned response?”

Right. The nuns drilled us in how to cover for one another back in our CCD classes. It's a secret codicil of Catholic dogma to function as wing men for the ladies… and besides if we don’t we’ll get double-triple detention.

“Canned response?!” I thought it was the most eloquent thing I writ today. Ut oh, here come da nuns! I should have never revealed Catholic secrets to the unwashed. Ow! Ouch! Don’t hit me there! – Albert

Well, I was being serious albert.

I was sincerely wondering why there are only two choices.

This is the closest I think I am going to get to some sort of explanation:

We’d rather remain marooned on the nihilistic isle of our discontent with reality than embark on the pretense of having escaped from it in so logically riddled with holes and un-seaworthy a vessel as any other religion.

What proof is there that any other religion is "logically riddled with holes and unseaworthy a vessel" (very eloquent, btw).

By the way, it seems as though, both you and Sweetie are assuming that I am attacking Catholicism when I am not.

I am saying that there is no arguing "infallibility" with you when the unfalsifiable claims of "deity" and "divine inspiration" bestowed upon fallible men deriving "infallible" doctrine are made.

Secondarily, I am also saying that the RCC holds no monopoly on such claims and that others are equally unarguable.

I'm not debating the Catholic claims any more than I am debating the Protestant, Unitarian, animist claims.

I'm fully admitting that since they are equally unfalsifiable (and based upon supernatural beliefs) then there is no argument that can be made against them regarding infallibility.

[beyelzu]

damn ronin

:bow:

[JoeP]

I think we're on the other side of the looking glass.

This "I am either Catholic or nihilist and that is not a question of preference, if I had to choose for myself what I wanted to believe I'd probably choose neither" sounds like arguments I've heard from suicidal people. "I can't ever be happy so the logical best thing is to kill myself." There is a pretence at logic here, but it's a sham.

In the same vein, "We’d rather remain marooned on the nihilistic isle of our discontent with reality than embark on the pretense of having escaped from it in so logically riddled with holes and un-seaworthy a vessel as any other religion." You're not seeing the same reality as people in other belief systems.

I'm still waiting for any meaningful views on why other religions make less claim to infallibility (the number of sacraments, the amount of pronouncements, the length of history are worse than hollow). It's sounding more and more like this claim is a deliberate self-blinding - attributes of a cult. In fact, the statements being made here don't sound anything I've ever heard from catholic friends.

btw, like Ronin, I'm not attacking catholicism. I'm just trying to understand what the heck albert's statement about infallibility could possibly mean. That said, I do wish we had active speakers from other denominations and religions here. I have no idea how a protestant would respond to these statements, and I would like to hear a Jewish and Muslim pov as well.

[Sweetie]

But any theory should stand on its own regardless of alternatives. I am not supporting an alternative here at this moment. I am looking for you to provide a way to falsify your (Catholicism's) god claim.

For instance, if you asked me for a way to falsify Newton's theory of gravity, I could tell you that if you found two masses that did not attract each other gravitationally that that would prove his theory wrong. (Notice I am not mentioning an alternative explanation) Another thing that could falsify Newton's theory would be to find that two masses that were attracted to each other with a stronger gravitational force than Newton's theory predicts.

Either of these findings would require an abandonment or an alteration of Newton's theory, but I can state them without referring to any alternate theory.

If your god claim is truly falsifiable you should be able to do the same.

I'll have to study and focus on the question for a while. My problem is that in my eyes theism is the only possiblly tenable theory so whether or not it can be falsified is negligible if no other theory can rationally be held.

I just got to the point where I decided that I couldn't take the theory down not because I wasn't capable or that it wasn't possible but because the theory is actually true and if not true, it's the only thing we can assume and so for all practical purposes, it might as well be true.

I mean, as far as that goes, in my eyes I've already answered your question. The only theory that can be formed, find a flaw or an impossibility, a logical inconsistency and the only really tenable theory falls and we're left with something akin to nihilism, silence and nothingness, even though I happen to think that "theory" has it's flaws too, lol, which just pushes me back into the bosom of Catholicism. For me it's just about being on the boat that isn't leaking and some are leaking profusely, maybe that one boat goes down too but it was the only logical choice.

So technically speaking, the existence of God may be unprovable so too His non-existence, but is the theory tenable is the question and that is my test of falsifiability. In theory indeed, I have proven or disproven nothing by accepting or rejecting a theory, in theory logic may have no real value, I don't know, but for me it is about accepting or rejecting plausibe or implausible theories.

"If God didn't exist it would be necessary that we create Him." - Voltaire

[Sweetie]

From Albert's website.
Well, yeah, looks like my guess about Albert was completely correct.
Not too much fellowship with other Catholics there.

Seems so. :yup:

[Sweetie]

Sweetie, I got a strong sense that there was something here I wanted to understand, but I didn't get it. Can you elaborate?

Oh, well I know very little about Traditionalists except for a general understanding of what I thought were regular usages of terms.

From what I understand and once again, I am not well versed on the subject we have the words traditional and liberal, as well as Traditionalist, for instance. My definition of the terms traditional means holding to the traditional creeds of the Church, liberal means in some ways, straying from them and advancing more modern ideals and Traditionalist is a group that seperated from the Church and I think since has been excommunicated. They believe that the Pope in 1960 was the last bona fide Pope as far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned, I think they have their own popes for instance, they ordain their own, they are the "true" successors as opposed to Ratzinger for instance, who because the line of succession according to them was broken, is not officially Pope. They reject much of what was set forth in the Second Vatican Council, they think the Church went off the rails because of it.

The Second Vatican Council was awesome, I think.


His position was that the Catholic Church is the only one that claims infallibility. In all your interesting discussions of infallibility later in the thread, I haven't seen anything that would help me understand this claim to have any meaning except a petty playground insult.

Oh, well however it goes. I don't know why he'd set that down if he did, it would make no sense. Anybody can indeed claim infallibility. :shrug:

Infallibility is infallibility in the formal body and process of the Church, and embodies an explicit denial of the possible of certain knowledge by the individual (such as the Protestants, and most extremely the Gnostics, claim). Is this a fair statement?

Oho, good question. Infallibility is a negative gift and what that means is that it prevents error from being taught officially by the Church on matters of faith and morals. We specify "negative" gift for a purpose, because that specifies that it does not guarantee knowledge and it does not mean private revelation.

Now, that the Church has the gift of infallibility it does not mean that all others are wrong, of course the Church can consider them in right in what they share theologically with the Church.

To the question, right, there is no possibly of certain knowledge of doctrine and theology outside the Church but it does not mean they are all wrong either. The question is certain knowledge, the idea is that Christ sent us a meassage and the point is that what Christ meant is what matters.

My reaction to it is that it makes us all children and denies the most important parts of our humanity. It doesn't seem consistent with being made "in God's image". (Except under a theory I have about God's role vs whose image we were actually created in, but that's probably not one to bring up now.)

In what way does it make us all children and deny important parts of our humanity?

[Sweetie]

I'll add that you are also armored against the cognitive dissonance that cannot disprove other unfalsifiable religious claims of equal merit...

I haven't seen you yet establish this, Ronin though I admit you may be convinced that you have. :indifferent:

namely, appeal to documents written by fallible men "divinely inspired", tradition, etc. when there are other fallible men making the same claim to "divine inspiration" and those who's traditions date even further back.

Seriously, wtf?

His claim was that the Church has never contradicted itself dogmatically, he invited you to judge the case for yourself as far as dogmas are concerned, you here are completely missing the point and trying to win some sort of war that I'm certainly not in the mood to fight and then trying to claim that you have proven something when no one has even bothered to really focus on the ideas you figure is the ace up your sleeve. :chin:

And drop the fairy/pretend imaginary friends crap. It's a condition for me, take it or leave it but that's how it is.

No.

It is the issue that applies directly to the point I address and you cannot refute.

The use of your examples of imaginary friends etc., is essentially meaingless. In some ways it disproves your own point.

I am not "mocking" your belief, Sweetie, I am saying that it is as unfalsifiable as any of the others and you have to "accept" RC in order to shield yourself against any dissent from others.

You may be saying that indeed, but I am not agreeing with you. I realize that you sometimes get high on superiority, no offense, but that doesn't validate your ideas.

I put the way I see it down for Crumb, it's not about a Catholic shield at all, it's about reason itself though I fully understand that you may not see nor understand the case as I do.

I admit that I cannot present any argument against any unfalsifiable claim to being "divinely inspired" even in the face of contradictory claims from the representatives of assorted religions.

Cool, but do you have reason to accept one over the other or reject all of them? In that way, you attack your own arguement. All you are saying is that you do not have any reason to accept any divine claims and all I'm saying not only do I have reason but the only reasonable thing to do is accept these divine claims.

In my view it is better to live your life as if there are no God(s)ess(es), and try to make the world a better place for your being in it. If there is no God(s)ess(es), you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is enevolent God(s)ess(es), S/He/They will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you "believed" in them and/or, more importantly, their human representatives who claim to speak for them.

Cool, I too am a pragmatist I just think there is reason to hold to the existence of God, the Church, etc.

I don't claim that view is infallible, nor do I claim that it is divinely inspired...it is just practical and requires far less mental gymnastics to live by.

I understand you disagree and I understand why you must.

I must disagree because if I put your philosophy under a microscope I would most likely find some flaws. :glare:

[Sweetie]

First, I am amazed that there are only two options to choose from.

Why is that amazing?

Last, I am amazed that you assert that you have no choice and, if you did have a choice, you would choose neither.

Right, reason is a pretty powerful force in my life.

The reason I find this so interesting is that my view is that it is certainly possible to choose neither Catholicism nor nihilism and am curious why such freedom of choice is so impossibly difficult for you.

Logical necessity.

[Sweetie]

Nihilism is the philosophy of last resort, that is, the philosophy for when all philosophies have broken down. It’s the non-refuge of honest scoundrels.

Catholicism stands as the exact antithesis of nihilism. It is a cathedral of consistency, a marbled edifice of reason and poetry. Only trouble is, gee whiz, it’s built over a snake pit of unpalatable dogmas.

We’ve got hell for just about everybody and purgatory for the rest, penance, the cross and a million moral obligations. Only a masochist would be fool enough to choose Catholicism, that is, unless Catholicism just so happened to be the most rational religion. Like Quantum Mechanics, which Richard Feynman :feynman: described as the most absurd theory science has ever come up whose only redeeming feature is that it has proven itself to be experimentally correct, Catholicism has nothing going for it either… except its undeniable truth.

But let’s say Catholic truths ARE falsified. You guys find the bones of Jesus or a new council contradicts a de fide dogma of some prior council or all the bishops are killed such that apostolic succession ceases, then (as when after all the Levite priests in the Jewish religion were killed by the Romans and Judaism ceased to exist as a religion) Catholicism would cease to exist as a religion. It would not be that we ceased being Catholic, but that Catholics ceased to be.

Then, after having been passengers on this world’s premier luxury liner that sunk, how could you expect us to settle for a Protestant dingy or some Unitarian raft or some animist swim team? :rubeyes: We’d rather remain marooned on the nihilistic isle of our discontent with reality than embark on the pretense of having escaped from it in so logically riddled with holes and un-seaworthy a vessel as any other religion. :slice: – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic


Truly albert, well put, thank-you. [emphasis mine]

[Abdul Alhazred]

‘Tis a pity. We’ve got a lousy two-page constitution for only a couple hundred years and have already contradicted it a bunch of times. Yet the Catholic Church hasn’t contradicted itself in 2,000 years. But you guys are derisive of Catholicism yet proud to be American. Go figure. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

A totally specious analogy. The constitution outlines the powers of the federal government.

There's nothing in the constitution about what an American "gotta believe".

[Sweetie]

Is it that other worldviews with ethical and moral systems based on something other than "Christ" are (by default) considered "nihilistic", therefore explaining the dichotomy that the only choices are Catholicism or "nihilism"?

No, that's not it at all. What it means is basically that if you say that the world has no purpose and no meaning, we have no purpose and no meaning then take that to it's end. In my eyes, most don't want to take it to it's end, most people will stop at what they are comfortable with. Nihilism and Catholicism are both extremely uncomfortable theories which are at extremes to each other.

Humanism is rather cushy, no?

[Ronin]

I'll add that you are also armored against the cognitive dissonance that cannot disprove other unfalsifiable religious claims of equal merit...

I haven't seen you yet establish this, Ronin though I admit you may be convinced that you have. :indifferent:

I have established this by way of you not disproving my invisible wish-granting Dragon that lives in my garage.

Can you or can you not disprove the existence of such a being?

namely, appeal to documents written by fallible men "divinely inspired", tradition, etc. when there are other fallible men making the same claim to "divine inspiration" and those who's traditions date even further back.

Seriously, wtf?

His claim was that the Church has never contradicted itself dogmatically, he invited you to judge the case for yourself as far as dogmas are concerned, you here are completely missing the point and trying to win some sort of war that I'm certainly not in the mood to fight and then trying to claim that you have proven something when no one has even bothered to really focus on the ideas you figure is the ace up your sleeve. :chin:

Well, if you're not in the mood to discuss the simple fact that any and all religions (not just Catholicism) are equally unfalsifiable especially when it comes to claims of "divine inspiration" bestowed upon fallible men who then claim "infallible" doctrine...please don't worry yourself over it.

I've already admitted albert's claims regarding "contradiction" are armored against any rational and logical dissent.

You are barking up the wrong tree if you perceive my posts as trying to refute albert's claims...in fact, I am saying that the adherent's to all unfalsifiable supernatural religions can make precisely the same claim (even in spite of the dogmatically opposing claims of other supernaturally based belief systems).

And drop the fairy/pretend imaginary friends crap. It's a condition for me, take it or leave it but that's how it is.

No.

It is the issue that applies directly to the point I address and you cannot refute.

The use of your examples of imaginary friends etc., is essentially meaingless. In some ways it disproves your own point.

Not at all.

I can no more refute "divinely inspired" Catholicism as I can animism, Protestantism, Zoroastrianism, palm reading, etc.

Prove my Dragon doesn't exist, Sweetie.

I am not "mocking" your belief, Sweetie, I am saying that it is as unfalsifiable as any of the others and you have to "accept" RC in order to shield yourself against any dissent from others.

You may be saying that indeed, but I am not agreeing with you. I realize that you sometimes get high on superiority, no offense, but that doesn't validate your ideas.

Actually...of the two of us, it certainly is not I that am claiming any type of "superiority". In fact, since I don't believe that I speak for a Universe Creator or his human representatives...the exact opposite is true.

:wink:

I put the way I see it down for Crumb, it's not about a Catholic shield at all, it's about reason itself though I fully understand that you may not see nor understand the case as I do.

Then reasonably refute the existence of my invisible Dragon.

See how that works...it is the same for the unfalsifiable claims of theists.

That is all I am pointing out to you.

Believe the unfalsifiable claims of you choice. They are equal.

I admit that I cannot present any argument against any unfalsifiable claim to being "divinely inspired" even in the face of contradictory claims from the representatives of assorted religions.

Cool, but do you have reason to accept one over the other or reject all of them?

I have no reason to accept any of them because they are each and all unfalsifiable.

How do claim to find the "reason" to accept one over any of the others?

In that way, you attack your own arguement. All you are saying is that you do not have any reason to accept any divine claims and all I'm saying not only do I have reason but the only reasonable thing to do is accept these divine claims.

Which ones, though?

Why not non-Catholic "divine claims"?

In my view it is better to live your life as if there are no God(s)ess(es), and try to make the world a better place for your being in it. If there is no God(s)ess(es), you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is enevolent God(s)ess(es), S/He/They will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you "believed" in them and/or, more importantly, their human representatives who claim to speak for them.

Cool, I too am a pragmatist I just think there is reason to hold to the existence of God, the Church, etc.

As opposed to the other "divine claims"...why?

I don't claim that view is infallible, nor do I claim that it is divinely inspired...it is just practical and requires far less mental gymnastics to live by.

I understand you disagree and I understand why you must.

I must disagree because if I put your philosophy under a microscope I would most likely find some flaws. :glare:

Read my quote again, Sweetie...I am flat out telling you that you may find flaws.

That is an important difference in our views. I don't ever claim infallibility or "divine inspiration".

I think you are looking for an enemy where there is none.

I am merely pointing out that all unfalsifiable supernatural claims are armored against reason and logical evaluation.

That is why they are called "belief" systems.

[Ronin]

Is it that other worldviews with ethical and moral systems based on something other than "Christ" are (by default) considered "nihilistic", therefore explaining the dichotomy that the only choices are Catholicism or "nihilism"?

No, that's not it at all. What it means is basically that if you say that the world has no purpose and no meaning, we have no purpose and no meaning then take that to it's end. In my eyes, most don't want to take it to it's end, most people will stop at what they are comfortable with. Nihilism and Catholicism are both extremely uncomfortable theories which are at extremes to each other.

But, Sweetie, there are 19 major world religions which are subdivided into a total of 270 large religious groups, and many smaller ones. 34,000 separate Christian groups have been identified in the world. "Over half of them are independent churches that are not interested in linking with the big denominations." source (http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm)

That is why I am "amazed" that you cull them all down to two...Catholicism or "nihilism".

Humanism is rather cushy, no?

Cushy? As in comfortable? This a bad thing...How?

:wink:

It certainly isn't nihilistic.

[Dragar]

Like Quantum Mechanics, which Richard Feynman :feynman: described as the most absurd theory science has ever come up whose only redeeming feature is that it has proven itself to be experimentally correct, Catholicism has nothing going for it either… except its undeniable truth.

Undeniable truth?

QED has at least ten decimal places going for it. How many does Catholicism have again?

[Sweetie]

I have established this by way of you not disproving my invisible wish-granting Dragon that lives in my garage.

Can you or can you not disprove the existence of such a being?

Ronin, it's hard to explain why this line of thought you think is so valuable and why I consider it so meaningless. It is, do I have to sit here working it out with you?

At the very least understand this, yes I do agree that I cannot prove that the Dragon does not exist nor can you prove that it exists. You cannot prove that aliens exist and I cannot prove they do not. Essentially the question is what one considers to be a reasonable test of viability, what criteria do you have to hold something as true or false, possible or non-possible?



Well, if you're not in the mood to discuss the simple fact that any and all religions (not just Catholicism) are equally unfalsifiable especially when it comes to claims of "divine inspiration" bestowed upon fallible men who then claim "infallible" doctrine...please don't worry yourself over it.

It's not about mood it's about meaninglessness dude. That's like saying, hmmm...... :chin:

Ok, in your very arguement that all religions are unfalsifiable you are arguing from an opinion that itself is unfalsifiable, do you understand that? I cannot prove that you are wrong in your opinion that God does not exist and if He does, you have no reason to think it, not as far as ulitmate proof is concerned which is why the question is not whether we can prove our opinions it's whether or not they are reasonable given a certain criteria.

In that way, we both hold positions that we think are reasonable which we can't ultimately prove, but that doesn't matter to us, whether or not we can or can't utimately prove it because if that's the only criteria, then we know nothing, can advance not at all, etc., what matters is whether or not the position is reasonable.

Even in this way, skepticism itself is the worst case scenario as far as tests of falsifiability is concerned.

You are barking up the wrong tree if you perceive my posts as trying to refute albert's claims...in fact, I am saying that the adherent's to all unfalsifiable supernatural religions can make precisely the same claim (even in spite of the dogmatically opposing claims of other supernaturally based belief systems).

Cool, and I've discerned your arguement and dismissed it with the claim that it eats it's own tail.




Actually...of the two of us, it certainly is not I that am claiming any type of "superiority". In fact, since I don't believe that I speak for a Universe Creator or his human representatives...the exact opposite is true.

:wink:

but of course.

:bows:

Ronin, my belief system is first and foremost a philosophy and in that case, reason and logic do have sway.

[Sweetie]

That is why I am "amazed" that you cull them all down to two...Catholicism or "nihilism".

I understand your amazement but I don't understand why you don't understand that reason can sort through differing religious claims and support some and not others, and yes indeed, I do think that Catholicism and nihilism are all truths taken to their extremes.

Now, when you put some work into the case then come back and we'll talk. Until that time, wonder in astonishment at how simple and simplistic most philsophies really are once reduced to principles at the very least.


Cushy? As in comfortable? This a bad thing...How?

:wink:

Can you say, "I choose my belief system because I like it?"

[albert cipriani]

Traditionalist is a group that seperated from the Church and I think since has been excommunicated.

One traditionalist bishop, Lefebvre, RIP, was excommunicated. Ratzinger has overturned all other attempts to excommunicate Traditionalists. Even if he didn’t, we’d be in the good company of such saints as Joan of Arc and Athenasius who were excommunicated as well. Indeed, during the Great Western Schism in the 14th century the three reigning popes excommunicated all of Christiandom. In short, excommunication is a legal, not a moral, or dogmatic, and certainly not an infallible, exercise of Church authority.

“They believe that the Pope in 1960 was the last bona fide Pope as far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned”

Nah. That’s the sedevacantist branch of Traditionalism. Even if I subscribed to their view that the chair of Peter is no longer occupied, what harm is there in that? Many theologians and doctors of the Church have accepted this possibility. Where in any catechism of the Church does it say Catholics are obliged to believe that the current pope is really a legitimate pope and not a heretic? Do you not doubt that many popes were heretics? If so, why do you hold it against those sedevacantists in our ranks that doubt these last three Popes were not heretics?

“They reject much of what was set forth in the Second Vatican Council, they think the Church went off the rails because of it… The Second Vatican Council was awesome, I think.’

To the contrary, we accept all that is unambiguous about VCII. For example, it explicitly decreed that the new mass shall retain Latin. But the new mass does not retain Latin. Ergo, we celebrate the old mass which is all Latin. So who’s obeying VCII, we Traditionalists or you? – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

[albert cipriani]

I am saying that there is no arguing "infallibility" with you when the unfalsifiable claims of "deity" and "divine inspiration" bestowed upon fallible men deriving "infallible" doctrine are made.


You are being incomprehensible. I’ve given you three ways to falsify Catholicism. I can’t help it if you can’t falsify Catholicism; but you can help by not claiming that falsification is an impossibility. Find a contradiction in our de fide beliefs and you win. It’s that simple. No other religion in the world is so easily falsifiable as that.

Or you could always drop a bomb on the next ecumenical council. Killing all our bishops (there’s only about 3,000 of them) would also do the deed. The Romans were almost successful on this count. Their pogroms prove that it really is possible. Cheer up. Our falsification is not nearly as bleak as you make it out to be. – Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

[albert cipriani]

“Crumb: What do you mean by nihilism, ac?
Ronin: Good question, Crumb.”

It’s a lousy question because it is designed to derail the topic. By nihilism I mean whatever you chose to mean by it. After all, we can’t be too picky about our meaning when defining a zeitgeist that rejects meaning.

“Is it that other worldviews with ethical and moral systems based on something other than "Christ" are (by default) considered "nihilistic", therefore explaining the dichotomy that the only choices are Catholicism or nihilism?”

Nah. I can imagine all sorts of non-Christ worldviews that are not at all nihilistic. Only trouble is, I’d have to do exactly what I just said, IMAGINE. It’d be, as virtually all world religions are, an imaginative exercise, not a rational enterprise. Most religious people are just fine with that. That’s to their discredit. That’s why the world is festooned with so many stupid (tho imaginative!) religions.

Hell, I could make up my own religion, custom-tailored to my own aesthetics that would be far more appealing to me than Catholicism or the most daftly Pollyannaish ones, like Unitarianism. But because it is man’s nature to think as well as to will, I cannot will into existence this ideal religion or will to believe any of the world’s ready-made substitutes.

Religion must make sense first, and then it need not even appeal to my will second. Then I can fulfill the bible’s injunction to worship God “in spirit AND IN TRUTH.” The spirit part is easy, self-substantiating, and ultimately narcissistic. It’s the truth part keeps us on the straight and narrow. That’s why if the only rational religion turned out not to be true, the irrational ones most definitely could not be true either and nihilism, the belief in no belief, would be the only logical choice. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

[JoeP]

It’s the truth part keeps us on the straight and narrow. That’s why if the only rational religion turned out not to be true, the irrational ones most definitely could not be true either and nihilism, the belief in no belief, would be the only logical choice.
Why is that so few people (as a percentage of all religious people, let's say) have the same judgement of "truth" and "the only rational religion" as you?

[Sweetie]

[One traditionalist bishop, Lefebvre, RIP, was excommunicated. Ratzinger has overturned all other attempts to excommunicate Traditionalists. Even if he didn’t, we’d be in the good company of such saints as Joan of Arc and Athenasius who were excommunicated as well. Indeed, during the Great Western Schism in the 14th century the three reigning popes excommunicated all of Christiandom. In short, excommunication is a legal, not a moral, or dogmatic, and certainly not an infallible, exercise of Church authority......

Thanks for the information. I did say that I was not well informed on the subject so...:shrug: I have never had interest in studying the case as of yet, in depth.

[Sweetie]

Hell, I could make up my own religion, custom-tailored to my own aesthetics that would be far more appealing to me than Catholicism or the most daftly Pollyannaish ones, like Unitarianism.

Got any studies handy on Universalism?

[Ronin]

I have established this by way of you not disproving my invisible wish-granting Dragon that lives in my garage.

Can you or can you not disprove the existence of such a being?

Ronin, it's hard to explain why this line of thought you think is so valuable and why I consider it so meaningless. It is, do I have to sit here working it out with you?

You seem to be interested or you wouldn't keep responding in defense of something that I have already stated is unarguable due to the nature of unfalsifiable supernatural claims.

:wink:

At the very least understand this, yes I do agree that I cannot prove that the Dragon does not exist nor can you prove that it exists.

Precisely!!

You cannot prove that aliens exist and I cannot prove they do not. Essentially the question is what one considers to be a reasonable test of viability, what criteria do you have to hold something as true or false, possible or non-possible?

Yay...you now understand my point!



Well, if you're not in the mood to discuss the simple fact that any and all religions (not just Catholicism) are equally unfalsifiable especially when it comes to claims of "divine inspiration" bestowed upon fallible men who then claim "infallible" doctrine...please don't worry yourself over it.

It's not about mood it's about meaninglessness dude. That's like saying, hmmm...... :chin:

Ok, in your very arguement that all religions are unfalsifiable you are arguing from an opinion that itself is unfalsifiable, do you understand that?

Wait?!

What happened to your prior understanding that you could not disprove my Dragon claim.

Is the admission that you cannot disprove the existence of my Dragon now itself an "unfalsifiable" admission?!

You just reversed course on me, Sweetie.

I cannot prove that you are wrong in your opinion that God does not exist and if He does, you have no reason to think it, not as far as ulitmate proof is concerned which is why the question is not whether we can prove our opinions it's whether or not they are reasonable given a certain criteria.

The statement that both the existence of my Dragon and your God are unfalsifiable is true.

Are you now arguing that even noting unfalsifiable claims are unfalsifiable is unfalsifiable?

That is just silly.

In that way, we both hold positions that we think are reasonable which we can't ultimately prove, but that doesn't matter to us, whether or not we can or can't utimately prove it because if that's the only criteria, then we know nothing, can advance not at all, etc., what matters is whether or not the position is reasonable.

Right, and I am and have been arguing that none here can talk albert out of his religious convictions using reason.

You are also included and on the same grounds as I've articulated in this thread.

Even in this way, skepticism itself is the worst case scenario as far as tests of falsifiability is concerned.

I think that an advantage to science is that it is always open to unsolved questions and consistently questioning prior theories and assertions (skepticism) to seek alternative ways to solving a problem.

I simply don't see that with religions (or the religious) who claim to infallibly know the answers and are resistant to alternative (or newer) observations/theories to solving a problem.

That's an important difference, Sweetie.

Some things are falsifiable and science has been known to be subject to error.

You are barking up the wrong tree if you perceive my posts as trying to refute albert's claims...in fact, I am saying that the adherent's to all unfalsifiable supernatural religions can make precisely the same claim (even in spite of the dogmatically opposing claims of other supernaturally based belief systems).

Cool, and I've discerned your arguement and dismissed it with the claim that it eats it's own tail.

Though that is an awesomely imaginative analogy it doesn't seem to apply.

I have already stated that one has to "accept" the tenets of a particular religion in order to remained armored against dissent.

It will most often lead to a very lively discussion, but little changing of minds.

I understand that am equally fixed in my view.




Actually...of the two of us, it certainly is not I that am claiming any type of "superiority". In fact, since I don't believe that I speak for a Universe Creator or his human representatives...the exact opposite is true.

:wink:

but of course.

:bows:

Ronin, my belief system is first and foremost a philosophy and in that case, reason and logic do have sway.

Up to a certain point, perhaps Sweetie, and with the veracity of adherents of other equally supernaturally based "philosophies".

[Sweetie]

Why is that so few people (as a percentage of all religious people, let's say) have the same judgement of "truth" and "the only rational religion" as you?

I don't think alot of religions do in fact claim rationality as a criteria. Buddhists, well I don't know, they claim a reason beyond reason "the sound of one hand clapping." Hindus I'm not sure, certaintly not Fundamentalists, you say you're gonna apply logic or appeal to reason and they're all freaked out because you're using the wisdom of the world or what have you, one will lose their faith if they become reasonable about their faith. Actually, what's worse, one could potentially become Catholic if they get reasonable, lol.

[Dingfod]

Just one thought: Consistency is meaningless if you're consistently wrong.

[JoeP]

Why is that so few people (as a percentage of all religious people, let's say) have the same judgement of "truth" and "the only rational religion" as you?

I don't think alot of religions do in fact claim rationality as a criteria. Buddhists, well I don't know, they claim a reason beyond reason "the sound of one hand clapping." Hindus I'm not sure, certaintly not Fundamentalists, you say you're gonna apply logic or appeal to reason and they're all freaked out because you're using the wisdom of the world or what have you, one will lose their faith if they become reasonable about their faith. Actually, what's worse, one could potentially become Catholic if they get reasonable, lol.
I find I can't challenge your claim to special rationality - I don't know enough about the underpinnings of other religions. That's why sometime earlier I wished there were more representatives on the board. However, atheism - in multiple flavours - claims to be rationally based.

But you haven't spoke to the first part, the unique claim to truth. If the truth of traditional (or any) catholicism is so clear, why are there so many other beliefs? They certainly believe they have truth and you don't, even if they don't appeal to rationality.

Now if you'll excuse me it's bedtime! :yawn:

[Sweetie]

You seem to be interested or you wouldn't keep responding in defense of something that I have already stated is unarguable due to the nature of unfalsifiable supernatural claims.

No, I just think if I completely ignore an arguement I feel like I'd be rude or offensive, or you might think I'm just ignoring it because it's too powerful and I can't meet it. :wink:

Either way, I think I'll lose. Respond because I'm interested and it's valuable or if I don't respond it's because it's too valuable and I can't beat it.

Yay...you now understand my point!

Go run off into the sunset with justaman, pleeeeease, lol. :P

I already had your point, it's not difficult, the very first thing I said in response to it practically was that it eats it's own tail. I got the point, I dismissed it, now I have to prove why I'm dismissing it and it's only now that I get your point. Sheesh! :doh:

What happened to your prior understanding that you could not disprove my Dragon claim.

Is the admission that you cannot disprove the existence of my Dragon now itself an "unfalsifiable" admission?!

You just reversed course on me, Sweetie.

Nooooooooo. :(

I cannot disprove your Dragon claim, you cannot prove your Dragon claim. The claims are unprovable just like any and every possible claim including scientific ones. You may not have a Dragon in your garage, but can you prove to me in fact that Dragons don't exist or that they do exist?

However, we set up a criteria for whether or not it is rational or irrational to hold a claim as true. Scientifically, if the theory works and is shown to be apt after experimentation then we hold this theory as true. A few years later we could find that the theory was in fact only part true because from a greater understanding, we came to see that there was a greater principle at hand. However it goes, no claim is provable but some claims are rational to consider true.




The statement that both the existence of my Dragon and your God are unfalsifiable is true.

Are you now arguing that even noting unfalsifiable claims are unfalsifiable is unfalsifiable?

That is just silly.

Look, the existence of your Dragon and a God are technically unfalsifiable negatively or positively. You can not prove the non-existence of a thing. You can only state and hold as true what you consider to be a rational test of whether or not a thing does exist and whether or not we should hold it true as an opinion that it does or does not.

You claiming that my claims are unfalsfiable is itself an unfalsifiable claimn according to your criteria. I'm just telling you, I apply reason to my philosophy just as much or perhaps more than you do. Reason and logic is my test.


Right, and I am and have been arguing that none here can talk albert out of his religious convictions using reason.

That is false as far as I know but speaking for myself, reason me out of my faith anyday, it's possible so keep trying.

You are also included and on the same grounds as I've articulated in this thread.

Which are self-contradictory and makes them ubberly useless.


I think that an advantage to science is that it is always open to unsolved questions and consistently questioning prior theories and assertions (skepticism) to seek alternative ways to solving a problem.

I simply don't see that with religions (or the religious) who claim to infallibly know the answers and are resistant to alternative (or newer) observations/theories to solving a problem.

That's an important difference, Sweetie.

Fuck the infallibility aspect of my religion because first one needs to get to a point where they think that to hold the infallibility of this religion as true is itself a rational thing to do. What comes before that? We don't wake up in the morning thinking, gee, who am I gonna let lead me around by the nose today.






Though that is an awesomely imaginative analogy it doesn't seem to apply.

In your mind. In AA's mind he's an expert on women, in Jman's mind, he's certain that he can take on all comers just like you.

What value this?

I have already stated that one has to "accept" the tenets of a particular religion in order to remained armored against dissent.

Some religions are unfalsifiable. Liberalism is unfalsifiable, skepticism is unfalsifiable considering what they consider a rational test, Fundamentalism is unfalsifiable. Buddhism I think too, unfalsifiable.

Why is Catholicism every other religion?

Up to a certain point, perhaps Sweetie, and with the veracity of adherents of other equally supernaturally based "philosophies".

I am not everybody else and my religion is not every religion just as much as you are not everybody else and their mistakes may not be your mistakes.

[Ronin]

I am saying that there is no arguing "infallibility" with you when the unfalsifiable claims of "deity" and "divine inspiration" bestowed upon fallible men deriving "infallible" doctrine are made.


You are being incomprehensible. I’ve given you three ways to falsify Catholicism. I can’t help it if you can’t falsify Catholicism; but you can help by not claiming that falsification is an impossibility. Find a contradiction in our de fide beliefs and you win.

I can't because they are founded upon unfalsifiable claims.

That's all that my posts intend to point out.

It’s that simple. No other religion in the world is so easily falsifiable as that.

They are each and all unfalsifiable as the other. They are founded on unfalsifiable supernatural claims.

It is as simple as that.

Or you could always drop a bomb on the next ecumenical council. Killing all our bishops (there’s only about 3,000 of them) would also do the deed. The Romans were almost successful on this count. Their pogroms prove that it really is possible. Cheer up. Our falsification is not nearly as bleak as you make it out to be. – Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

You mean...A Rapture (tm) of the entire ecumenical council?! That certainly would be the basis of an encouraged Catholicism.

All it would take is another unfalsifiable story and a Nicene II and voila the Newer Testament prevails.

:wink:

Religions are so easy to make.

[albert cipriani]

“Albert: Find a contradiction in our de fide beliefs and you win.
Ronin: I can't because they are founded upon unfalsifiable [supernatural] claims.”

Don’t you know what a contradiction is? Who the hell cares what it is founded upon? One contradiction disproves infallibility and the de fide dogma of the Church being the one True Church.

We’re talking faith or MORALS. Morals, are for the most part founded upon the Natural Law, not revelation. So your mantra of Catholic doctrine being unfalsifiable is simply hogwash.

Case in point. The Protestants reversed 500 years of their moral teaching in 1930 when they ruled that birth control was suddenly OK. That’s called a contradiction. Either they were right for 500 years and are wrong now or they are right now and were wrong for 500 years. In either case, they’ve no case for infallibility. If the Catholic Church flip-flopped in the same way, the Catholic Church would be as intellectually sunk as Protestantism. Fact is, it didn’t and we aren’t. Deal with it! :glare: – Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

[Ronin]

Don’t you know what a contradiction is?

Yes, I do.

Who the hell cares what it is founded upon?

I do. It is the unarguable condition I am addressing.

One contradiction disproves infallibility and the de fide dogma of the Church being the one True Church.

Which is claimed to be "divinely inspired" by an unfalsifiable supernatural being bestowing said "de fide dogma of the True Church" to fallible men given this unfalsifiable gift.

I hope that makes sense to you now. That is the issue I am addressing, albert.

We’re talking faith or MORALS. Morals, are for the most part founded upon the Natural Law, not revelation. So your mantra of Catholic doctrine being unfalsifiable is simply hogwash.

First, what "Natural Law" bestows "morality".

Second, will you admit that the "morals" bestowed by "revelation" fit within my assertions regarding unfalsifiable infallibility?

Case in point. The Protestants reversed 500 years of their moral teaching in 1930 when they ruled that birth control was suddenly OK. That’s called a contradiction. Either they were right for 500 years and are wrong now or they are right now and were wrong for 500 years. In either case, they’ve no case for infallibility. If the Catholic Church flip-flopped in the same way, the Catholic Church would be as intellectually sunk as Protestantism. Fact is, it didn’t and we aren’t. Deal with it! :glare: – Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

Actually, if you ask a Protestant they would not claim that as a contradiction...rather it is an "interpretation of the context" of meaning of God's holy word.

How about the RC versions of the repression via edict of scientific and surgical discovery ("Ecclesia abhorret a sanguine" - The Council of Tours), the theory of evolution, etc.

Ironically the Bible has been used to justify alternate sides of many "moral" issues and the winds of change are re-written via "contextual" wrangling.

See how easy such a thing is accomplished.

Why don't the Jews believe in the claims of the New Testament?

After all, it certainly is not consistent with what they perceive to be the dogma and doctrine of their own holy writ.

[justaman]

I recognise I'm jumping in late but to heck with it.

It is very simple to demonstrate how nonsensical it is to state "My belief system is infallible."

It is possible to disprove this assertion, as members here are attempting, but there is really no need. The question that needs to be asked is how do you know it is infallible?

The only answer is that you don't, just believe it is based upon what you have observed. This is because you are a subjective entity that only 'knows' what it has perceived. It cannot know anything else.

To argue this is to assert that you have objective knowledge. But the only entity capable of possessing objective knowledge (assuming the phrase is even coherent, which I doubt) is God. So - in short - to assert "I know a belief system is infallible" is to state that you have objective knowledge and that you are, therefore, God.

[JoeP]

To argue this is to assert that you have objective knowledge. But the only entity capable of possessing objective knowledge (assuming the phrase is even coherent, which I doubt) is God. So - in short - to assert "I know a belief system is infallible" is to state that you have objective knowledge and that you are, therefore, God.
Careful, justy! Albert will smite you!

[JoeP]

Case in point. The Protestants reversed 500 years of their moral teaching in 1930 when they ruled that birth control was suddenly OK. That’s called a contradiction. Either they were right for 500 years and are wrong now or they are right now and were wrong for 500 years. In either case, they’ve no case for infallibility. If the Catholic Church flip-flopped in the same way, the Catholic Church would be as intellectually sunk as Protestantism. Fact is, it didn’t and we aren’t. Deal with it! :glare: – Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic
This is what you're talking about? Holier-than-thou grandstanding? You're nearly a laugh but you're really a cry.

Reversing a moral teaching is not a contradiction, it's a change of moral teaching. I don't know the argument behind it but it could be "circumstances have changed, new moral teaching is appropriate" and there would be no contradiction at all. It could be "we were wrong before"; again, no contradiction. But you're saying if they were wrong about one thing (then or now), everything they say must be suspect. There's no logic there.

I say to you, any person or organisation who can claim "we have always been right and we always will be right and we will never change our views in the light of new evidence or changes in society" is cuckoo.

[Sweetie]

It is possible to disprove this assertion, as members here are attempting, but there is really no need. The question that needs to be asked is how do you know it is infallible?

This has already been addressed:

"Fuck the infallibility aspect of my religion because first one needs to get to a point where they think that to hold the infallibility of this religion as true is itself a rational thing to do. What comes before that? We don't wake up in the morning thinking, gee, who am I gonna let lead me around by the nose today."

The only answer is that you don't, just believe it is based upon what you have observed. This is because you are a subjective entity that only 'knows' what it has perceived. It cannot know anything else.

To argue this is to assert that you have objective knowledge. But the only entity capable of possessing objective knowledge (assuming the phrase is even coherent, which I doubt) is God. So - in short - to assert "I know a belief system is infallible" is to state that you have objective knowledge and that you are, therefore, God.

"An idea you raise is how can fallible humans decide that some humans are infallible because we will only fallibly know it. However that is put, I think that claim can be met but it needs to be broken down."

" My problem is that in my eyes theism (which then leads to Catholicism) is the only possiblly tenable theory so whether or not it can be falsified is negligible if no other theory can rationally be held."


You are indeed Johny-come-lately. :yup: It is indeed an assumption, we can't know it and as I've been arguing, we can't actually know anything. Whether or not it is the most rational thing to assume, however, is the question. :shrug:

[albert cipriani]

Actually, if you ask a Protestant they would not claim that as a contradiction...”

Actually if you ask a brain dead person (after taking the straw out of their mouth) they would drool and say “uga buga doo.” Who gives a rat’s ass?

“How about the RC versions of the repression via edict of scientific and surgical discovery ("Ecclesia abhorret a sanguine" - The Council of Tours), the theory of evolution, etc.”

How about you trying to wrap your mind around the two simple two-syllable words I’ve repeated multiple times here: moral and dogma. If you can’t distinguish the definitional differences between those terms and pastoral or disciplinary judgments, then there’s no use saying any more.

“Ironically the Bible has been used to justify alternate sides of many "moral" issues and the blab la bla”

Ironically, the double-edged sword has been used to behead many scoundrels and innocents.

“See how easy such a thing is accomplished.”

See how easy such comparisons are accomplished.

“Why don't the Jews believe in the claims of the New Testament?”

Why don’t the Mormons believe in coffee? Fed Up with Your Inability to Dialogue, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

[Sweetie]

Reversing a moral teaching is not a contradiction, it's a change of moral teaching.

It's a contradiction for sure Joe. If the Church claims to know infallibly what is right and what is wrong as far as for those aspiring to heaven and holiness are concerned, then they should be able to say it so and if they say something is right today that is wrong yesterday, how the hell are we ever to judge what is right or wrong today or yesterday?

We lose the test and therefore there are no criteria, then we just get to make up our own morality like the Liberal Christians do and while we're doing that, we might as well make our own faith and we might as well tailor-make it to our prejudices, our desires et al. In that case, there was no real actual point in Christ coming and saying anything. Either we keep the test or we lose the entire thing. "[Catholicism] is the only thing that talks as if it were the truth; as if it were a real messenger refusing to tamper with a real message. " -Chesterton

You may agree that we should lose the entire thing but I'm saying that the thing is still viable, but only under this criteria. Test it against a reasonable criteria of viability and it may no longer be viable.

In many ways Joe, to me you are saying you would respect Christianity or Catholicism more if it was less reasonable.

"We often hear it said, for instance, "What is right in one age is wrong in another." This is quite reasonable, if it means that there is a fixed aim and that certain methods attain at certain times and not at other times but.....if the standard changes, how can there be improvement, which implies a standard."

The standard is that we must become holy, Christlike, saints in order to enter heaven. This standard has not changed, the morality Christ demanded and lived is still the same morality we must live in order to enter the same heaven that Christ spoke of and entered.

If Christ came back today it would still be immoral for him to do all the things it would have been immoral for Him two thousand years ago. Other Christians are suggesting that what the Church for 1930 years declared as wrong was in fact, never actually wrong like homosexuality, etc. On the one hand if that's true, then we have to think bad God for depriving us from pleasure we were allowed to have, on the other hand, if we were wrong then and they're right now, how can I judge whether we were ever right or wrong about anything and they are right or wrong about anything? You removed the standard, the test of viability which would justify Ronin's claim of unfalsifiability. However, we have avoided that little problem and he doesn't yet know it.

What you and Ronin don't understand is that Catholicism is hanging by a thread and has been for two thousand years. It was then, it is now but the problem is, it's still there, it's still hanging. Any number of things would cut the string that holds it, would seperate all the ties that bind but it hasn't happened yet, it may happen, but it hasn't happened yet. It's rather intriguing actually.

[albert cipriani]

Reversing a moral teaching is not a contradiction, it's a change of moral teaching.

Wrong. Reversing a moral teaching is contradicting moral teaching. Evidentially, I hold my Church to a higher standard than you.

The closest the Catholic Church has come to reversing a moral teaching is its stance on usury. Research that one and you’ll find a lot of ammunition to use against me and my Church. The evidence is not conclusive, but at least it comes close to giving us Catholics a real argument to deal with and transcends your verbal equivalent of playing darts. – Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

[Darren]

I'm not a Catholic, I wasn't brought up as one, so I'll admit that there is a lot I don't know here, but I could say the same about Islam, various branches of Christianity, Buddhism, Sikhism etc. I have been attracted to Catholicism in the past, but the attraction was never strong enough to become belief. That said, I live in a region which is predominantly Catholic (when it is religious at all) and most of the people I know here are Catholic to some degree, whether culturally or practising. So I am interested in this argument for a number of reasons.
Anyway, I was wondering, don't you consider things like the Spanish Inquisition and the other instances of persecution and pogroms perpetrated against Jews and other "non-believers" throughout the ages, the internment and enslavement of unmarried mothers, various cases of incitement to war (including the crusuades) and the Church's present stance against, for example, the ordination of women as priests and the acceptance of birth control as failures of the Catholic Church?

[JoeP]

It's a contradiction for sure Joe.Well, imo yes it is; the previous teaching was wrong and the new teaching is different. But I don't see the evidence that they claim it used to be wrong and now it's right and nothing has changed. It seems they corrected a view, or perhaps changed a view based on changing society (analogue of allowing a child to drive where she wasn't allowed to the day before - on her birthday); I see no indication they ever upheld two contradictory positions at one time (other than, of course, the idea of an omnipotent omnibenevolent being).
In many ways Joe, to me you are saying you would respect Christianity or Catholicism more if it was less reasonable.Not very likely. I do, however, respect individual Christians, Catholics included, who are less dogmatic in their discussions. In any case, we are not really on the topic: what is the meaning of infallibility, what value does it have in judging different religions, and (which neither of you have touched upon) why one religion can claim to have a monopoly on truth - even the knowledge of truth.
What you and Ronin don't understand is that Catholicism is hanging by a thread and has been for two thousand years. It was then, it is now but the problem is, it's still there, it's still hanging. Any number of things would cut the string that holds it, would seperate all the ties that bind but it hasn't happened yet, it may happen, but it hasn't happened yet. It's rather intriguing actually.
What do you mean it hasn't happened yet? The thread was never there!

[JoeP]

Actually, if you ask a Protestant they would not claim that as a contradiction...”

Actually if you ask a brain dead person (after taking the straw out of their mouth) they would drool and say “uga buga doo.” Who gives a rat’s ass?

...

Fed Up with Your Inability to Dialogue, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic
Albert, the entirety of this post is an embarrassment to you. It does not display any ability to dialogue, it looks like rash, thoughtless arrogance. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for a lapse, but I have little interest in dialoguing with the author of this post.

[Darren]

[QUOTE
Nah. I can imagine all sorts of non-Christ worldviews that are not at all nihilistic. Only trouble is, I’d have to do exactly what I just said, IMAGINE. It’d be, as virtually all world religions are, an imaginative exercise, not a rational enterprise. Most religious people are just fine with that. That’s to their discredit. That’s why the world is festooned with so many stupid (tho imaginative!) religions.

Hell, I could make up my own religion, custom-tailored to my own aesthetics that would be far more appealing to me than Catholicism or the most daftly Pollyannaish ones, like Unitarianism. But because it is man’s nature to think as well as to will, I cannot will into existence this ideal religion or will to believe any of the world’s ready-made substitutes.



Perhaps I've misunderstood, but aren't you doing just that? Aren't you assembling an imagined vision of Catholicism which meets your exacting standards and, at one and the same time subsuming Roman Catholicism in its entirety into this assemblage while rejecting piecemeal any parts which contradict it, or "fail" it in any way just as it suits you? Aren't you saying, Catholicism is perfect, but Catholicism is only that pick-'n-mix of strands which you consider worthy?
Naturally, I'm infallible too, if I simply reject my failings and embrace only my imagined successes.

[Sweetie]

Anyway, I was wondering, don't you consider things like the Spanish Inquisition and the other instances of persecution and pogroms perpetrated against Jews and other "non-believers" throughout the ages, the internment and enslavement of unmarried mothers, various cases of incitement to war (including the crusuades) and the Church's present stance against, for example, the ordination of women as priests and the acceptance of birth control as failures of the Catholic Church?

The case you'rr putting forth is really broad. Each example probably has it's own subtleties to it.

If the question is, can the Church in her government fail, of course. Make mistakes, yes of course. Act evilly, of course. Be composed of evil men, without question.

Yes, yes, yes.

Can she officially in her teaching capacity make error into a dogma, no. Can she teach error officially when it comes to faith and morals, no.

She can say and teach for instance, that it is wrong to harm innocents and also, that all sexual activity outside of marriage is sinful which she does and then some of her members may be pedophiles and harm children via sexual activity outside marriage. Who is wrong, the man or the Church? The man and the man's actions does not prove the Church wrong, for example, in fact, it's common in some cases for the evil actions of some to prove the Church right, the truth is exemplified through their evil. It is in her teaching that she is protected, and only on matters of faith and morals applicable to the whole Church.

[Sweetie]

Well, imo yes it is; the previous teaching was wrong and the new teaching is different. But I don't see the evidence that they claim it used to be wrong and now it's right and nothing has changed. It seems they corrected a view, or perhaps changed a view based on changing society (analogue of allowing a child to drive where she wasn't allowed to the day before - on her birthday); I see no indication they ever upheld two contradictory positions at one time (other than, of course, the idea of an omnipotent omnibenevolent being).

I'll see if I can work on that one later.

I do, however, respect individual Christians, Catholics included, who are less dogmatic in their discussions.

Yes, and it's always odd to me because though you may not realize it, on the one hand many are complaining Christians aren't reasonable enough but within the context of their faith, many on the outside are actually applauding some for being less than reasonable. Granted, you may not see the case the same way, but I could map out the case for you.

In any case, we are not really on the topic: what is the meaning of infallibility,

Infallibility- in her teaching capacity the Church as a body or as an individual in the Pope is unable to teach heresy.

what value does it have in judging different religions,

I'm not sure that it does. :chin: Natural law is the basis on which to judge different religions, natural law/reason. I'm not sure that you need Revelation for that and the Church's teaching authority is about Public Revelation primarily.

and (which neither of you have touched upon) why one religion can claim to have a monopoly on truth - even the knowledge of truth.

I suppose I don't understand the question and the usage of the word "why."

I suppose for me one thing is the law of non-contradiction. Why can someone claim that there is a God and another claim there is not and they can both be right?

Knowledge of truth-Christ and revelation which is above the natural law in some ways, though I might need to clarify.

Monopoly of truth, that depends what you mean. The Church does not claim that she is right and all others are wrong. Surpisingly alot of religions share many ideas with the Church, the Church claims for herself a fullness of truth. To me I take it as something other than the real meaning and it means all the truths in one place, truths in right relation to each other.


What do you mean it hasn't happened yet? The thread was never there!

I grant that you think so, I do not necessarily grant that the case and reason backs up your opinion, however.

[Sweetie]

Aren't you saying, Catholicism is perfect, but Catholicism is only that pick-'n-mix of strands which you consider worthy?

No, as things go, those strands which stand are the only ones that can.

For example, the Church teaches that we are subject to Original Sin. Assuming original sin true, is it rational to assume that the moment a man becomes an official member of the Church's governing structure that he will cease to sin?

Sometimes it's a case of what the alternatives are.

[Darren]

Anyway, I was wondering, don't you consider things like the Spanish Inquisition and the other instances of persecution and pogroms perpetrated against Jews and other "non-believers" throughout the ages, the internment and enslavement of unmarried mothers, various cases of incitement to war (including the crusuades) and the Church's present stance against, for example, the ordination of women as priests and the acceptance of birth control as failures of the Catholic Church?

The case you'rr putting forth is really broad. Each example probably has it's own subtleties to it.

If the question is, can the Church in her government fail, of course. Make mistakes, yes of course. Act evilly, of course. Be composed of evil men, without question.

Yes, yes, yes.

Can she officially in her teaching capacity make error into a dogma, no. Can she teach error officially when it comes to faith and morals, no.
She can say and teach for instance, that it is wrong to harm innocents and also, that all sexual activity outside of marriage is sinful which she does and then some of her members may be pedophiles and harm children via sexual activity outside marriage. Who is wrong, the man or the Church? The man and the man's actions does not prove the Church wrong, for example, in fact, it's common in some cases for the evil actions of some to prove the Church right, the truth is exemplified through their evil. It is in her teaching that she is protected, and only on matters of faith and morals applicable to the whole Church.


What is the difference between "official" and "unofficial" teaching? Who decides? On what basis do these people make such distinctions? The Catholic church has, at various times, turned a blind eye to, condoned and even incorporated terrible things at various times throughout its history. It has also shown itself capable of reform. Of course admitting this would be tantamount to admitting fallibility.
I believe it was Hilaire Belloc who once said that the inquisition was necessary to maintain dogma intact. Do you agree? Would the Catholic church have survived so long without such violence and oppression to support it?
What you say about the failings of the individual not impugning the doctrine holds to some extent, but many of the Catholic church's failings were officially sanctioned. Also, you can only stretch that argument so far before you open the door to apologists of Stalin, Hitler and such-like

[Darren]

[
Infallibility- in her teaching capacity the Church as a body or as an individual in the Pope is unable to teach heresy.



Well, Albert disagrees with you there, he thinks some Popes were heretics. So does the Catholic church, as far as I can understand. No sorry, that's the sedevacantist branch, but he doesn't have a problem with it, along with some other learned members of the Catholic church.

originally posted by Albert Cipriani
Nah. That’s the sedevacantist branch of Traditionalism. Even if I subscribed to their view that the chair of Peter is no longer occupied, what harm is there in that? Many theologians and doctors of the Church have accepted this possibility. Where in any catechism of the Church does it say Catholics are obliged to believe that the current pope is really a legitimate pope and not a heretic? Do you not doubt that many popes were heretics? If so, why do you hold it against those sedevacantists in our ranks that doubt these last three Popes were not heretics

[Sweetie]

What is the difference between "official" and "unofficial" teaching?

Hmm, I'm not sure all the ways of declaring official or unofficial. For instance, I do not know if Papal Bulls qualify.

At the very least I can say this much, what is official is the decisions of Ecumenical Councils, ex cathedra statements by the Pope.

Who decides? On what basis do these people make such distinctions?

The Catholic church has, at various times, turned a blind eye to, condoned and even incorporated terrible things at various times throughout its history.

Perhaps. It's difficult to say though because of the broadness of the example, ie: you have proferred none, just generalities.

Pope John Paul II for instance, visited the Wailing Wall and left a message expressing sorrow for all the crimes Christians had committed against the Jews in the past, and there's a book called "When a Pope asks Forgiveness."

The crimes men of the Church have committed in the past though, does not change her infallibility in her teaching capacity. In fact it is in her teaching that she can come back to declare that what the men of the past did was possibly sinful. Those within her may in fact, act against her own teaching and that just exemplifies the teaching, not disproves it.

It has also shown itself capable of reform. Of course admitting this would be tantamount to admitting fallibility.

No, because infallibility is only claimed for the Church in her teaching capacity when teaching on matters of faith and morals. The distinction really needs to be understood and if it is not then we need to hammer at it until it is.

I believe it was Hilaire Belloc who once said that the inquisition was necessary to maintain dogma intact. Do you agree?

Don't know, there were several inquisitions.

Would the Catholic church have survived so long without such violence and oppression to support it?

Yes or most likely assuming she is what she is which I do.

What you say about the failings of the individual not impugning the doctrine holds to some extent, but many of the Catholic church's failings were officially sanctioned. Also, you can only stretch that argument so far before you open the door to apologists of Stalin, Hitler and such-like

:chin:

[Sweetie]

[
Infallibility- in her teaching capacity the Church as a body or as an individual in the Pope is unable to teach heresy.



Well, Albert disagrees with you there, he thinks some Popes were heretics. So does the Catholic church, as far as I can understand.

Oh, no sorry, we are not in disagreement necessarily. Everything a king says is not an official law for instance. The Pope can be a heretic but not teach heresy officially via ex cathedra statements.

[Darren]

What is the difference between "official" and "unofficial" teaching?

Hmm, I'm not sure all the ways of declaring official or unofficial. For instance, I do not know if Papal Bulls qualify.

At the very least I can say this much, what is official is the decisions of Ecumenical Councils, ex cathedra statements by the Pope.

Who decides? On what basis do these people make such distinctions?

The Catholic church has, at various times, turned a blind eye to, condoned and even incorporated terrible things at various times throughout its history.

Perhaps. It's difficult to say though because of the broadness of the example, ie: you have proferred none, just generalities.

Pope John Paul II for instance, visited the Wailing Wall and left a message expressing sorrow for all the crimes Christians had committed against the Jews in the past, and there's a book called "When a Pope asks Forgiveness."

The crimes men of the Church have committed in the past though, does not change her infallibility in her teaching capacity. In fact it is in her teaching that she can come back to declare that what the men of the past did was possibly sinful. Those within her may in fact, act against her own teaching and that just exemplifies the teaching, not disproves it.

It has also shown itself capable of reform. Of course admitting this would be tantamount to admitting fallibility.

No, because infallibility is only claimed for the Church in her teaching capacity when teaching on matters of faith and morals. The distinction really needs to be understood and if it is not then we need to hammer at it until it is.

I believe it was Hilaire Belloc who once said that the inquisition was necessary to maintain dogma intact. Do you agree?

Don't know, there were several inquisitions.

Would the Catholic church have survived so long without such violence and oppression to support it?

Yes or most likely assuming she is what she is which I do.

What you say about the failings of the individual not impugning the doctrine holds to some extent, but many of the Catholic church's failings were officially sanctioned. Also, you can only stretch that argument so far before you open the door to apologists of Stalin, Hitler and such-like

:chin:

Alright, I consider the Spanish Inquisition which was enforced after the fall of Granada in 1492 to be a terrible failure on the part of the Roman Catholic church, on a par with anything Hitler or Stalin did. The persecution of Jews, Muslims and other "heretics" is justly viewed as one of the horrors of human history, one which was sanctioned and ordained by the Catholic church.

[Sweetie]

Well damn. :D

Now do I have to go study the Spanish Inquisition or can we just talk principles?

:chin:

[JoeP]

In any case, we are not really on the topic: what is the meaning of infallibility,

Infallibility- in her teaching capacity the Church as a body or as an individual in the Pope is unable to teach heresy.
Whoa there. Isn't that a tautology? What is heresy if not something that contradicts the teachings of the church (especially its interpretation of the bible)? Don't other denominations reject Catholicism as heresy - and therefore undermine the claim of "infallibility"?

what value does it have in judging different religions,

I'm not sure that it does. :chin: Natural law is the basis on which to judge different religions, natural law/reason. I'm not sure that you need Revelation for that and the Church's teaching authority is about Public Revelation primarily.
But that was Albert's main claim (somewhere back in another thread). If we can drop infallibility as a supporting argument so much the better.
and (which neither of you have touched upon) why one religion can claim to have a monopoly on truth - even the knowledge of truth.

I suppose I don't understand the question and the usage of the word "why."

OK, I should dig up the original wording that prompted this.

[albert cipriani]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for a lapse, but I have little interest in dialoguing with the author of this post.

I'll apologize then. So what was the problem, the rat's ass or the drooling brain dead person? :eek: OK, fine. So I got carried away and overstepped good taste. I didn't know how else to express the fact that we were talking past each other.

Morality and dogma are the substance of infallibility. Who killed who in the bible or lost the faith has nothing to do with the topic. It seems to me that you guys must know this and yet continue to multiply these non sequiturs. -- Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

[albert cipriani]

Don't you consider things like the Spanish Inquisition and the other instances of persecution and pogroms perpetrated against Jews and other "non-believers" throughout the ages, the internment and enslavement of unmarried mothers, various cases of incitement to war (including the crusuades) and the Church's present stance against, for example, the ordination of women as priests and the acceptance of birth control as failures of the Catholic Church?

No. All these incidents are neither proclamations of dogma nor morality. Two good Catholics can disagree whether or not they were good or evil and still be two good Catholics. As you point out, even popes can disagree about the virtue value of such actions as the crusades.

Morality is highly predisposed by economical, cultural, and situational forces such that no single “immoral” act, not torture, not incest, not abortion, not murder can be thought of as always and everywhere being intrinsically evil. Ergo, the “evil” we suppose to have transpired in ages past are not necessarily so. Conversely, the “virtue” of our heterodox age of pedophile priests and gay bishops is that it is bereft of an Inquisition. :whup: – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

[Gurdur]

Out of interest, Albert, how would you reply to the suggestion that you only use the Bible and Church to justify your own personal generalized hostility to others ?

Serious question.

[albert cipriani]

Aren't you saying, Catholicism is perfect, but Catholicism is only that pick-'n-mix of strands which you consider worthy?

If I myself predicated what was Catholicism, I’d be guilty of the sin Protestants have trademarked as their own, private judgment. What’s Catholic dogma and morality is what the Catholic Church’s Magisterium says it is. It is that simple. Why the obfuscation? :tornado: Why pretend that no one knows what the Church authoritatively teaches? She makes it blindlingly easy for us. :scared2:

For example, she labels with some seven grades of theological certainty the doctrines she promulgates. Only the top two are de fide and must be held to avoid being a heretic. Should the Magisterium ever drop a single one or officially teach a contrary dogma, you win and I’ll turn in my Catholic card for your tree-hugging ACLU-loving atheistic go-straight-to-hell card. – Cheers, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

[Sweetie]

Morality is highly predisposed by economical, cultural, and situational forces such that no single “immoral” act, not torture, not incest, not abortion, not murder can be thought of as always and everywhere being intrinsically evil. Ergo, the “evil” we suppose to have transpired in ages past are not necessarily so.

That's a more liberal stance, no?

"I was reading this book, "Principles for a Catholic Morality" by Timothy E. O'Connell, very similar to a Liberal Christian's way of determing morality. He uses alot of terms I'm not familiar with which is why I want to learn them and too, this way of determining morals I found, has been rejected by the Church, it's called proportionalism. The Church finds it a flawed theory. Now, as I was reading I thought, you know this sounds very thorough, it seems reasonable, maybe I'll adopt some of these thoughts, etc. One of the reasons though, why I started to have difficulty with it is because you cannot then determine officially that it is wrong to murder:

"In one of their papers the authors of the majority opinion say: "To take another's life is a sin not because life is under the exclusive dominion of God, but because it is contrary to right reason unless there is a question of a good of a higher order. It is licit to sacrifice a life for the good of the community. According to this "principle" it is morally permissible to destroy human life (or other human goods) if doing so is necessary for the sake of a greater good. I call this the "Caiaphas principle," although proportionalist theologians now refer to it, as will be seen below in more detail, as the "preference principle" or "principle of proportionate good.""

http://www.cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a079.html

Now, yeah I was having difficulty with the ends, with what this theory actually means and how it could effect me. Pope John Paull II finds the theory philosophically and theologically flawed, and I want to understand why. Too, I don't, especially by ignorance want to promote an ethical system or even help along an ethical system that questions my own freedom to live, I am not suicidal, that can put my children's freedom to live in jeopardy. The freedom to live is the fundamental principle I think, of the Western world. Now, if the "theory" was so true that I'd have to accept it or be an idiot, that would be a different story, but so far, I don't find that it is."

http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=31626&highlight=Timothy#post31626

Conversely, the “virtue” of our heterodox age of pedophile priests and gay bishops is that it is bereft of an Inquisition. :whup: – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

:chin:

I almost think you're being flippant, turning the tables, but I'm not sure.

[godfry n. glad]

Morality and dogma are the substance of infallibility. Who killed who in the bible or lost the faith has nothing to do with the topic. It seems to me that you guys must know this and yet continue to multiply these non sequiturs. -- Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic


Morality is highly predisposed by economical, cultural, and situational forces such that no single “immoral” act, not torture, not incest, not abortion, not murder can be thought of as always and everywhere being intrinsically evil. Ergo, the “evil” we suppose to have transpired in ages past are not necessarily so. Conversely, the “virtue” of our heterodox age of pedophile priests and gay bishops is that it is bereft of an Inquisition. :whup: – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

:roflmao:

[godfry n. glad]

Aren't you saying, Catholicism is perfect, but Catholicism is only that pick-'n-mix of strands which you consider worthy?

What’s Catholic dogma and morality is what the Catholic Church’s Magisterium says it is. It is that simple. Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

And what is the composition of the Catholic Church's Magisterium?

[godfry n. glad]

Everything a king says is not an official law for instance. The Pope can be a heretic but not teach heresy officially via ex cathedra statements.

Interesting.

Could you explain "ex cathedra statements", please? I think I have an idea of what you mean, but I want you to clarify it for me, if you would.

How does a papal statement qualify to become "ex cathedra"?

[albert cipriani]

Out of interest, Albert, how would you reply to the suggestion that you only use the Bible and Church to justify your own personal generalized hostility to others?

I’d say that they’ve committed the complex question fallacy. You know, for example, accusing someone of being ugly under the pretext of merely asking them something stupid about their presupposed ugliness, like how long have I looked this ugly?

I’d also suggest that their suggestion is but a palliative that prevents them from doing the hard thinking my words would otherwise be capable of helping them do. I hope the points I make are sharp enough to pierce the thickest hides. As anyone who knows first aid will tell you, deep puncture wounds should bleed out, not be bandaged. But such name-callers are too quickly applying the self-defensive gauze of condemning me as the hostile person I am not rather than ministering to the more difficult task at hand, which is intellectually integrating themselves.

I’d also say that they are in poor company, for virtually all the poets, Catholics, and Christians on every board I’ve ever been on agree with them. Isn’t that a heavy price to pay for so cheap a sop to a bruised intellect? Isn’t it a bit worrisome that you people who think this is all about me being hostile have so much in common with queer poets in their black turtleneck sweaters scratching away in stale attics, sexually hung-up (or poorly hung! :sheepshag: ) Catholics and Bible-brainwashed Christians?

I don’t know about you, but I’m glad to be able to distinguish myself from the poets, Catholics, and Christians who disagree with me to the extent that they have to think badly of me. I wouldn’t want to be a member of that impolite society. But anyone who would ask the question you asked is already a member of their un-illustrious gaggle. Shame on you! – Disgusted, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

[godfry n. glad]

Alright, I consider the Spanish Inquisition which was enforced after the fall of Granada in 1492 to be a terrible failure on the part of the Roman Catholic church, on a par with anything Hitler or Stalin did. The persecution of Jews, Muslims and other "heretics" is justly viewed as one of the horrors of human history, one which was sanctioned and ordained by the Catholic church.

The Albigensian Crusade was no calk walk, either. The slaughter at Biziers stands out as one of the church's many low points.

[justaman]

You are indeed Johny-come-lately. :yup: It is indeed an assumption, we can't know it and as I've been arguing, we can't actually know anything. Whether or not it is the most rational thing to assume, however, is the question. :shrug:
Does albert agree with this?

[Ronin]

Actually, if you ask a Protestant they would not claim that as a contradiction...”

Actually if you ask a brain dead person (after taking the straw out of their mouth) they would drool and say “uga buga doo.” Who gives a rat’s ass?

“How about the RC versions of the repression via edict of scientific and surgical discovery ("Ecclesia abhorret a sanguine" - The Council of Tours), the theory of evolution, etc.”

How about you trying to wrap your mind around the two simple two-syllable words I’ve repeated multiple times here: moral and dogma. If you can’t distinguish the definitional differences between those terms and pastoral or disciplinary judgments, then there’s no use saying any more.

“Ironically the Bible has been used to justify alternate sides of many "moral" issues and the blab la bla”

Ironically, the double-edged sword has been used to behead many scoundrels and innocents.

“See how easy such a thing is accomplished.”

See how easy such comparisons are accomplished.

“Why don't the Jews believe in the claims of the New Testament?”

Why don’t the Mormons believe in coffee? Fed Up with Your Inability to Dialogue, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic


Wow, albert, brilliant display of my point yet again.

And within the nuance of my initial claim that supernaturalists are armored against rational and reasoned argument...I'll let albert's post here stand as a complete document of such behavior.

Take care albert, be happy.

[Sweetie]

Interesting.

Could you explain "ex cathedra statements", please? I think I have an idea of what you mean, but I want you to clarify it for me, if you would.

How does a papal statement qualify to become "ex cathedra"?

I don't actually know. Did you chase TomJoe away? :P He's always handy to have around when talking about such things. I'm kindof a jack-of-all trades, know a little bit of lots of things but a master of none.

Here are some thoughts, however:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

[Ronin]

I don't actually know. Did you chase TomJoe away? :P He's always handy to have around when talking about such things. I'm kindof a jack-of-all trades, know a little bit of lots of things but a master of none.

Actually, Sweetie, I'm beginning to think that I did that over the "Dems being excommunicated" and "Virgin Mary" threads.

I press too hard at times and I'm thinking that I should just lay off albert for the same reason.

Hey, how's that...a Humanist guilty conscience for a change?

:wink:

[Sweetie]

Oh, what, is TomJoe gone? I had no idea. Did someone chase him away? I was just joking godfry, sorry about that.

I always thought TomJoe was like me and sometimes I need some space and just to back off perhaps like you too Ronin.

We're all human.

[Gurdur]

Out of interest, Albert, how would you reply to the suggestion that you only use the Bible and Church to justify your own personal generalized hostility to others?
I’d say that they’ve committed the complex question fallacy. ..
I’d also suggest that their suggestion is but a palliative .....
But anyone who would ask the question you asked is already a member of their un-illustrious gaggle. Shame on you! – Disgusted, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic
Ah.
You answered my question, though I think not in the way you meant to.

[godfry n. glad]

Oh, what, is TomJoe gone? I had no idea. Did someone chase him away? I was just joking godfry, sorry about that.

I always thought TomJoe was like me and sometimes I need some space and just to back off perhaps like you too Ronin.

We're all human.

Hey, ain't that the truth?

Apology accepted, even though it was unnecessary. I haven't engaged with TomJoe in a bit, so I don't think I've driven him off. Besides, he's only told me he's Catholic, not Republican. That's a whole 'nother ball game. :D

As for Al, I've determined that it's pointless to engage him. He's dogma incarnate. He's here only to "Lord" it over the poor misguided souls who haven't bought into his particular little insanity. I say let him continue to harangue in the manner he has to date and allow it to be a living example of why not to embrace Catholicism, at least in its "Traditional" form.

godfry n. evenmore glad

[Sweetie]

I don't know really what he believes or stands for necessarily. We perhaps are in disagreement about the Freedom of Conscience which is perhaps why he thinks you guys are all heathens and why I do not. The Freedom of Conscience has within it something akin to what he was speaking of when it comes to morality, real evil is relational because real and true evil is mortal sin which has to meet criteria, however, there are still things themselves which are intrinsically evil according to their object.

[Sweetie]

I say let him continue to harangue in the manner he has to date and allow it to be a living example of why not to embrace Catholicism, at least in its "Traditional" form.

Ack, I'm sorry, I must nitpick this a little bit. Saying that one should not embrace an ideology because one doesn't like someone who holds such an ideology is not really reasonable. In some ways that's like saying that even though you're starving you won't take bread from a drunkard.

Under that criteria, no ideology can be held, right?

Seriously though, sometimes to be more dogmatic is to be more reasonable. Sometimes those that are complaining about the dogmatic types are themselves terribly dogmatic it's just not as clear.

Anything you hold as true means that it's opposite is untrue. If you don't really believe the opposite is untrue, then you don't really believe what you hold as true is true.

[albert cipriani]

And what is the composition of the Catholic Church's Magisterium?

The Church's Magisterium is it's teaching authority exercised by a majority of bishops with the pope's concurment in an eccumenical council, or by the pope himself when he speaks ex catherdra, or by the constant teaching of all the bishops everywhere (Ordinary Magisterium).

Of course, the teaching must be about a point of morality or dogma. Ergo, geocentrism, or how best to burn witches does not qualify. -- Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

[albert cipriani]

Could you explain "ex cathedra statements", please?

Since Sweetie did not explain it, I will. The term means from the chair. From the chair means, as defined by Vatican I, that the pope indicates that he is speaking as the universal pastor, that what he has to say applies to ALL Catholics in all countries, that it is a matter that he is binding on all Catholics, and that the matter is a matter of faith or morals.

Whenever the pope fulfills these requirements, his eloqution is infallible and unreformable. -- Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic.

[godfry n. glad]

Could you explain "ex cathedra statements", please?

Since Sweetie did not explain it, I will. The term means from the chair. From the chair means, as defined by Vatican I, that the pope indicates that he is speaking as the universal pastor, that what he has to say applies to ALL Catholics in all countries, that it is a matter that he is binding on all Catholics, and that the matter is a matter of faith or morals.

Whenever the pope fulfills these requirements, his eloqution is infallible and unreformable. -- Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic.

Just like that, huh? Shazam! What the Pope says is infalliable?

What makes it so?

[godfry n. glad]

And what is the composition of the Catholic Church's Magisterium?

The Church's Magisterium is it's teaching authority exercised by a majority of bishops with the pope's concurment in an eccumenical council, or by the pope himself when he speaks ex catherdra, or by the constant teaching of all the bishops everywhere (Ordinary Magisterium).

Of course, the teaching must be about a point of morality or dogma. Ergo, geocentrism, or how best to burn witches does not qualify. -- Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

Nobody has mentioned witches yet, so far as I know. And you're telling me that acting according to scripture is not necessarily dogma? "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" and all that?

It all sounds like that conspiracy that I alluded to with TomJoe. Rather like a secret "King in Parliament" situation, or a Star Chamber, only instead of secular, it's sectarian.

And, what makes you think that a group of decision-makers can make any better decisions than any other given group of decision-makers? What you claim for the Catholic Church is claimed, as one level or another, by not only every other christian sectary, but the practitioners of a variety of other, non-christian, worshippers. As for the claim of 2000 years of unbroken historical record, it's bogus to begin with, and other religions have longer historical records upon which to turn to, negating any authority claimed due to the chronological age of the scripture.

I still see no reason to give authority to those for whom you seem to claim authority. They are men, just as all men, and they err, just as all men err. The difference seems to be that their error becomes engraved in stone and parroted by unthinking automotons for generations after. This is why, in my view, adhering to traditional Catholicism will prepare you for any crisis which might arise here in the 14th century.

[Sweetie]

Nobody has mentioned witches yet, so far as I know. And you're telling me that acting according to scripture is not necessarily dogma? "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" and all that?

His point was this, if the Church wrote a book let's say, on how best to burn witches, that does not qualify as a teaching of morality or dogma, an idea of "how best to." Or "How best to take over France," or whatever. You can say that the Church is not infallible because she made an error in her book,for instance that you know it is not best to burn witches by throwing them into a pile of straw.

And, what makes you think that a group of decision-makers can make any better decisions than any other given group of decision-makers?

Church government is not a democracy though some who become bishops and Cardinals are choosen for their ability, however, Apostolic Succession is the point.

We claim a special charism of the Holy Spirit passed on from bishop to bishop in an unbroken line of succession all the way back to an Apostle. That is the difference between a self-proclaimed apostle or disciple or "knower of truth" and doctrine decider and a bishop of the Catholic Church. This charism and this infallibility is despite any personal merits any bishop himself may have.

The Catholic Church is the oldest existing Western institution. Governments have been born and fallen, men have been born and have died, Kings have come and have gone and still she stands and still she is something to be reckoned with.

[godfry n. glad]

I say let him continue to harangue in the manner he has to date and allow it to be a living example of why not to embrace Catholicism, at least in its "Traditional" form.

Ack, I'm sorry, I must nitpick this a little bit. Saying that one should not embrace an ideology because one doesn't like someone who holds such an ideology is not really reasonable. In some ways that's like saying that even though you're starving you won't take bread from a drunkard.

Under that criteria, no ideology can be held, right?

Seriously though, sometimes to be more dogmatic is to be more reasonable. Sometimes those that are complaining about the dogmatic types are themselves terribly dogmatic it's just not as clear.

Anything you hold as true means that it's opposite is untrue. If you don't really believe the opposite is untrue, then you don't really believe what you hold as true is true.


Well... If what he is spouting is traditional Catholicism, then allow him to continue. He's doing a great job alienating most here. It's his message that is noxious and his showing that is a boon. That his personality is worse for his acceptance of such an ideology, well, that's obvious. Zealots for non-existant sky daddies are the worst. This particular numnuts has already, in part, driven a decent, lovable, and self-effacing agnostic to go elsewhere. I'd much rather have the humorous content of warrenly than the humorless zealotry of a dipshit like Al.

You think you know the truth? And, I thought anything that was NOT the truth was an untruth, rather than just the opposite. Or, are those just partial truths? Or perverted truths? Or merely untruths?

[godfry n. glad]

Nobody has mentioned witches yet, so far as I know. And you're telling me that acting according to scripture is not necessarily dogma? "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" and all that?

His point was this, if the Church wrote a book let's say, on how best to burn witches, that does not qualify as a teaching of morality or dogma, an idea of "how best to." Or "How best to take over France," or whatever. You can say that the Church is not infallible because she made an error in her book,for instance that you know it is not best to burn witches by throwing them into a pile of straw.

And, what makes you think that a group of decision-makers can make any better decisions than any other given group of decision-makers?

Church government is not a democracy though some who become bishops and Cardinals are choosen for their ability, however, Apostolic Succession is the point.

We claim a special charism of the Holy Spirit passed on from bishop to bishop in an unbroken line of succession all the way back to an Apostle. That is the difference between a self-proclaimed apostle or disciple or "knower of truth" and doctrine decider and a bishop of the Catholic Church. This charism and this infallibility is despite any personal merits any bishop himself may have.

That Apostolic Succession is a BIG LIE. It was fabricated by Eusebius in the fourth century precisely to establish authority through "apostolic succession"...that they had the original message. Yet, if you take care to read the latest in biblical criticism, you'd know that the "orthodox" (those whose message would eventually become the scriptures and teaching of the Catholic Church) tampered with the scriptures during the first three hundred years of internecine theological warfare. An earlier chronicler of the Chrisitian traditions, Origen, upon which Eusebius relied heavily, cut his nuts off and defected to a heretical sect, the Montanists. Apostolic succession is a lie created to justify and entrench a certain group's power...once established, Athenasius would, at the end of the fourth century, institute a burning of all teachings in conflict with the determined orthodoxy.

[Sweetie]

Well... If what he is spouting is traditional Catholicism, then allow him to continue. He's doing a great job alienating most here.

Alienation though, is not falsification which is my point.

Zealots for non-existant sky daddies are the worst. This particular numnuts has already, in part, driven a decent, lovable, and self-effacing agnostic to go elsewhere. I'd much rather have the humorous content of warrenly than the humorless zealotry of a dipshit like Al.

But godfry, please, without offense consider this. What about my experience with you and your zealousness in your hatred for my faith and the stupidity I embrace, et al? Can I turn the tables on you?

And sure, yes there is a question of prefence, I agree, and attitude.

Truly, "I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with saints, sinners are much more fun and only the good die young." -Billy Joel

Thank goodness I discovered that the saints laugh and cry, "It is often just as sacred to laugh as it is to pray," and sinners cry and laugh.

Truths in their right relation to each other, I agree, produces people who are both loving and happy, speak the truth with love and sincerity, compassion, understanding, wisdom and mercy, show the fruits of the Holy Spirit, I agree.

However, sometimes the fact that each of us are human and prone to our own problems despite our beliefs does not prove that our beliefs are untrue.

You think you know the truth?

I am reasonable. I assume that something is true and therefore I then also assume that the alternate is untrue which means I cannot be a relativist, it is more reasonable to be a dogmatist. If such and such is true, then such and such follows. It is not more reasonable to refuse to make connections which are obvious as alot of people do, though I think most of them don't realize that they are doing this. If Christ was God for instance, then Mary gave birth to God, correct? That kinda thing.

And, I thought anything that was NOT the truth was an untruth, rather than just the opposite. Or, are those just partial truths? Or perverted truths? Or merely untruths?

:sadcheer:

[Sweetie]

That Apostolic Succession is a BIG LIE. It was fabricated by Eusebius in the fourth century precisely to establish authority through "apostolic succession"...that they had the original message.

Ok dokey.

Consipiracy theories. I encounter different versions of this stuff by various different sects, there's the Fundamentalists who have their own view of the Early Church and orthodoxy, don't forget the Liberals, particularily Universalists, then there's those outside the Church, etc.

My favorite part is that y'all tend to have a different version which tends to spin things in your favor.

Regardless, you have your books and your theories and I have mine. I have read some Early Church Fathers, St. Augustine was not silent, I know that the Church's teaching is consistent with philsophy and natural law and other systems are incomplete, unable to be held by the rationalist or are logically inconsistent. There are other things to recommend that the Church has orthodoxy with or without history books.

Anyhoo........

[godfry n. glad]

Well... If what he is spouting is traditional Catholicism, then allow him to continue. He's doing a great job alienating most here.

Alienation though, is not falsification which is my point.

Zealots for non-existant sky daddies are the worst. This particular numnuts has already, in part, driven a decent, lovable, and self-effacing agnostic to go elsewhere. I'd much rather have the humorous content of warrenly than the humorless zealotry of a dipshit like Al.

But godfry, please, without offense consider this. What about my experience with you and your zealousness in your hatred for my faith and the stupidity I embrace, et al? Can I turn the tables on you?

You certainly can.

And sure, yes there is a question of prefence, I agree, and attitude.

Truly, "I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with saints, sinners are much more fun and only the good die young." -Billy Joel

Heh... I like what Billy says about Catholic girls. So generalized, but so true. :wink:

Thank goodness I discovered that the saints laugh and cry, "It is often just as sacred to laugh as it is to pray," and sinners cry and laugh.

Truths in their right relation to each other, I agree, produces people who are both loving and happy, speak the truth with love and sincerity, compassion, understanding, wisdom and mercy, show the fruits of the Holy Spirit, I agree.

Saints? Sinners? Holy Spirit? These are all nonsensical terms in my experience. Depending upon your meaning of "truths", and excising the reference to any "fruits of the Holy Spirit" (unless by this you mean Bushmills Irish whiskey...which is wholely spirits, then feel free to include), I'd agree with your entire second sentence.

However, sometimes the fact that each of us are human and prone to our own problems despite our beliefs does not prove that our beliefs are untrue.

You think you know the truth?

I am reasonable. I assume that something is true and therefore I then also assume that the alternate is untrue which means I cannot be a relativist, it is more reasonable to be a dogmatist. If such and such is true, then such and such follows. It is not more reasonable to refuse to make connections which are obvious as alot of people do, though I think most of them don't realize that they are doing this. If Christ was God for instance, then Mary gave birth to God, correct? That kinda thing.

And, I thought anything that was NOT the truth was an untruth, rather than just the opposite. Or, are those just partial truths? Or perverted truths? Or merely untruths?

:sadcheer:

Sweetie...

You have accepted an a priori assumption which I have not. You accept that there is a god and that this god is capable of interceding in your life. You seem to accept a set of teachings which demand a level of faith, or belief in the unseen and unproveable, whose eventual effect is to get you a ticket into the hereafter for ever and ever, amen. I don't accept any of it. I think it's comfortable delusion that millions have accepted in one way, shape, or form to fool themselves into thinking that death doesn't end it all for the personality expressed in the body.

Do I demand that you accept that? No. I do demand that when somebody else comes spouting their delusions, I can disagree and offer up alternative delusions of my own, or others, as I understand them. I'm fairly sure that nobody has a firm grasp of "the truth". To me, it's a warning sign when somebody claims they have such a firm grasp. That sends up the skeptic shields and I prepare for confrontation.

Al has done so rather egregiously on this board.

You, however, I like.

[Sweetie]

Sweetie...

You have accepted an a priori assumption which I have not.

I understand that however I also entailed it but most people missed that fact, hehe.

You accept that there is a god and that this god is capable of interceding in your life. You seem to accept a set of teachings which demand a level of faith, or belief in the unseen and unproveable, whose eventual effect is to get you a ticket into the hereafter for ever and ever, amen. I don't accept any of it. I think it's comfortable delusion that millions have accepted in one way, shape, or form to fool themselves into thinking that death doesn't end it all for the personality expressed in the body.

Do I demand that you accept that? No. I do demand that when somebody else comes spouting their delusions,


Now, let's speak of delusions. Delusions are false ideas, hmmmm? And therefore you are saying that you believe that what you think on the question of God is true and therefore people who disagree are delusional or think something otherwise are wrong, correct?

Which is my point, thank-you, you indeed are a dogmatist. Hey, at least dogmatism is honest and it's also easier to work with, not like others who do their darnedest to remain slippery little suckers like nailing jello to the wall. They can be nailed however.

Now, you would like to backtrack and call your own ideas themselves possibly delusional which is contradictory. The fact is, you think you are right and so do I. You may indeed reject the Church, the Church claims to speak for Christ, you don't think Christ existed possibly, or was God, then ok, but the problem is we do. The Church is right or wrong about those things. One thing I do know however, is that she is consistent with her premises as others are not which matters alot.

[godfry n. glad]

That Apostolic Succession is a BIG LIE. It was fabricated by Eusebius in the fourth century precisely to establish authority through "apostolic succession"...that they had the original message.

Ok dokey.

Consipiracy theories. I encounter different versions of this stuff by various different sects, there's the Fundamentalists who have their own view of the Early Church and orthodoxy, don't forget the Liberals, particularily Universalists, then there's those outside the Church, etc.

My favorite part is that y'all tend to have a different version which tends to spin things in your favor.

Regardless, you have your books and your theories and I have mine. I have read some Early Church Fathers, St. Augustine was not silent, I know that the Church's teaching is consistent with philsophy and natural law and other systems are incomplete, unable to be held by the rationalist or are logically inconsistent. There are other things to recommend that the Church has orthodoxy with or without history books.

Anyhoo........

Of course they're conspiracy theories. The Catholic Church is a conspiracy. Plain and simple. Look up the definition. It fits.

St. Augustine was too late, he's post-Nicene. The church was formed official under the sanction of Constantine and the deliberations of the Nicene conclave gave definitive shape to what dogma was to be. It defined what a christian was, what a christian believed. That was 325. In the next seventy years, Eusebius, who had been at Nicea and subsequently served the church and Constantine as official hagiographer and head propagandist, created the "apostolic succession" specifically to legitimize what had become the Catholic Church. If memory serves, what followed was an ongoing struggle with the Arians and their expulsion before proceeding to expunge all other teachings under Athanasius in the last decade of the fourth century.

The scriptures found at Nag Hammadi were probably cached there by monks who sought to save them from the destruction demanded by the church head in Byzantium. That find gives ample evidence to the existance of a vast array of variant teachings which had evolved out of early christianity. Gnostic christianity had a wide following. Other sects had been eradicated or merely declared heretical...until...using the power of the late empire under Constantine and his heirs (save Justinian the Apostate), the church ruthlessly crushed all other theological claimants to the primacy of the orthodox church. There is no surety that the "right" teaching has triumphed. Indeed, considering the manner it was obtained, I'd say that it was incongruent with large portions of its own primary teachings.

As for my rantings being those of other sectaries, well...I'm on the outside. I've followed closely the deliberations of the Jesus Seminar and read closely of the commentators and contrarians that I can. I'm impressed with the work of John Dominic Crossan, a former Roman Catholic priest, but less so with the works produced under imprimatur by the likes of Raymond Brown and John P. Meier, both practicing Roman Catholic priests. Then there's Luke Timothy Johnson, who in my estimation has gone off the deep end. I tend more towards Burton Mack and Crossan's estimation of the development of early christianity and towards Bart Ehrman as a decent source for material on the development and corruption of scripture. I can cite source publications, if you'd like. A good conservative background is Udo Schnelle's The History and Theology of The New Testament Writings

John Dominic Crossan, The Birth of Christianity
Burton Mack, Who Wrote the New Testament?
Bart Ehrman, After the New Testament
- Lost Christianities
- The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture
Gerd Ludeman, Heretics
Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels

I would not call these scholars particularly sectarian in outlook.

And, here's a challenge: Eusebius uses a reputed first century scholar by the name of Hegesippus as a source. No extant copies of Hegesippus' work exists, and from what I understand, is not cited outside of Eusebius' works. From Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History(the source document for that fictional "Apostolic Succession"), can you tell me how many years Hegesippus spent crafting the document from which Eusebius quotes, several times?

[godfry n. glad]

Sweetie...

You have accepted an a priori assumption which I have not.

I understand that however I also entailed it but most people missed that fact, hehe.

You accept that there is a god and that this god is capable of interceding in your life. You seem to accept a set of teachings which demand a level of faith, or belief in the unseen and unproveable, whose eventual effect is to get you a ticket into the hereafter for ever and ever, amen. I don't accept any of it. I think it's comfortable delusion that millions have accepted in one way, shape, or form to fool themselves into thinking that death doesn't end it all for the personality expressed in the body.

Do I demand that you accept that? No. I do demand that when somebody else comes spouting their delusions,


Now, let's speak of delusions. Delusions are false ideas, hmmmm? And therefore you are saying that you believe that what you think on the question of God is true and therefore people who disagree are delusional or think something otherwise are wrong, correct?

Which is my point, thank-you, you indeed are a dogmatist. Hey, at least dogmatism is honest and it's also easier to work with, not like others who do their darnedest to remain slippery little suckers like nailing jello to the wall. They can be nailed however.

Now, you would like to backtrack and call your own ideas themselves possibly delusional which is contradictory. The fact is, you think you are right and so do I. You may indeed reject the Church, the Church claims to speak for Christ, you don't think Christ existed possibly, or was God, then ok, but the problem is we do. The Church is right or wrong about those things. One thing I do know however, is that she is consistent with her premises as others are not which matters alot.

I'd have no problem with a Buddhist on this. Yes, I think some of my ideas could well be delusional. I try to avoid those I think less credible and, at base, less delusional from my perspective. My perspective is, of course, built from my learning and experience. It's all I have, really. When somebody demands that I include something I consider entirely unnecessary and when I refuse, respond in any number of negative manners thereafter, I express my delusions as well. One of those is that humans are capable of improvement, self-improvement. I suspect it's a delusion, but I still act on it, just, I suppose, as you act upon your surety that you have a corner on the truth.

The thing is, I've investigated that which you claim is a truth. I personally found it wanting, even destructive. I find that in many people, it fosters neglect of social justice and condemnation to grinding poverty while extending an unproven reward in an unfalsifiable hereafter. I've listened, and chosen (heretic that I am) to deny that the church has the truth it claims it has.

I, however, make no claim to have the truth. It's just that some things are more credible, and closer to the truth, and more explanable, that they are just more credible. Your creed, in my estimation, is a wholely irrational demand. I cannot be a christian, much less a Catholic.

[albert cipriani]

He's [Albert] doing a great job alienating most here. It's his message that is noxious and his showing that is a boon. That his personality is worse for his acceptance of such an ideology, well, that's obvious. Zealots for non-existant sky daddies are the worst. This particular numnuts has already, in part, driven a decent, lovable, and self-effacing agnostic to go elsewhere. I'd much rather have the humorous content of warrenly than the humorless zealotry of a dipshit like Al.

Well, who died went to heaven and made you Mr. Saturday Night? I haven't noticed anyone rolling in the aisles over your non-existent humor. And since when is humor a criteria on a philosophy board of all places. You're obviously on the wrong wavelength. -- Goodbye, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic :wave:

[godfry n. glad]

Well, who died went to heaven and made you Mr. Saturday Night? I haven't noticed anyone rolling in the aisles over your non-existent humor. And since when is humor a criteria on a philosophy board of all places. You're obviously on the wrong wavelength. -- Goodbye, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic :wave:

Well...I'm dull, remember?

[Darren]

Should the Magisterium ever drop a single one or officially teach a contrary dogma, you win and I’ll turn in my Catholic card for your tree-hugging ACLU-loving atheistic go-straight-to-hell card. – Cheers, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

Why would I win?
Tree-hugging? Well yes, I like trees. Do traditional Catholics dislike trees, or do you just abstain from hugging them?
What does ACLU mean? What would loving it imply?
I don't believe in hell, never have (I liked Dante's Inferno though).

I think that's your card, not mine. In any case, what's all that got to do with the thread?
Anyway, I think you should go ahead and hug that tree, Albert, nuts to the magisterium :D

[Darren]

Aren't you saying, Catholicism is perfect, but Catholicism is only that pick-'n-mix of strands which you consider worthy?

If I myself predicated what was Catholicism, I’d be guilty of the sin Protestants have trademarked as their own, private judgment. What’s Catholic dogma and morality is what the Catholic Church’s Magisterium says it is. It is that simple. Why the obfuscation? :tornado: Why pretend that no one knows what the Church authoritatively teaches? She makes it blindlingly easy for us. :scared2:

For example, she labels with some seven grades of theological certainty the doctrines she promulgates. Only the top two are de fide and must be held to avoid being a heretic. Should the Magisterium ever drop a single one or officially teach a contrary dogma, you win and I’ll turn in my Catholic card for your tree-hugging ACLU-loving atheistic go-straight-to-hell card. – Cheers, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic


Originally Posted by godfry n. glad
Could you explain "ex cathedra statements", please?



Since Sweetie did not explain it, I will. The term means from the chair. From the chair means, as defined by Vatican I, that the pope indicates that he is speaking as the universal pastor, that what he has to say applies to ALL Catholics in all countries, that it is a matter that he is binding on all Catholics, and that the matter is a matter of faith or morals.
Whenever the pope fulfills these requirements, his eloqution is infallible and unreformable. -- Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic.


A bit like Simon Says with Latin, then? :D

[Darren]

Well damn. :D

Now do I have to go study the Spanish Inquisition or can we just talk principles?

:chin:

All I'm saying is that the Church is manifestly fallible, so is every institution created by humans, fallibility being part of human nature. Your example of JP 11 going for reconciliation with other religions is pertinent - it is so obviously the right thing to do that it's easy to take it for granted and forget that things were not always so. That's reform. His predecessor turned a blind eye to the Holocaust. You said yourself that JP 11 wrote a book about asking for forgiveness, that implies admission of fallibility.

[Sweetie]

All I'm saying is that the Church is manifestly fallible, so is every institution created by humans, fallibility being part of human nature. Your example of JP 11 going for reconciliation with other religions is pertinent - it is so obviously the right thing to do that it's easy to take it for granted and forget that things were not always so. That's reform. His predecessor turned a blind eye to the Holocaust. You said yourself that JP 11 wrote a book about asking for forgiveness, that implies admission of fallibility.

There's a distinction though of whether or not the Church/members of the Church did wrong or taught wrong.

The distinction must be noted. Most people figure that infallibility is an interchangeable term with or means impecability. It is not so for us.

[godfry n. glad]

All I'm saying is that the Church is manifestly fallible, so is every institution created by humans, fallibility being part of human nature. Your example of JP 11 going for reconciliation with other religions is pertinent - it is so obviously the right thing to do that it's easy to take it for granted and forget that things were not always so. That's reform. His predecessor turned a blind eye to the Holocaust. You said yourself that JP 11 wrote a book about asking for forgiveness, that implies admission of fallibility.

There's a distinction though of whether or not the Church/members of the Church did wrong or taught wrong.

The distinction must be noted. Most people figure that infallibility is an interchangeable term with or means impecability. It is not so for us.

So... Are you saying that we need to construct a matrix on each and every case?

Church taught right, did right
Church taught wrong, did right
Church taught right, did wrong
Church taught wrong, did wrong
Church member taught right, did right
Church member taught wrong, did right
Church member taught right, did wrong
Church member taught wrong, did wrong

Then there are all the permutations of the above, joining the claims about the Church and it's members. How about when the Church teaches right, yet the members do wrong. You say that absolves the Church, right? But if the Church teaches wrong (which I hear you saying is "impossible by definition", an easy and misguided means of setting the terms of the discussion), and, as a result, the members do wrong, then the Church is falliable is it not? I note also that you wish to quibble about what is Church teaching and what is not. Yet, the Church can do a great deal of harm, institutionally, by acting wrongly because its actions are not covered by the pronouncements of the Magisterium or the Pope ex cathedra (teachings right, actions wrong).

The Church is not infalliable. The Pope is never infalliable. The whole ediface upon which the actions and words of the Church are constructed is a fiction and wholey incredible and unbelieveable.

Of course, we have to be in concensus as to what "right" and "wrong" were, which might not be quite as easy as you think, and I'm sure we'd have some distinct differences of opinion on several points.

My point here is no matter how you wish to obfuscate the issue, the Church as an institution is, and has been, fallible, as have been it's members, many claiming that their actions were in service to the teachings of the Church. That you claim it is not is merely playing with smoke and mirrors....and not particularly effectively, either.

[Sweetie]

This is really getting frustrating, the definition is so simple and anytime it's ignored, then we just have a strawman to deal with, or many.

The function of the Church is primarily her teaching authority. Teaching authority is bound up in the idea of revelation and we claim, and only claim, infallibilty when the Church is acting in the full capacity as teachers on revelation, matters of faith and morals.

That's it.

I mean seriously, what the Fuck to you is the Church? To you it sounds like it's any member, any group of members, and and all human beings within the Church, etc.

That's ridiculous.

We are not claiming Popes and Bishops are perfect/impecable. We are not saying the Church in her government is infallible, in her day to day operating systems, in some of her decisions especially where there's possibly only limited information, etc.

Get that point down.

[Sweetie]

What you are saying is just about the equivalent of saying that a math teacher is teaching wrong or her math isn't correct because she's a drunk, or because she caused a strike or whatever.

[godfry n. glad]

This is really getting frustrating, the definition is so simple and anytime it's ignored, then we just have a strawman to deal with, or many.

The function of the Church is primarily her teaching authority. Teaching authority is bound up in the idea of revelation and we claim, and only claim, infallibilty when the Church is acting in the full capacity as teachers on revelation, matters of faith and morals.

That's it.

I mean seriously, what the Fuck to you is the Church? To you it sounds like it's any member, any group of members, and and all human beings within the Church, etc.

That's ridiculous.

We are not claiming Popes and Bishops are perfect/impecable. We are not saying the Church in her government is infallible, in her day to day operating systems, in some of her decisions especially where there's possibly only limited information, etc.

Get that point down.

Then "The Church" you cite is a fukken non-entity. If it's teaching members cannot implicate the church in their actions, it is hardly worth consideration.

Which was my point to begin with...why the hell should I, or anyone, give any credence to an institution that teaches something and then denies culpability for what is taught when those taught engage in immoral acts. What the Church then becomes is a nonsensical tautology. Pointless. Why bother?

[Sweetie]

Then "The Church" you cite is a fukken non-entity.

Is the government a politician? No, and yet it is an entity. Are all politicians good politicians? No, do all bad politicians reflect badly on the government, no. If a politician steals even though he helped write a law that stealing is illegal is that the government's fault? If a political group within the government tries to act on their own without the consent of the government and somewhat get away with that, power struggle, does that necessarily mean there was something wrong with the laws they helped to write and enforce?

It's just. :shrug:

The Church when we speak of it means a group of bishops primarily. There are several different usages but mostly it's the hiearchy of bishops we are speaking of, who have authority within the Church. Decision making authority, the power to "bind and loose", to excommunicate, etc. But their point in existing is to administer the sacraments, to ordain priests so that priests can continue to administer the sacraments and to teach the message that God meant to convey when He came to this earth.

If it's teaching members cannot implicate the church in their actions, it is hardly worth consideration.

?

Which was my point to begin with...why the hell should I, or anyone, give any credence to an institution that teaches something and then denies culpability for what is taught when those taught engage in immoral acts.

Dude, the Church is not being denied culpability for sins or the sins of her members or her hiearchy. In fact, how can we judge that members of the Church were acting sinfully "immorally" unless we have some unchanging and perfect standard from which to test it against?

You are judging the Church which is fine, but you have to foundation to judge the Church from except by the authority of your mind which is not my authority.

We claim infallibility only in one sphere and one sphere only, you'd like to spread it over the whole of the possibility of human error and that's just not sensible.

[godfry n. glad]

We claim infallibility only in one sphere and one sphere only, you'd like to spread it over the whole of the possibility of human error and that's just not sensible.

No, I wouldn't. I'd just like to point out that ANY claim to infallibility by the Church or its minions is empty and erroneous, no matter what sphere is wishes to claim.

In other words, as Ronin noted early in this thread, claims of infallibility have as much weight as playground insults. Sound and fury signifying nothing.

[Sweetie]

No, I wouldn't. I'd just like to point out that ANY claim to infallibility by the Church or its minions is empty and erroneous, no matter what sphere is wishes to claim.

Unless there's a God of course, and revelation. :doh:

[godfry n. glad]

No, I wouldn't. I'd just like to point out that ANY claim to infallibility by the Church or its minions is empty and erroneous, no matter what sphere is wishes to claim.

Unless there's a God of course, and revelation. :doh:

Even if there were a god, and revelation, there is no way that you, or any other mortal, would know what actions were "correct". There are sufficient counterclaims by other sectaries to call into question your claims...yet, they cite revelations from a god as well. Perhaps you and yours are, in reality, responding to the commands of the anti-god? Or gods? If there is an Ahura Mazda and it is the appointed representative of an almighty, then you're in deep doo-doo. Or if it's Dis Pater that makes the decisions, you're outta luck. Or, maybe Wu-Ti or Shiva? The Seventh-Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses and a host of other protestant sectaries have made claims that the Roman Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon and it and it minions naught but tools of the Anti-Christ and Satan, and they are putative christians. Can you prove otherwise?

[Darren]

This is really getting frustrating, the definition is so simple and anytime it's ignored, then we just have a strawman to deal with, or many.

The function of the Church is primarily her teaching authority. Teaching authority is bound up in the idea of revelation and we claim, and only claim, infallibilty when the Church is acting in the full capacity as teachers on revelation, matters of faith and morals.

That's it.

I mean seriously, what the Fuck to you is the Church? To you it sounds like it's any member, any group of members, and and all human beings within the Church, etc.

That's ridiculous.

We are not claiming Popes and Bishops are perfect/impecable. We are not saying the Church in her government is infallible, in her day to day operating systems, in some of her decisions especially where there's possibly only limited information, etc.

Get that point down.


What you are doing is, in effect, confusing one ideal of the function of an organization with the organization itself, substituting an entirely abstract part for the realized whole. It is possible that this abstract part, being virtually (if not entirely) meaningless in practice, can be formulated in such a way as to be internally coherent and non-contradictory. So what? What does that mean? That your ideal of the function of your church contains the notion that the said church is infallible in its function? Great, but remember, it's only the abstraction of your ideal that is infallible - nothing else, certainly not that organization known as the RCC or any part of it, in it's functioning actuality.
Well, it's your ideal - I'm not the one to tell you anything at all about it - but the organization known as the Roman Catholic Church is indeed fallible, in every way, meaning simply that it is as prone to failure as anything else - including in its teaching. No amount of Simon Says wordplay and carefully crafted but entirely meaningless documentation could change this.
The Roman Catholic Church is an organization, with a history, like any other organization.

[Sweetie]

No amount of Simon Says wordplay and carefully crafted but entirely meaningless documentation could change this.
The Roman Catholic Church is an organization, with a history, like any other organization.


The question is, what is infallibility. The idea is, infallibility means to us that the Church because of a special charism from God in her teaching function cannot teach officially doctrinal error as truth. It's either true or false. It can be falsified to my satisfaction and I can disbelieve it, it is possible. I believe it at present, I think it's rational to assume that if there is a God this is not only possible but true, etc.

That you disagree is no suprise.

Please, note:

DOCTRINE, DOGMA, REVELATION, GOD

You believe in neither of these things, so what's your point?

"Accept my premises and I will lead you infallibly to my conclusions."

[Sweetie]

Even if there were a god, and revelation, there is no way that you, or any other mortal, would know what actions were "correct".

Why not?

There are sufficient counterclaims by other sectaries to call into question your claims...yet, they cite revelations from a god as well.

We've already discussed this and unless your preconceived notions change, this circle has no end and it's a waste of my time to discuss it.

Or, maybe Wu-Ti or Shiva? The Seventh-Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses and a host of other protestant sectaries have made claims that the Roman Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon and it and it minions naught but tools of the Anti-Christ and Satan, and they are putative christians. Can you prove otherwise?

I believe in the natural law, I am a rationalist, the case when compared can be made for Christianity rationally.

I'm just getting seriously aggravated because you don't absorb what it is I'm saying. Logic is an if..then process. You already presuppose that there are no "thens" possible other than the ones you have already deduced generally made on ridiculous "ifs".

What do you want me to say? I'm not trapped in your logical circles or strawmen, but I'm waving to you from the sidelines. :wave:

[godfry n. glad]

Even if there were a god, and revelation, there is no way that you, or any other mortal, would know what actions were "correct".

Why not?

There are sufficient counterclaims by other sectaries to call into question your claims...yet, they cite revelations from a god as well.

We've already discussed this and unless your preconceived notions change, this circle has no end and it's a waste of my time to discuss it.

Or, maybe Wu-Ti or Shiva? The Seventh-Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses and a host of other protestant sectaries have made claims that the Roman Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon and it and it minions naught but tools of the Anti-Christ and Satan, and they are putative christians. Can you prove otherwise?

I believe in the natural law, I am a rationalist, the case when compared can be made for Christianity rationally.

If, as you have indicated, you are a practicing Catholic, you are not a rationalist, for you must ascribe to the Nicene Creed, which is about as far from rational as one can get. That requirement for christianity is supernatural, not natural, and not rational.

So, which is it? Are you a naturalist rationalist, or a Catholic...they are mutually exclusive.

I'm just getting seriously aggravated because you don't absorb what it is I'm saying. Logic is an if..then process. You already presuppose that there are no "thens" possible other than the ones you have already deduced generally made on ridiculous "ifs".

Yet, you posit the most ridiculous "if" of all...if a god exists.

What do you want me to say? I'm not trapped in your logical circles or strawmen, but I'm waving to you from the sidelines. :wave:

I think you've got your perspective confused...you're the one trapped in a self-defeating logic circle. You keep spouting about a god, a christ and rational naturalism all at the same time....that's psychotic.

[godfry n. glad]

"Accept my premises and I will lead you infallibly to my conclusions."

That's all fine and good, unless your premises are faulty to begin with....which I suspect they are.

[Darren]

No amount of Simon Says wordplay and carefully crafted but entirely meaningless documentation could change this.
The Roman Catholic Church is an organization, with a history, like any other organization.


The question is, what is infallibility. The idea is, infallibility means to us that the Church because of a special charism from God in her teaching function cannot teach officially doctrinal error as truth. It's either true or false. It can be falsified to my satisfaction and I can disbelieve it, it is possible. I believe it at present, I think it's rational to assume that if there is a God this is not only possible but true, etc.

That you disagree is no suprise.
Please, note:

DOCTRINE, DOGMA, REVELATION, GOD

You believe in neither of these things, so what's your point?

"Accept my premises and I will lead you infallibly to my conclusions."

I'm not actually a nihilist or an atheist. I just know that humans are fallible. However you dress them up, all religions involve human interpretation and transmission. They are all, therefore, subject to human error, thus are all fallible.

[JoeP]

I have learnt something about "infallibility" during the course of this thread. The RC Church does not claim to be infallible in the common sense, nor its members, nor even the pope. Just the officially proclaimed doctrine. I'm still not sure what (a) "charism" is, but that's what makes the officially proclaimed doctrine guaranteed to be correct. Fair enough.

However, I'd like to restate a question I'm fairly sure I raised earlier (I need to review the whole of the thread and a couple of others): does the RC Church claim that no other religion or Christian denomination possesses the ability to infallibly declaim the doctrine of God, Jesus, or its deity(ies)? Don't all Christians claim the Bible to be inspired and the literal truth (or is that just fundamentalist/"Bible" Christians?)? Didn't Mohamed, Joseph Smith, Ellen White, et al claim that they were inspired by the true and correct word of God? (I'm only concerned about the claim, not the fact. My belief that all were mistaken isn't part of this.)

[albert cipriani]

I'm still not sure what (a) "charism" is, but that's what makes the officially proclaimed doctrine guaranteed to be correct.

Charism just means gift. I think it comes from the word oil, as kings were annoited with oil when given the gift of Divine Rule, prophets too.

Does the RC Church claim that no other religion or Christian denomination possesses the ability to infallibly declaim the doctrine of God?

Yes. The Catholic Church's infalliblity is necessarily exclusive. It's based on hierarchy and authority. A body with two heads makes about as much sense as two infallible Churchs.

Don't all Christians claim the Bible to be inspired and the literal truth (or is that just fundamentalist/"Bible" Christians?)?

Catholic infallible authority gave Christians their Bible that they now claim can be interpreted by themselves without the Church. Sort of like bitting the hand that fed you.

Didn't Mohamed, Joseph Smith, Ellen White, et al claim that they were inspired by the true and correct word of God?

Of course they all claimed to be inspired by God. But that's just code word for don't hold me accountable for the shitload of contradictions I'm gonna dump on you. All religions claim Divine authorship. No religion But Catholicism backs up that claim with the claim of infalliblity and indefectibility. -- Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

[JoeP]

Kind of funny that you misspell "infallibility". Not so funny you fail to give me a stronger case for Catholicism's exclusive claim to infallibility other than "it's our Bible - we go back to Peter - Jesus said so", plus "official doctrine - what they say not what they do - has never been contradicted".

What's "indefectibility"?

Since we've been mentioning contradictions ...
Catholic infallible authority gave Christians their Bible
Do you mean the NT is official doctine of the Church and therefore infallible?
don't hold me accountable for the shitload of contradictions I'm gonna dump on you
If there were a contradiction in the NT, the RC Church would be "intellectually sunk"?

[Sweetie]

Do you mean the NT is official doctine of the Church and therefore infallible?

The NT is infallible yes (the NT is not official doctrine), as well as Sacred Tradition.

Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magesterium but that's kinda broad actually, especially our understanding of Sacred Tradition.

Basically thus:

The message was delivered through two avenues though primarily one, Tradition, oral preaching and teaching, then the writing down of revelation, Sacred Scripture, and then there's the Magesterium which is the interpreter.

However of course, lol, we may only know what is Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition by what the Church/Magisterium tells us it is. :P

If there were a contradiction in the NT, the RC Church would be "intellectually sunk"?

Eh, something like that but the NT is just a book and a book without an interpreter is words open to myriads of interpretations so, I don't know if you can say that if you could find a contradiction in the NT then you would "get" the Catholic Church. The contradictions I suppose must be primarily located in official intepretation. :chin: There are alot of seeming contradictions in the NT which can be considered to be paradoxical instead of necessarily contradictory. But :chin: , yeah I could see perhaps a way to falsify the Bible itself without the Church maybe. Hmmmm.......

[godfry n. glad]

Do you mean the NT is official doctine of the Church and therefore infallible?

The NT is infallible yes (the NT is not official doctrine), as well as Sacred Tradition.

Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magesterium but that's kinda broad actually, especially our understanding of Sacred Tradition.

Basically thus:

The message was delivered through two avenues though primarily one, Tradition, oral preaching and teaching, then the writing down of revelation, Sacred Scripture, and then there's the Magesterium which is the interpreter.

However of course, lol, we may only know what is Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition by what the Church/Magisterium tells us it is. :P

If there were a contradiction in the NT, the RC Church would be "intellectually sunk"?

Eh, something like that but the NT is just a book and a book without an interpreter is words open to myriads of interpretations so, I don't know if you can say that if you could find a contradiction in the NT then you would "get" the Catholic Church. The contradictions I suppose must be primarily located in official intepretation. :chin: There are alot of seeming contradictions in the NT which can be considered to be paradoxical instead of necessarily contradictory. But :chin: , yeah I could see perhaps a way to falsify the Bible itself without the Church maybe. Hmmmm.......

Ahhh....

There it is.

Eh, something like that but the NT is just a book and a book without an interpreter is words open to myriads of interpretations so, I don't know if you can say that if you could find a contradiction in the NT then you would "get" the Catholic Church.

That's the rationale for the existence of the church. They claim to be the "official" interpreters. Anything that seems to contradict, isn't really a contradiction...right? Because if you have the proper interpreter, then you'd know that there was no contradiction? Is that what you're saying? It's infalliable because we are the infalliable interpreters of the infallible doctrine...by definition?

If that's the case, it's a big bucket full of hooey. Tautological hooey.

The contradictions I suppose must be primarily located in official intepretation.

Uh...yeah? If the official teachings have contradictions, doesn't that mean the doctrine is contradictory? Am I understanding your statement correctly?

I'd be curious to know where in scripture the necessity of an institutional church is rationalized. Could you help me with that?

[Sweetie]

That's the rationale for the existence of the church. They claim to be the "official" interpreters.

Yes, that's the point of infallibility, infallible on matters of faith and morals which is what the teaching of the Bible is concerned with correct? Right doctrine and right action.

Anything that seems to contradict, isn't really a contradiction...right?

Since the Church determined which books belonged in the Bible in first place.

Because if you have the proper interpreter, then you'd know that there was no contradiction?

No, because the Church is infallible and happened to have decided which books belonged in the Bible in the first place.

The contradictions I suppose must be primarily located in official intepretation.

Uh...yeah? If the official teachings have contradictions, doesn't that mean the doctrine is contradictory?

Which was albert's point, now that you finally got it. However, we are not Protestants, we do not believe that the Bible is our sole source of doctrine, we look to Tradition also. Anyhoo, so then the Bible is not "official teaching" , DOGMA is official teaching, find a contradiction and there you go.

I'd be curious to know where in scripture the necessity of an institutional church is rationalized. Could you help me with that?

Keep in mind, we are not Sola Scriptura Christians. "I would not believe the Bible unless moved thereto by the authority of the Catholic Church." St. Augustine. He of course, existed at the time the Bible was just being cannonized so he founded his faith on something other than the Bible and so did four hundred years worth of Christians before the Council of Nicea I think it t'was, in the early 400's.

http://www.davesloan.com/god/biblical_basis.html


Some other essays on the subject if you're interested:

http://www.catholic.com/library/scripture_tradition.asp

[JoeP]

I am running out of hope on this. The Church chose the books to make up the NT but didn't make them understandable without its own say-so? Could they not, with divine inspiration, have done just a little bit better than that?

... (a) What is the benefit of having to get to understanding and salvation only through a church? There must be a canonical answer for this. I think it's central.
But (b) why assemble the NT anyway?

btw, www.catholic.com contains some very good, well-written articles in the "library" section. (Has Albert read this one: http://www.catholic.com/library/How_to_Talk_with_Fundamentalist.asp? "If you antagonize opponents or talk past them, you’ve wasted your time and theirs." :D) But then it contains articles from This Rock which seem, frankly, like something you'd find at a spoof site. E.g. http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9505fea2.asp. Explain to me why this is not just embarrassing?

[godfry n. glad]

Keep in mind, we are not Sola Scriptura Christians. "I would not believe the Bible unless moved thereto by the authority of the Catholic Church." St. Augustine. He of course, existed at the time the Bible was just being cannonized so he founded his faith on something other than the Bible and so did four hundred years worth of Christians before the Council of Nicea I think it t'was, in the early 400's.

http://www.davesloan.com/god/biblical_basis.html


Some other essays on the subject if you're interested:

http://www.catholic.com/library/scripture_tradition.asp

That's exactly my point. Before there was a "church", which officially came into being at the Nicene Council, under the sponsorship of the Emperor Constantine, in 325, there was a large variety of teachings about Jesus and the Christ. The next three-quarters of a century, this newly "established" church, proceeded to subjegate every other set of beliefs and understandings about Jesus and the Christ, to the point of driving many out of the empire (the Nestorians and Manicheans) or destroying all supporting scripture and teachings. What was orthodox after the beginning of the 5th century and survives into the common period as the Catholic Church at Rome, was merely one of many during the 2nd through the 4th centuries.

What assurance do I have that the right teachings prevailed?

None but the spurious claims of the brutual survivor, whose primary purpose in service to the emperor and state was to extinguish all controversy.

[Sweetie]

I am running out of hope on this. The Church chose the books to make up the NT but didn't make them understandable without its own say-so?

Understandable? What does that mean in this context? There's differing intelligence levels, there's the fact that for fourteen hundred years not only were most people illiterate, there were few copies of the Bible because they were handwritten, and seeing as how they were handwritten, they were very expensive. There is no notion of a Bible alone concept ever being intended either in Judaism or Catholicism. There is a notion however, of Christ and Moses declaring an authority or being the foundation of one, maybe David :chin: , anyhoo, and of teaching being about mostly human interaction, not a man and his book.

Could they not, with divine inspiration, have done just a little bit better than that?

Better than what?


... (a) What is the benefit of having to get to understanding and salvation only through a church? There must be a canonical answer for this. I think it's central.

Part of the problem may be why you think that's detrimental.

But (b) why assemble the NT anyway?

Because the writings of the Apostles and what they taught even as relayed by others is a source of doctrine, just not the sole source of doctrine so the Church needed to decide which books were authentic.

[Sweetie]

That's exactly my point. Before there was a "church", which officially came into being at the Nicene Council,

I disagree with this idea. Ignatious of Antioch said where the Bishop is there the Church is in the early 100's, for instance. The idea is the Church is the authority primarily because of Apostolic Succession which is about bishops, etc.

under the sponsorship of the Emperor Constantine, in 325, there was a large variety of teachings about Jesus and the Christ.

Sure, Gnostic and Maniceans, Nestorians. Like I said though, you can test their philosophy for yourself to see if it is sound or not as compared with Catholic philosophy.

The next three-quarters of a century, this newly "established" church, proceeded to subjegate every other set of beliefs and understandings about Jesus and the Christ, to the point of driving many out of the empire (the Nestorians and Manicheans) or destroying all supporting scripture and teachings. What was orthodox after the beginning of the 5th century and survives into the common period as the Catholic Church at Rome, was merely one of many during the 2nd through the 4th centuries.

What assurance do I have that the right teachings prevailed?

Reason?

None but the spurious claims of the brutual survivor, whose primary purpose in service to the emperor and state was to extinguish all controversy.

Yeah, ok, like I've never heard that one before. :popcorn: