MorphRC Posted July 16, 2004 Share Posted July 16, 2004 [quote name='conservativecatholic' date='Jul 16 2004, 03:10 AM'] I can disprove non-Catholic Christians and Muslims in a heartbeat. [u]Non-Catholic Christians[/u]: Include 20,000 denominations Took books out of [i]The Holy Bible[/i] Established not by Jesus but by sinful people [u]Islam[/u]: Jesus clearly said that no prophets would come after Him which disproves Islam and its beliefs that Mohammad was both the last and ultimate prophet. [/quote] Thats useless. 1: They dont recognize Jesus as establishing a church, or religion 2: They dont recognize Jesus as God 3: They dont recognize the Bible in anyway, other than a corrupted book of Christians & jews 4: Muhammad claimed himself the seal of prophets[last] after Jesus, who's message was corrupted by some christians, which they cant identify or tell a time for. Your shot down already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeenaBobba Posted July 16, 2004 Share Posted July 16, 2004 [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Jul 14 2004, 04:57 PM'] First a point. That is, they held to the supremecy of the pope, but did they hold to him being final and in anyway infallible? [/quote] Well, not exactly. It depends on the Orthodox Christian you ask. Some believe that Peter didn't have any special authority, while others believe that he did. What the latter types believe is that Rome only has a "primacy of honor," and that Peter's authority is not limited to the Bishop of Rome in a special way. [quote] If the answer is no, is the development of doctrine used to justify modern claims to papal authority?[/quote] It is true that the papacy has developed, as have other doctrine in Catholicism and Orthodoxy. (Many Orthodox Christians would dispute this claim.) The evidence for the Catholic papacy is pretty apparent in the writings of the Church Fathers, I think. (If you want to read some of it, there's a great reference section here at PM, and if you have any questions, feel free to ask. ) The thing is, though, that the Church came into a fuller understanding of the papacy in time, but the seeds were always there. Catholics believe that Peter was the first Pope, so the papacy has been functioning since NT times. As to the development of doctrine, I stated that there is development of doctrine even in Orthodoxy. Eastern Christians believe in something called hesychasm, which has to do with God's uncreated Energies (I think). The seeds of this teaching can be found in the writings of the St. Basil the Great, a saint in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Hesychasm was but a seedling in his writings, yet the Orthodox St. Gregory Palamas expounded on this teaching in the 14th century, and it was widely accepted (inasmuch as things can be accepted in Orthodoxy) by the Orthodox. [quote]Who's to say the church isn't to work its way to the truth stumbling somewhat along the way?[/quote] That's the thing, though. 1 Timothy 3:15 says that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. If the Church can contradict itself, then it's fallible. If it's fallible, how can it be a "pillar and foundation" of truth when it's not always true? Furthermore, Matthew 16 says that the gates of Hell shall never prevail against the Church. Satan is the Father of Lies, so it'd follow that the Church is protected against falsity. There's nothing in any Ecumenical Council that disproves that papacy. That being said, the Orthodox really have no basis for their opposition to the Bishop of Rome. If the Orthodox admit that they can be wrong on things outside of Ecumenical Councils, they'd also have to admit that the Catholic Church could very well be the one, true Church. And what's the point of claiming to be the one, true Church (as they do) when, at the end of the day, you might not even be the one, true Church? God bless, Jennifer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorphRC Posted July 16, 2004 Share Posted July 16, 2004 Man I miss this :sad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted July 16, 2004 Author Share Posted July 16, 2004 Thanks Morph for replying to those posts for me. [quote]how can it be a "pillar and foundation" of truth when it's not always true?[/quote] Well technically it can be a pillar and foundation because it does holds true basic beliefs. That is said out of faith just as much as a RC would say anything. We shouldn't automatically assume that everything that is taught is false. I suppose it depends on what you mean by "pillar and foundation". [quote]There's nothing in any Ecumenical Council that disproves that papacy. That being said, the Orthodox really have no basis for their opposition to the Bishop of Rome. [/quote] There's also nothing in any Council for a long time that proves the papacy. Also I'm not sure why you're starting to defend the Catholic Church. This isn't about defending it. It's about defending these other guys. Are you thinking that by defending the Catholic Church you're showing how it's better? This is an honest question. It appears that like I thought this all boils to that pillar and foundation stuff, a basic philosophy, a basic assumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorphRC Posted July 16, 2004 Share Posted July 16, 2004 Yw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p0lar_bear Posted July 16, 2004 Share Posted July 16, 2004 [quote]Also I'm not sure why you're starting to defend the Catholic Church. This isn't about defending it. It's about defending these other guys. Are you thinking that by defending the Catholic Church you're showing how it's better? This is an honest question.[/quote] Often, when presented with something that is not true, it makes more sense to simply provide what is true. If someone said the sky was green, I wouldn't go about proving the sky isn't green, I would prove that it is blue. If the sky cannot be blue and green at the same time, then by proving that the sky is blue, I have shown that it is not green. In the same way, instead of attacking the belief that, say, the Eucharist is not the Body and Blood of Christ, it makes more sense to simply prove that it is. Since something cannot be and not be at the same time, by proving the truth, you disprove the opposite. Does that make sense to you? Rather than proving they are wrong, Beena Bobba is simply showing that we are right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted July 16, 2004 Share Posted July 16, 2004 the fact is, you put a post with an impossible task. they did their best, but the only way to really prove them wrong is to prove ourselves right. To proove the Catholic Church wrong, all you'd have to do is prove ONE of her doctrines to be false. That is why Ironmonk's challenge would work, but no one can do it. To proove any other religion wrong is not so simple, cuz they can admit there might be some error or whatever but that doesn't proove the whole thing wrong. the foundation of truth, the pillar of truth, all this means that it is 100% true. anything that is not 100% true is a sandy foundation, a sandcastle pillar. A rock foundation is what Jesus built His Church on though, a solid pillar a sollid foundation a 100% true thing, a Holy Apostolic Church. there was no need for any Council to proove the papacy for that time, a council only decides to proove something when it's under attack usually. The Mother of God was defined because someone said she shouldn't be called the Mother of God but merely the Mother of Christ, so the Council of Ephesus declared her the Mother of God. In Christianity, the Church defines things definitively when she recognizes wolves attacking the sheep. When she sees such wolves, Jesus the Shepherd speaks through Her telling the sheep which way they must go to avoid the wolves. When people thought they could question the Pope, the definition of infallibility was the path on which we went to avoid the wolves. Pax Amorque Christi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorphRC Posted July 16, 2004 Share Posted July 16, 2004 interesting thoughts.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted July 16, 2004 Author Share Posted July 16, 2004 [quote]Often, when presented with something that is not true, it makes more sense to simply provide what is true.[/quote] She didn't prove her side, she just defended it. I suppose I should have asked how is this defense of yours a proof? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1337 k4th0l1x0r Posted July 16, 2004 Share Posted July 16, 2004 [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Jul 16 2004, 12:54 PM'] She didn't prove her side, she just defended it. I suppose I should have asked how is this defense of yours a proof? [/quote] Pick a specific debate topic and perhaps she can prove or disprove it. Asking her to prove or disprove an entire church is a daunting task and does not make for constructive debates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted July 16, 2004 Share Posted July 16, 2004 that is true except, i believe, in Ironmonk's challenge. Ironmonk's challeng to proove the Catholic Church wrong is quite simple, because all you have to do is take one of her doctrines and proove the early Christians would have disagreed and the Bible contradicts it. but to ask us to disproove Eastern Orthodoxy? or Protestantism? or Islam? I donno, it's just not as clear-cut as IronMonk's Challenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1337 k4th0l1x0r Posted July 16, 2004 Share Posted July 16, 2004 [quote name='Aloysius' date='Jul 16 2004, 01:05 PM'] that is true except, i believe, in Ironmonk's challenge. Ironmonk's challeng to proove the Catholic Church wrong is quite simple, because all you have to do is take one of her doctrines and proove the early Christians would have disagreed and the Bible contradicts it. but to ask us to disproove Eastern Orthodoxy? or Protestantism? or Islam? I donno, it's just not as clear-cut as IronMonk's Challenge. [/quote] Yeah. Disproving the Catholic Church would be easy as you would only have to disprove an infallible dogma. Disproving a church or religion that does not claim infallibility is much more difficult. It's the difference between, say, disproving that I'm a totally good person (easy to disprove), and disprove that I'm a better person than I am a worse person (there are good and bad things about me, so you'd have to weigh every darn thing about me to get a good answer). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeenaBobba Posted July 17, 2004 Share Posted July 17, 2004 Hi Dairy, [quote] Well technically it can be a pillar and foundation because it does holds true basic beliefs. [/quote] How do you know what "true and basic beliefs" are? If there is contradiction in the Orthodox Church, how would you know if it was or wasn't over a "true and basic belief"? Doesn't claiming to be the one, true Church have a whole lot to do with the truth? I would think so. Basically, you have the Catholic and Orthodox Churches both claiming that they are the one, true Church. The Catholic Church does not hold that the first seven Ecumenical Councils are the only infallible deposits of dogma and doctrine. The Orthodox Church does, and since there is nothing in these first seven Ecumenical Councils that disproves Catholicism, the Orthodox Church has no reason (by their own standards) to oppose Catholicism. Since they can't do this, they can't really claim to be the one, true Church. But they do claim to be the one, true Church, and doing so more or less saws off the very branch they sit on. As for Ecumenical Councils, the Orthodox Church only accepts the first seven. The Church is a living organization. The Church didn't die 1,000 years ago at the Great Schism of 1054. The Church, as in the first centuries, is constantly faced with new heresies that warrant their address at Ecumenical Councils. The Orthodox no longer have Ecumenical Councils because they are separated from the Bishop of Rome, one of the five major patriarchs. So, in a way, Orthodoxy cannot even properly function without Rome. Orthodoxy functioning properly would equal Catholicism. Lutherans hold to many of the beliefs of the first seven Ecumenical Councils, but Lutherans also disagree with the Catholic and Orthodox Churches on many things. Can two Christian groups who disagree on many things both be the one, true Church? John 16:13 says that the Spirit shall lead the Church into [b]all[/b] truth. That passage does not say that the Spirit shall lead the Church into [i]some[/i] truth. Because John 16:13 says "all truth," it is obvious that two opposing Christian groups cannot be the one, true Church. That being said, the Catholic, Orthodox, and Lutheran Churches cannot all be the true Church. Only one of them can be. Yet, like I said, there's nothing in the Orthodox paradigm that can correctly and consistently disprove Catholicism. There are varying views in Orthodoxy on many things, and since there is very little unified, authoritative view in Orthodoxy, there seems to be a contradiction with John 16:13. The Eucharist is a big part of Orthodoxy, and like Catholicism, Orthodoxy has a valid Eucharist; yet, the Eucharist (to the best of my knowledge -- correct me if I'm wrong) wasn't defined at any of the first seven Ecumenical Councils. Because of this, could Orthodoxy consistently call denying the True Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist heterodox? I don't think so, unfortunately. [quote]I suppose it depends on what you mean by "pillar and foundation".[/quote] By "pillar and foundation," I meant the complete protection from falsity and the recipient and holder of "all truth," as described in John 16:13. [quote]There's also nothing in any Council for a long time that proves the papacy.[/quote] That's fine with Catholicism, since the Catholic Church doesn't hold that the first seven Ecumenical Councils are the only means of defining infallible dogma and doctrine. As a matter of fact, we believe that infallible dogma and doctrine can be defined outside of Ecumenical Councils. [quote]Also I'm not sure why you're starting to defend the Catholic Church. This isn't about defending it. It's about defending these other guys. [/quote] I defend the Catholic Church because I believe it's true. I wouldn't be Catholic if I didn't think that. In your original post, you asked that we try to disprove the "other guys." That'd be impossible to do if one didn't have a belief system one believed was the fullness of the truth to compare the other religions to. After all, how could I disprove something if I had no foundation or reasons to believe it's false? And how could I think something is false without pointing out the contradictions it has to the truth? Since I believe that Catholicism is the fullness of the truth, it's only natural that I compare Orthodoxy to Catholicism when trying to disprove Orthodoxy as the one, true Church. [quote]Are you thinking that by defending the Catholic Church you're showing how it's better? This is an honest question.[/quote] Of course. I think the Catholic Church is the fullness of the truth. [quote]It appears that like I thought this all boils to that pillar and foundation stuff, a basic philosophy, a basic assumption.[/quote] I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. Perhaps you can explain. God bless, Jen P.S. I know this post deals with disproving the Orthodox Church, so I just want to make it clear that I love Orthodoxy, as it's very close to Catholicism. Obviously, though, I love Catholicism more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now