ISAW wrote: » And i will ask you to look up the words "epistemology" "ontology" and "absolutism"
ISAW wrote: » I was comparing this to the reformation and counter reformation in the Church. People today don't just reject science when they know that it is insufficient for society.
ISAW wrote: » 1. Whether the Bible is all that is needed to be a christian ( taking up the Protestant element of the written word being the central part of the faith.
smurfhousing wrote: » 'Proper use' means according to the manufacturer's instructions. The data on failure rates supplied by companies refers to condom tests in laboratories. The real world is not a lab and the condom failure rate is greater outside the lab. The Catholic Church DOES NOT teach the acceptability of condom use for AIDS/STD prevention or the prevention of conception.
Asked whether he would suggest condom use to a married faithful catholic couple who came to him for advice where one of them had Aids, he said: "Well obviously that's a very sensitive point and obviously there are different views on that." Asked what his own view was, he insisted: "No, no, that's not what this public debate is about."
Wicknight wrote: » I will refer you to Fanny's post which sums up pretty accurately what science actually says in relation to what a "law" is.
ISAW wrote: » http://changingminds.org/explanations/research/philosophies/epistemology.htm The holy grail of positivists is the identification of generalized laws of the universe.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » *Tangent Alert* Indeed. I think that it would be fair to say that a law in science is not a description of the way things should be, rather it is a description of how things have been observed to be. And observation may refine or even overturn a law. *Tangent Alert*
smurfhousing wrote: » My question is, in the face of all this, how does one reject the Papacy.
ISAW wrote: » Indeed but much of the scorn heaped on the Pope is because he is Ratzinger and has a history in his prior dicastry.
Scripture The Primacy of Peter in Scripture Tradition / Church Fathers -Peter Built the Church in Rome -Primacy of Peter’s Apostolic See -Peter’s Successors Claim Authority over the Churchhttp://www.scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html III. Jesus Wants Us to Obey Apostolic Authorityhttp://www.scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html
ISAW wrote: » Ironically Anglicans ( well the Church of England anyway) seem to have a hierarchical view of the church with the "high Church" and "low church" and would also view the Monarch ( who many people view as irrelevant unnecessary and unimportant) as being approved by God.
( indeed the Orthodox Church does recognise the Primacy of the Pope )
smurfhousing wrote: » I think that Stealth is in his bed sleeping soundly. In his absence, I propose something interesting. Perhaps you could somehow justify the Protestant rejection of the Papacy,... The reason I have chosen the Papacy is because Catholics hold that it is something willed by God, whereas, regardless of what they think about it, Protestants reject the Papacy as being unnecessary, irrelevant, or not important.
Of course there are a hundred and one different topics that could be chosen, but you have to keep the discussion focussed, so I have taken the liberty of offering a focal point for the proceedings.
What I am interested in, is the personal reasoning for why anyone would reject the Papacy, given the arguments for its necessity. Of course, you could, at this point, just post a link to some Protestant site with a comprehensive counter-argument...
When presented with the scriptural and reasonable arguments for and against, I am swayed by the arguments for. But beyond this, I am impressed by the rock that is the Papacy. We can see in our world today, that the strongest, firmest, most faithful voice for Jesus Christ, for good in the world, is that of Pope Benedict XVI, and before him, Pope John Paul II. These major figures speak the words of Jesus, they show us the way to life. These rocks hold firm against a world that is growing ever colder and more distorted by sin. The person of Pope Benedict is hated by so many people.
Remember the words of Christ, If the world hates you, remember it hated me first. Of course, there have been a few bad Popes, but not one of them taught heresy from the Chair of Peter. The faith and morals were protected from error and are still protected to this day.
We look at the scorn and contempt heaped upon the Pope. We see the mocking of the teachings of the Church. In a world that exalts sexual pleasure and lust, the teachings on chastity are laughed at. The teaching on contraception is ridiculed. But still, the Church and Her teachings hold firm. They do not change according to popular opinion or current trends.
He did indeed mean to give us the Papacy as the Father figure in the Household of God.
The most convincing, concise treatise on the Catholic Church is, in my opinion, this one, from the late Archbishop Fulton Sheen:
smurfhousing wrote: Of course, there have been a few bad Popes, but not one of them taught heresy from the Chair of Peter. The faith and morals were protected from error and are still protected to this day.
smurfhousing wrote: » The Church teaches that faith and reason go together and are not in conflict. I've not read this , but I am sure it is an excellent summary: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html
Jakkass wrote: » We could nearly have a megathread for the difference in RCC thinking between those who are willing to discuss and explore valid criticism of church heirarchy and really question why things are done a certain way, and those who won't even entertain such a discussion at all. StealthRolex: Could you respond to my last post I'm interested to see what you'll make of it.
"If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, `A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will persecute you; if they kept my word, they will keep yours also. But all this they will do to you on my account, because they do not know him who sent me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. ~ St John's Gospel, Chapter 15
If I were not a Catholic, and were looking for the true Church in the world today, I would look for the one Church which did not get along well with the world; in other words, I would look for the Church which the world hates. My reason for doing this would be, that if Christ is in any one of the churches of the world today, He must still be hated as He was when He was on earth in the flesh. If you would find Christ today, then find the Church that does not get along with the world. Look for the Church that is hated by the world, as Christ was hated by the world. Look for the Church which is accused of being behind the times, as Our Lord was accused of being ignorant and never having learned. Look for the Church which men sneer at as socially inferior, as they sneered at Our Lord because He came from Nazareth. Look for the Church which is accused of having a devil, as Our Lord was accused of being possessed by Beelzebub, the Prince of Devils. Look for the Church which the world rejects because it claims it is infallible, as Pilate rejected Christ because he called Himself the Truth. Look for the Church which amid the confusion of conflicting opinions, its members love as they love Christ, and respect its voice as the very voice of its Founder, and the suspicion will grow, that if the Church is unpopular with the spirit of the world, then it is unworldly, and if it is unworldly, it is other-worldly. Since it is other-worldly, it is infinitely loved and infinitely hated as was Christ Himself. ... the Catholic Church is the only Church existing today which goes back to the time of Christ. History is so very clear on this point, it is curious how many miss its obviousness..."
Wicknight wrote: » I don't want to side track the thread, but science most certainly does not say that.
lmaopml wrote: » From a personal point of view I think faith and reason can go hand in hand. I believe there is a 'magesterium' not because they 'say' they are, if I believed everything I was told from a child who was brought up Catholic, went to Catholic school and had very little interest at the time.... I may or may not decide to really look! and still end up ok. - but the way God made me begs me to make 'sense' iykwim..in a world full of opinion and noise...I found in a subjective way that 'sense'....and never expected to find it right where I started out..Go figure..lol... ..that's where having good discussion comes in..
Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves (cf. Ex 33:18; Ps 27:8-9; 63:2-3; Jn 14:8; 1 Jn 3:2).
PDN wrote: » Yes, which is why most Catholics don't trust the Church to do their interpretation for them. That's why so many of your co-religionists ignore a lot of stuff the Church says.
StealthRolex wrote: » So, are Catholics right thinking people, in your humble opinion?
StealthRolex wrote: » So stop throwing them. Been to Uganda lately?
StealthRolex wrote: » Agreed. but #231 took the biscuit. I'm not sure what the rules on Moderator impartiality should be and maybe there are none but back handed jibes at the way Catholics elect their leader are pushing it. Imaopml, this discussion needs either an impartial Mod or a Catholic Mod. If the latter you have my vote.
smurfhousing wrote: » There is no harm in seeking greater understanding. Indeed it is good. For a Catholic, the Magisterium is a sure and certain guide in matters of faith and morals and we cannot go wrong if we follow that guide. It is the guide the Lord Himself has given us. It is not a matter, for the Catholic, of looking at what the Magisterium has taught, and looking at the Church Fathers, and then coming to our own conclusion. That would be protestantistic in approach and not faithfully Catholic. I'm not sure that was what you were implying, but that would be erroneous.
PDN wrote: » People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
PDN wrote: » I'm not confused in the slightest. I just think that it makes no sense. You're saying that it doesn't matter if a Pope is a murderous lecher or not, God has still ordained him to rule on how sincere godly Christians should interpret Scripture. Like most right thinking people I find that notion to be repugnant. If the Catholic Church can't be trusted to always appoint a reasonably decent person to lead their organisation, then I certainly won't trust them to tell me how I should understand the Bible.
PDN wrote: » Because even a cursory reading of history demonstrates that the people who have claimed to have the authority to tell everyone else how to interpret the scriptures have an awful track record. They have tortured and killed those who disagreed with them, produced forged documents to bolster their territorial claims, have feuded with each other, have bribed their way into office, have sometimes been guilty of the most heinous sins, and have produced interpretations that are so much at variance with a straight reading of the Scriptures that we need to believe that black is white and that language has little or no meaning in order to accept their interpretations. (Btw, Protestant leaders have often behaved just as badly down through the centuries - although that is somewhat irrelevant since non-Catholics don't see them as being anything other than fallible human beings who had some great insights in some areas, but were deficient in others). God has given us brains so that we can read the Scriptures for ourselves, avail of the advice and insight of theologians and biblical scholars, and seek to follow Him as best we can with sincere hearts. This will mean we will sometimes disagree over details of doctrine, but we can trust that the Holy Spirit (who dwells in our hearts by faith) will guide our understanding so that we can know God for ourselves. Does that sound unreasonable?
smurfhousing wrote: » ''If Jesus Christ can't be trusted to choose 12 good men, can He be trusted??? I mean, come on, how hard can it be?''.
You keep spinning things in a most disingenuous way. I'm reminded of 1 Timothy 6:4
