my reasonable reasons

[dairygirl4u2c]

Just because many think it uncomprehensible that one would not ever become catholic, here are some of my reasons I think justify not having enough concrete evidence. There are more and maybe I'll use this thread to add to it. This is more for me, so don't expect me to explain everything fully, but it's here for you to read and comment on if you want.
You might find it enlightening of me to know that when I was an avid catholic apologist, I fought for the CC in the vein of being able to defend it. Now that I'm no longer catholic, I look beyond simply being able to defend it and into trying to reasonably prove.
I realize some think the proofs are all reasonable enough, but I do not.
Anyway here I'll begin my list of things off the top of my head:

Papacy. the core of the CC authority. it seems inconclusive that the pope was as the CC says it was. in the early church, you read about how they looked to rome, but that does not mean in the sense then that the CC says it does now or now says it did then. read the writings in the sense that rome was simply influrential because of its temporal position and where peter and paul were.
When infallibility was declared, there was a significant number of bishops who were opposed to the declaration. One might say that that's because it took so long for it to be ratified offically and things arent ratified until there's controversy, but that's only a defense. See Cardinal Newman vs his arch enemy for reasonable reasons for and against the ratification, but more for against it because the reaons it was ratified became popular and more known.
Also Newman said that the CC didn't look mature because as an acorn takes time, so did the CC. Yea but it could also have been man made.

Eucharist. Ignatius' letters talked about flesh being love and blood being love or something to that effect. People talk how he was John's follower, but didn't John have many? What are we basing he was a follower on, if it's like much in the early chruch, just a good guess? What did his other followers say? Was John John of Antioch like Ignatius was? Could Ignatius's writings been misconstrued and not able to be clarified since he was so soon martyred? Regardless, we have sparse information on all the early pre300 writers regarding this issue. True, there are some that back up the CC way back early, but considering all the cities and christians back then, how can one say that the CC's teach was so widespread? I don't think it can or haven't seen anyting showing this. All it can say is that it existed for a long time, but that doesn't mean it's truth. Plus, when it does finally start to look like the orthodox position for sure 300+, how does one say for sure that this is what was originally intended? Just like that phrase what's popular isn't always right and what's right isn't always popular, what's orthodox isn't always right and what's right isn't always orthodox.

CC miracles. True there are many. But there are also many Protestant miracles. Many miracles in the CC are unique to the CC, but perhaps that's because the CC is simply more complicated than the Protestant. It has more facets for miracles to occur. It's no more correct to say that Protestants can get miralces in order to convert one day than it is to say Catholics can get miracles to convert one day. What's more right to say is that we're all christians, so miracles are miracles. Plus, as Augustine said, basing things on miracles is weak and as Thesolonians I blieve it said said, miracles can be made by God to steer those who allow themselves to be foolishly fooled fooled and as the bible shows, miracles are sometimes of the devil.

The CC seems to have taught that salvation was not at all possible for awhile noncatholics in the strict sense. When looking for documentation from the time of those popes who make the controversy becuase they apepar to be strict sense, their writings are often not posted though other popes' writings were, who were before and after that pope. It seems like a cop out to simply say these pope were to busy to write anything else. Also, documentation based on the ordinary magisterium in that time is lacking to demonstrate leniency. (aquanius is somewhat lenient but that's somewhat earlier than the controversials and somewhat arguable anyway)

Galilao seems to have been going against something hte CC taught. The CC taught that the earth was the center of the universe based on the bible. This is a faith and moral criteria to meet infallibilty. You might argue that itw as simply a type of scientific standard in that day and not infallible, but it was based onthe bible etc.

It seems like the CC taught that there was a sacrafice at every mass, and the mass still seems to say that, but now it claims that it's not a new sacrafice at every mass but the same one throughout time based on Jesus' sacrafice. It seems like it changed it's stance.

There's also a concern rumor about one of the popes that was like murdered or died really fast after being elected because people thought he was going to do something wrong. I don't think it was the pope before PJ2; I'll look into this. Also I need to look into that one notorius bad pope who almost declared something but didn't controversy.

General other ideas are that if the CC taught something by the ordinary magisterium, we'd never know because by definition, the qualifications of what constitutes ordinary isn't completely defined. It seems like the extraordinary or even the ordinary magisterium of current times could easily contradict a vaquely defined ordinary when the actual belief could have been pretty concrete. This is arguing from abstraction though, so I'll look for specific examples, though really things like the Galileao affair, oridinary superstitions, and other things mentioned this thread probably fit here.

As you can see, many problems with documentation in all these. It seems possibly all too convenient that what's been saved has been saved by the CC, who has been in such large control for a long time.
Ignatius was writing against heresies; that indicates there were indeed pepole who thought diff than him. What were others thinking? Were there others who wrote these things who had other ideas?
Also, it seems like the CC lumps christian groups into too broad of groups. Like everyone heretic during the time of gnosticism I'm sure didn't fit that model to the core.


Other personal reasons. If these previous reasons are objective enough for me to be doubtful, I begin to embrace my personal ones.
It seems immoral not to recognize other people's morals in the law. Banning gay marriage is immoral in my mind. We'd want our morals recognized by those who may think our morals are immoral, so we should do the same. No one's saying that we have to say in the law that God says the marriage is right, we're just saying in the law that it's a marriage by state standards and in order to be moral by accepting their morals.

There's more which I will get to later and explain more above.

Edited October 27, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[photosynthesis]

I'm praying that God will help you to sort these things out, and that he will bring you home to the Catholic Church!

[Socrates]

So many words, and yet not one shred of concrete proof offered that the Church is false. Only that there is "not enough" evidence for you, or you personally disagree with what the Church teaches.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Oct 26 2005, 09:59 PM']"Papacy. the core of the CC authority. it seems inconclusive that the pope was as the CC says it was. in the early church, you read about how they looked to rome, but that does not mean in the sense then that the CC says it does now or now says it did then. read the writings in the sense that rome was simply influrential because of its temporal position and where peter and paul were.
When infallibility was declared, there was a significant number of bishops who were opposed to the declaration. One might say that that's because it took so long for it to be ratified offically and things arent ratified until there's controversy, but that's only a defense. See Cardinal Newman vs his arch enemy for reasonable reasons for and against the ratification, but more for against it because the reaons it was ratified became popular and more known.
Also Newman said that the CC didn't look mature because as an acorn takes time, so did the CC. Yea but it could also have been man made.
You've still given no evidence against papal authority, merely that you find it "inconclusive."  Bishops opposing something does not make it false.  Only the Pope and the bishops in union with him are infallible.  Dissadent bishops prove nothing.:[/quote]
[b]Matthew 16: 18-19[/b]. Peter was given the Keys of the Kingdom by Christ.
[url="http://www.catholic.com/search.asp?searchType=file&target=Peter"]Host of articles on St.Peter here.[/url]

[quote]Eucharist. Ignatius' letters talked about flesh being love and blood being love or something to that effect. People talk how he was John's follower, but didn't John have many? What are we basing he was a follower on, if it's like much in the early chruch, just a good guess? What did his other followers say? Was John John of Antioch like Ignatius was? Could Ignatius's writings been misconstrued and not able to be clarified since he was so soon martyred? Regardless, we have sparse information on all the early pre300 writers regarding this issue. True, there are some that back up the CC way back early, but considering all the cities and christians back then, how can one say that the CC's teach was so widespread? I don't think it can or haven't seen anyting showing this. All it can say is that it existed for a long time, but that doesn't mean it's truth. Plus, when it does finally start to look like the orthodox position for sure 300+, how does one say for sure that this is what was originally intended? Just like that phrase what's popular isn't always right and what's right isn't always popular, what's orthodox isn't always right and what's right isn't always orthodox. [/quote]
[b]John 6:22-66[/b]. Early enough for you? It's pretty explicit too.
"For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink." (John 6:55)
Many left Christ because they found this teaching "intolerable." (John 6:59-66) Why would they have such trouble with this teaching if it was only metaphor?
Again, you have given [b]NO evidence [/b]that the Church taught anything contrary about the Eucharist before AD 300. You simply refuse to accept the evidence that is there. Hardly "reasonable."

[quote]CC miracles. True there are many. But there are also many Protestant miracles. Many miracles in the CC are unique to the CC, but perhaps that's because the CC is simply more complicated than the Protestant. It has more facets for miracles to occur. It's no more correct to say that Protestants can get miralces in order to convert one day than it is to say Catholics can get miracles to convert one day. What's more right to say is that we're all christians, so miracles are miracles. Plus, as Augustine said, basing things on miracles is weak and as Thesolonians I blieve it said said, miracles can be made by God to steer those who allow themselves to be foolishly fooled fooled and as the bible shows, miracles are sometimes of the devil. [/quote]
Again this proves nothing. This whole post is incoherent. How do miracles prove the Church false?

[quote]The CC seems to have taught that salvation was not at all possible for awhile noncatholics in the strict sense. When looking for documentation from the time of those popes who make the controversy becuase they apepar to be strict sense, their writings are often not posted though other popes' writings were, who were before and after that pope. It seems like a cop out to simply say these pope were to busy to write anything else. Also, documentation based on the ordinary magisterium in that time is lacking to demonstrate leniency. (aquanius is somewhat lenient but that's somewhat earlier than the controversials and somewhat arguable anyway) [/quote]
This has been gone over many times, as have the other issues. The Church still teaches that belonging to the Church in some way is necessary for salvation.

[quote]Galilao seems to have been going against something hte CC taught. The CC taught that the earth was the center of the universe based on the bible. This is a faith and moral criteria to meet infallibilty. You might argue that itw as simply a type of scientific standard in that day and not infallible, but it was based onthe bible etc.[/quote]
The Galileo issue has also been discussed in depth elsewhere. This was a local ecclesial court, which was not infallible.

[quote]It seems like the CC taught that there was a sacrafice at every mass, and the mass still seems to say that, but now it claims that it's not a new sacrafice at every mass but the same one throughout time based on Jesus' sacrafice. It seems like it changed it's stance. [/quote]
The Church never changed its stance on the Mass. Give some solid documentation.

[quote]There's also a concern rumor about one of the popes that was like murdered or died really fast after being elected because people thought he was going to do something wrong. I don't think it was the pope before PJ2; I'll look into this.  Also I need to look into that one notorius bad pope who almost declared something but didn't controversy.[/quote]
Rumors and conspiracy theories. No evidence. And Pope Benedict XVI is a Martian.


[quote]General other ideas are that if the CC taught something by the ordinary magisterium, we'd never know because by definition, the qualifications of what constitutes ordinary isn't completely defined. It seems like the extraordinary or even the ordinary magisterium of current times could easily contradict a vaquely defined ordinary when the actual belief could have been pretty concrete. This is arguing from abstraction though, so I'll look for specific examples, though really things like the Galileao affair, oridinary superstitions, and other things mentioned this thread probably fit here. [/quote]
This is vague and abstract indeed. Need to argue better than that!

[quote]As you can see, many problems with documentation in all these. It seems possibly all too convenient that what's been saved has been saved by the CC, who has been in such large control for a long time.
Ignatius was writing against heresies; that indicates there were indeed pepole who thought diff than him. What were others thinking? Were there others who wrote these things who had other ideas?
Also, it seems like the CC lumps christian groups into too broad of groups. Like everyone heretic during the time of gnosticism I'm sure didn't fit that model to the core. [/quote]
Yes, you indeed have problems with documentation - you've provided none. More vague and incoherent rambling. The Church is false because people disagree with it? Come on! If you're going to debate against the Church , at least find some concrete arguments, and put your thoughts together coherently! Littleles does better than you!

[quote]Other personal reasons. If these previous reasons are objective enough for me to be doubtful, I begin to embrace my personal ones.
It seems immoral not to recognize other people's morals in the law. Banning gay marriage is immoral in my mind. We'd want our morals recognized by those who may think our morals are immoral, so we should do the same. No one's saying that we have to say in the law that God says the marriage is right, we're just saying in the law that it's a marriage by state standards and in order to be moral by accepting their morals.
There's more which I will get to later and explain more above.
[/quote]
And here's the clincher! The Catholic Church is wrong because Dairygirl personally disagrees with it and doesn't like what it teaches. The Church's moral teachings are wrong because Dairygirl considers them immoral? Uh-oh, guess this means I'll have to leave the Church and join . . . whatever -Church of Dairygirl?
Who says it is "immoral not to recognize other people's morals in the law"??? Certainly not Christ. I sure don't recall reading that one in the Bible.

What's the point of this silliness? You've provided no evidence or arguments, only asserted your personal opinions. What are we supposed to do? If you personally disagree with the Church, that's your issue. We'll pray for you. Do you want Phatmass's collective approval? What are we supposed to say? What's the point?

Edited October 27, 2005 by Socrates

[Myles Domini]

I'm going to pray for you dairygirl because you seem to have a deeply divided heart. You yourself know that much of what you just said is logically incoherent and if you have read Newman as you allude to then you will see he points out that if we cant say for sure the Church got one thing right in the early days e.g. the Eucharist then we cant say for sure she got anything right e.g. the canon and the whole sum of Christianity might thus be foolishness. Indeed, if you are the Newman reader you say you are read his letter to the Duke of Norfolk chapter 9 where he deals with both the question of Papal infallibility and the Galileo case. You can find it at www.newmanreader.org

I think its clear from your posts that the foundations upon which the Church stands are not your real problem with the Church. Rather you disagree with an element of her teaching and because of that you're drafting reasons in to justify your opposition to her. In that, I can empathise with you, but I cannot give my assent to such a stance. Likewsie Holy Mother Church empathises with sinners but she cannot bless sins. There are many difficult and controversial areas of Church teaching that people find hard to grapple with, this is only normal, but that should not be a reason to oppose the bride of Christ. Indeed, to a large extent its a reason to thank her. On one level it can be stressful but on another we can sing with St Augustine 'O felix culpa' because by our perpetual and almost unending mediocrity we get to experience countless times God's mercy. In such a way that the words of Isaiah 55:8-9 become a tangible reality to us through the Sacrament of Reconciliaton.

For man forgiveness is so difficult and even when it is forthcoming often the memory remains within him. Yet, with God all it requires is atrition and Confession and the slate is completely cleaned. In contrast to our grudefulness the Lord shows the purity of His love. He does not remember our sins nor deal with us according to iniquities as the Psalmist reminds us. Rather, the desire to be forgiveness, is desire enough for God to bring us back into his arms without asking anymore. The Lord tells man that 'your Maker is your husband' (Isa 55:5) yet if a man's wife committed as many adulteries against her husband as I commit against the covenant of Christ I'm sure he would've left her long ago. Not so with Christ. For even if we are faithless, he remains faithful (2 Timothy 2:13) thus displaying the depth of His Love for humanity in all its goodness and beauty and truth. The Shepherd being perfectly complete in Himself does not hesistate to go looking for the lost sheep time and time again and when He finds it He lovingly takes that sheep upon His shoulders and carries it home. So, as St Bernard said, even in sin we can say 'all is for good' because it is in our sin that the Mercy of God is revealed and moves us to a deeper sense of gratitude and love.

Some people's crosses are heavier than others and indeed some people, the vast majority of us like myself, are (barring miraculous circumstances) probably never going to get over our concupisence or our attraction to our evil habits. Many of us will still be setting our will against God even until our dying day in a variety of ways, refusing to resist temptation, refusing to bare witness to the Lord. But for Him all of that is irrelevant. For to God, making the journey to Confession, in true sorrow if that state of sorrow last only 20 seconds before and after you get into the confessional is enough. Rather than being harsh what the Church teaches is an opening to happiness for the great lovers and for those of us who have mediocre hearts like myself...its a chance to see the love of God even if in our pitifulness we dont respond as we should. Without sin how would we know mercy? Without pain how would we know the love of the Lord who emptied himself unto death on a cross (Philipians 2:5-7)? As St Augustine said 'God would not permit evil lest He could draw a greater good from it' and what a good we get in spite of our own sinful disobidience.

In the 30's Our Lord revealed His heart of Mercy to St Faustina to remind all of us just how bountiful it is. If one like myself, a filthy sinner, only noted just how gratitious it was we'd never have to feel uncertain about anything again. The truth's the Church proclaims are not meant for oppression but to bring the believers in the Lord's love to a greater appreciation of that love by illustrating time and time again that no matter what you've done and how many times you've done it God will always accept you back so long as you're willing to come. If that doesn't warm the heart then nothing will.

The signature says it all...

[Fidei Defensor]

Many prayers for you, sister in Christ May God lead you where the truth is.

[dspen2005]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Oct 26 2005, 10:59 PM']Just because many think it uncomprehensible that one would not ever become catholic, here are some of my reasons I think justify not having enough concrete evidence. There are more and maybe I'll use this thread to add to it. This is more for me, so don't expect me to explain everything fully, but it's here for you to read and comment on if you want.
You might find it enlightening of me to know that when I was an avid catholic apologist, I fought for the CC in the vein of being able to defend it. Now that I'm no longer catholic, I look beyond simply being able to defend it and into trying to reasonably prove.
I realize some think the proofs are all reasonable enough, but I do not.
Anyway here I'll begin my list of things off the top of my head:

Papacy. the core of the CC authority. it seems inconclusive that the pope was as the CC says it was. in the early church, you read about how they looked to rome, but that does not mean in the sense then that the CC says it does now or now says it did then. read the writings in the sense that rome was simply influrential because of its temporal position and where peter and paul were.
When infallibility was declared, there was a significant number of bishops who were opposed to the declaration. One might say that that's because it took so long for it to be ratified offically and things arent ratified until there's controversy, but that's only a defense. See Cardinal Newman vs his arch enemy for reasonable reasons for and against the ratification, but more for against it because the reaons it was ratified became popular and more known.
Also Newman said that the CC didn't look mature because as an acorn takes time, so did the CC. Yea but it could also have been man made.

Eucharist. Ignatius' letters talked about flesh being love and blood being love or something to that effect. People talk how he was John's follower, but didn't John have many? What are we basing he was a follower on, if it's like much in the early chruch, just a good guess? What did his other followers say? Was John John of Antioch like Ignatius was? Could Ignatius's writings been misconstrued and not able to be clarified since he was so soon martyred? Regardless, we have sparse information on all the early pre300 writers regarding this issue. True, there are some that back up the CC way back early, but considering all the cities and christians back then, how can one say that the CC's teach was so widespread? I don't think it can or haven't seen anyting showing this. All it can say is that it existed for a long time, but that doesn't mean it's truth. Plus, when it does finally start to look like the orthodox position for sure 300+, how does one say for sure that this is what was originally intended? Just like that phrase what's popular isn't always right and what's right isn't always popular, what's orthodox isn't always right and what's right isn't always orthodox.

CC miracles. True there are many. But there are also many Protestant miracles. Many miracles in the CC are unique to the CC, but perhaps that's because the CC is simply more complicated than the Protestant. It has more facets for miracles to occur. It's no more correct to say that Protestants can get miralces in order to convert one day than it is to say Catholics can get miracles to convert one day. What's more right to say is that we're all christians, so miracles are miracles. Plus, as Augustine said, basing things on miracles is weak and as Thesolonians I blieve it said said, miracles can be made by God to steer those who allow themselves to be foolishly fooled fooled and as the bible shows, miracles are sometimes of the devil.

The CC seems to have taught that salvation was not at all possible for awhile noncatholics in the strict sense. When looking for documentation from the time of those popes who make the controversy becuase they apepar to be strict sense, their writings are often not posted though other popes' writings were, who were before and after that pope. It seems like a cop out to simply say these pope were to busy to write anything else. Also, documentation based on the ordinary magisterium in that time is lacking to demonstrate leniency. (aquanius is somewhat lenient but that's somewhat earlier than the controversials and somewhat arguable anyway)

Galilao seems to have been going against something hte CC taught. The CC taught that the earth was the center of the universe based on the bible. This is a faith and moral criteria to meet infallibilty. You might argue that itw as simply a type of scientific standard in that day and not infallible, but it was based onthe bible etc.

It seems like the CC taught that there was a sacrafice at every mass, and the mass still seems to say that, but now it claims that it's not a new sacrafice at every mass but the same one throughout time based on Jesus' sacrafice. It seems like it changed it's stance.

There's also a concern rumor about one of the popes that was like murdered or died really fast after being elected because people thought he was going to do something wrong. I don't think it was the pope before PJ2; I'll look into this.  Also I need to look into that one notorius bad pope who almost declared something but didn't controversy.

General other ideas are that if the CC taught something by the ordinary magisterium, we'd never know because by definition, the qualifications of what constitutes ordinary isn't completely defined. It seems like the extraordinary or even the ordinary magisterium of current times could easily contradict a vaquely defined ordinary when the actual belief could have been pretty concrete. This is arguing from abstraction though, so I'll look for specific examples, though really things like the Galileao affair, oridinary superstitions, and other things mentioned this thread probably fit here.

As you can see, many problems with documentation in all these. It seems possibly all too convenient that what's been saved has been saved by the CC, who has been in such large control for a long time.
Ignatius was writing against heresies; that indicates there were indeed pepole who thought diff than him. What were others thinking? Were there others who wrote these things who had other ideas?
Also, it seems like the CC lumps christian groups into too broad of groups. Like everyone heretic during the time of gnosticism I'm sure didn't fit that model to the core.
Other personal reasons. If these previous reasons are objective enough for me to be doubtful, I begin to embrace my personal ones.
It seems immoral not to recognize other people's morals in the law. Banning gay marriage is immoral in my mind. We'd want our morals recognized by those who may think our morals are immoral, so we should do the same. No one's saying that we have to say in the law that God says the marriage is right, we're just saying in the law that it's a marriage by state standards and in order to be moral by accepting their morals. 

There's more which I will get to later and explain more above.
[right][snapback]771545[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You look for reasonable proof for something that is not completely provable in the empirical sense. Speaking of the Church -- in the sense as Catholics speak of Her -- is to speak of the Mystical Body of Christ. This, by its very nature, is not completely based on reason, but also Faith.

YOur first point -- the Papacy.
the first Pope was Peter -- we can read the Scriptures for this reasonable belief. Peter was given deference, as we see in the Acts of the Apostles. Your issues with papal infallibility -- in that it was defined late in the life of the Church -- neglects to recognize that the church believed in this notion, the protection of the Holy Spirit on papal teachings on matters of Faith and Morals, long before the 19th century, when the papal infallibility doctrine was formally defined. Formal definitions of dogmas, solemnly declared, come about when there is an act on the Ordinary teaching of the Church -- examples, include Pius IX's solemn defintion of the Immaculate Conception.

THE EUCHARIST --
i am not understanding what your point is.... seems to be unclear. But if you read John Chapter 6 of the Scriptures, you cannot deny the Church's belief in the Holy EUcharist.

CC and salvation --
the Church has always taught the idea of baptism of desire -- wherein, through God's mercy, non-catholics -- those not baptized -- may enter the Kingdom of GOd. It must also be made clear, that Catholics are the only ones in heaven -- now, this does no suppose that ONLY catholics get to heaven, but that only Catholics are in heaven. When we die the fullness of Christ is shown to the soul -- and thus, the fullness of Christ is in the Catholic Faith -- thus, he who dies, knows the fullness of the Catholic Faith and sees it as TRUTH.

in the end, you promote a subjective morality -- subjective morality, is no morality. how do we judge what is right or wrong?

[Socrates]

Correction to my earlier post. I notice I had accidentally ended the first quote block in the wrong place. (The quotes were giving me trouble last night.)
The following passage was my own words, part of my refutation, not part of the quote from DairyGirl:
[quote]You've still given no evidence against papal authority, merely that you find it "inconclusive."  Bishops opposing something does not make it false.  Only the Pope and the bishops in union with him are infallible.  Dissadent bishops prove nothing.[/quote]

[dairygirl4u2c]

I want to clarify a point in my first post in case it caused any miscommunication. I said the CC is reasonable enough to most Cs, but not to me. I want to note that I do think it's reasonble for them to think the CC is reasonable. It's not reasonable enough to me at this point for me to put any stake in it.

I also want to note that I am not looking for anyone's blessing not to be catholic as socrates asked. It would be nice to see someone acknowledge my points, for example, that many cities and christians in the early church we have no way of knowing what they thought and maybe more research into cities vs writings is in order or theoretically maybe the early days were more heterogenous than they thought, or maybe someone could admit that the writings of the middle ages looks like they were teaching strictly and it appears at least on the surface to be a cop out to say they're not, and the fact that finding writings from then to show that they weren't being strict would be helpful if we have them. It's not saying you don't have faith by saying these things; it's showing that you have all the much more faith. I think the fact that many hardcore catholics are willing to at least empathize with my points (and maybe join me in some research that's not done in the fast food style of websites such as catholic.com to see if we can get some of those issues resolved) and still retain their faith says a lot of good things about them, and shows poorly on those who only go on touting their old defenses and bring up nothing new and keeping the debate juvenile, instead of addressing my real points. Even empathizing is at least a start.

For example, I remember I think it was Jeff or Apoutheon saying that it does appear that the middle age popes taguht strict sense, but they admitted they simply had to have faith that they didn't and maybe more research could be done, but they were content the way it is. This type of response at least shows the validity of my concerns. btw if Jeff Apo or Al would like to join this thread, I'd be stoked, you guys rock. (even if you are catholic : )

Edited October 30, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

What I'd expect is something like finding the cities in the early days and showing that Ignatius for example is one person out of many, but you still believe what you do but NOT stop there. Say why you still believe what you do. Because maybe the writings were burned or the cities were too unimportant to be preserved writings to name a few reasons. Just throwing these reasons out there isn't enough though. You have to show which applies to which cities, not expecting a thesis of course. If you don't want to go that route too much, at least improvise and address the cities such as Rome or better yet African cities that were big, have many non-christian writings preserved and address why their writings christian writings aren't preserved. Then you can still make your statement that you still have faith, but at least then it's more informed and better able to be weighed than saying, oh Ignatius believed this we think, so we have the faith that the early chruch is adequately beliving in this. well, of course you'd think it's adequately believing in it, bc you have the faith, but more from an objective adequateness.

It's possible there's books on this or academic papers at google scholar etc. I don't think it all has to be primary.
Ehrman and protoorthodoxy to name a single issue is a good start.
Hans Kung and Webster and Newman's one adversary are good for bring up the basic issues especially of hte papacy.

I can show you what I do find, such as saying some cities should have writings but don't if you aren't going to just say, well I just have faith etc.

Also, , maybe address the no salvation outside the CC issue in the manner descirbed above. This is bc it's more recent, there's better possibility of finding more writings or addressing the lack of writings, and it's a better issue to address since I think it's a total cop out to say that "in a sense it's necessary" bit applied to those writings whereas the eucharistic one not so much a cop out in my mind.

Another example of what I expect in a debate. If I show that a pope doesn't have his writings on the net, when all the popes around him do, and he's a suspect pope, you should do more than just speculate that he was probably too busy to write anything. What I have in mind is something like, "well see this website shows that Innocent had a lot to do, so he probably couldn't write" etc. Then I can reply to that. This seems to be to be a more effective and informed debate which will progress somewhere.

Edited October 31, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[jezic]

i would wonder why you left.

[Socrates]

As you've brought up many different points, most have which have been debated in depth elsewhere, there is not really room on this thread to discuss these issues in depth. I'd suggest running a search and bringing up old threads on phatmass, or starting new ones, each on a particular specific topic, if you wish to discuss these issues in depth.
This thread is simply too broad and unfocused to be productive in its current format.

The main problem with your arguments here in general is that to have a debate, one must bring up a specific upposing argument, not simply state that you don't find the existing evidence convincing or adequate.

On most of these issues, you have brought forth no evidence to show that Church teaching is wrong. For instance, you appear to reject what exists of early Church teaching as inadequate, but produce no evidence to the contrary, saying rather that the evidence could have been destroyed, lost, etc. Arguing based on non-existent evidence, or "arguing from silence" are not solid arguments. You need to have something solid to back up your argument. Otherwise you are just left with doubt and speculation, rather than a solid argument.

And since you say you do not find the Catholic Church to be convincing, it might be helpful to say who you [b]do[/b] find convincing. What do you beleive? Is there a particular church, sect, or belief-system which you believe in? You might explain why you find them convincing, rather than the Catholic Church.

If you want to debate, formulate a specific idea and argue it.
Unfortunately, Dairy, you spend a lot of time on here, but seem to do all you can to avoid a productive and meaningful debate.

Edited October 31, 2005 by Socrates

[Theoketos]

You know Socrates it would be crazy to disagree with your information but the ethos of the presentation lacks a little bit of Charity.

Dairy I disagree with what you say, I ask you not to give up in the search.