theculturewarrior Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 I didn't make it all the way through that [b]16 page thread[/b] about papal infallibility. I just wanted to know where you're coming from. If you're protestant...well...either the sun revolves around the Earth and Galileo was wrong (and the Church was right) or there's more to the story than Sola Scriptura. If you're an atheist...why do you care? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archangel Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 I'm curious, too. Why do you have animosity towards the Church? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yiannii Posted March 25, 2005 Share Posted March 25, 2005 I have asked twice and have not gotten a reply... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted March 25, 2005 Share Posted March 25, 2005 Hi Folks, I'm Roman Catholic and I have no "animosity" toward the Church. But I insist on separating fact from fiction, and unfortunately a lot of the latter has gotten into Catholicism over the years. I am a bit intolerant of "true believers." These are those who insist that the "party line" be adhered to regardless of the evidence. And anyone who doesn't, or even questions them, are ignorant and enemies of Christ. Do you ever wonder what makes people think like that? LittleLes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toledo_jesus Posted March 25, 2005 Share Posted March 25, 2005 I admit that it sometimes sounds farfetched, but if you read the justification of these practices from the Church sources they make sense. Granted, you have to have a certain amount of faith in the Church as well as in its sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted March 25, 2005 Share Posted March 25, 2005 Hi Toledo-Jesus, Not true in all cases, I'm afraid. I don't know whether you followed the discussion of Exsurge domine (the Bull is on the web). While we were debating if it met the criteria for an ex cathedra statement (it does), what this Bull made Catholics accept (under penalty of excommunication) is that it was the will of God that (Lutheran)heretics be burned at the stake. Although a valid papal teaching, I'd tend to disagree. But if there were any true believers around, they were burning heretics at the stake because the pope (church) commanded it! And there are many, many more. Scary, huh LittleLes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archangel Posted March 26, 2005 Share Posted March 26, 2005 As a Roman Catholic, you sure have difficulty differentiating between doctrine and discipline. Do you believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted March 26, 2005 Share Posted March 26, 2005 [quote] As a Roman Catholic, you sure have difficulty differentiating between doctrine and discipline. rolleyes.gif Do you believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist?[/quote] Anyone taking wagers on this one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yiannii Posted March 26, 2005 Share Posted March 26, 2005 [quote name='hot stuff' date='Mar 26 2005, 11:23 AM'] Anyone taking wagers on this one? [/quote] LOL! LittleLes, to be a Catholic one must follow the three pillars of Truth. 1. The Word of God 2. The Magisterium 3. Sacred Tradition If one does not have faith in any one of these three, then technically they are not Catholic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted March 26, 2005 Share Posted March 26, 2005 (edited) Yes, apologists try the "discipline" rather than "doctrine" argument, when the doctrine is proven to be absurd. It's a very predictable defense. Or else, when they have no valid rebuttal, they lapse into the inquistitional mode. Is that what you are trying, Archangel? And sorry, Yiannii, One only has to follow the truth to be Catholic. Not the "party line." For example, I don't really have to burn heretics at the stake to prove orthodoxy. Do you? Little Les Edited March 26, 2005 by LittleLes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yiannii Posted March 26, 2005 Share Posted March 26, 2005 (edited) LittleLes you are jumping all over the place. You seem to have a misunderstanding of what infallible means and when the Church is infallible. You seem unable to distinguish between doctrine, discipline and practice. What can be changed and what cannot etc. You said "one only has to follow truth to be Catholic" well I ask you, what is truth to you? [quote]If I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themeselves in God's household, which is the Church of the Living God, the pillar and foundation of truth. 1Tim 3:16[/quote] Edited March 26, 2005 by yiannii Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theculturewarrior Posted March 26, 2005 Author Share Posted March 26, 2005 Catholic! I should have known! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted March 26, 2005 Share Posted March 26, 2005 (edited) Hi Yianni, No. I think I have a very good grasp of the meanings of dogma, doctrine, discipline, and practice. You see, I have my own copy of The New Catholic Dictionary, Harden. Just out of curiosity, into which category would you place the Ten Commandments? Ditto, the ordinary and extraordinary magisterial infallibility. They're in the Catholic Dictionary also. LittleLes Edited March 26, 2005 by LittleLes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted March 26, 2005 Share Posted March 26, 2005 You may want to answer questions directly littles [quote]Do you believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist?[/quote] A simple yes or no should suffice. No need for you to go into an explanation of transubstantiation. Its a valid question and its a closed ended question. Yea or nay? [quote] You see, I have my own copy of The New Catholic Dictionary, Harden.[/quote] Ah yes, the "Dan Brown" approach to critical thinking. You're arguing from Cliff notes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted March 26, 2005 Share Posted March 26, 2005 Ah, hot stuff, I see you are back to running an inquisition. That's a sure sign that you recognize that your arguments have failed. Will your demand for my biography and a question about the interpretation of 81 scripture passages soon follow? LittleLes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts