Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote:I am not sure where we got the notion that with the HS comes infallible truth or knowledge.
The apostles were not infallible and they made mistakes, as did the next generations.

The Catholic Church pronounces them infallible, so that their doctrine won't be questioned.

Isn't that circular reasoning?

The church makes them infallible. Then by what basis are they infallible? The infallible doctrine that the church holds to, says so.

OK. So not to keep derailing the other thread I'll post this here. Replies are in the quote.

Byblos wrote:

Mallz wrote:

Byblos wrote: So you don't see a difference between the masses and a single person who was chosen by God from before creation?

How many Moseses are there? Elijahs? (unless thesign counts..) How many Adams and Eves? People are blessed and graced to be chosen for a special purpose. That purpose is to be honored to bring His ways to us. I don't see why we should venerate Mary over anyone else. Still doesn't make sense to me. I wouldn't venerate her or any prophet over you, either. The glory is not theirs, it's His. And they are blessed/lucky to be honored by His use in a way that reaches the masses.

They were all hand-picked by God, yes. What does that have to do with the subject? The narrow context I am addressing has to do with Mary's perpetual virginity. Clearly Moses and Elijah have nothing to do with that. The fact remains that Mary had the Son who is not Joseph's biological. If she had children by any other man it would make her an adulteress. Pure and simple.

The underlined: Why do you think if she had children by another man she would be an adulteress? What if she was married to two men? Like how men can be married to two or more women and not be considered an adulteress.

Mallz wrote:

Like I said, to each his own. Unrighteousness is evidently also in the eye of the beholder. And I welcome honest discourse no matter the level of disagreement. That we'll both get refined, of that I have no doubt.

True, and I'm just expressing myself so can you learn me. I know I can come off offensive, so sorry about that. The questions I've asked in my previous posts were not rhetorical. It would help me out if you answered them. I'm curious about your opinion, too, EssentialSacrifice.

I would be more than happy to answer your questions, if Story doesn't object (since this is her thread). And I would need you to remind me what they are.

I'll post them a bit later. There are also some interesting topics being discussed I might want to take a look at, too.

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:I am not sure where we got the notion that with the HS comes infallible truth or knowledge.
The apostles were not infallible and they made mistakes, as did the next generations.

The Catholic Church pronounces them infallible, so that their doctrine won't be questioned.

Isn't that circular reasoning?

The church makes them infallible. Then by what basis are they infallible? The infallible doctrine that the church holds to, says so.

On the basis of Christ's promise for guidance by the H.S. Without that notion I would agree it boils down to circular reasoning, from all sides.

Mallz wrote:

Byblos wrote:Mary's perpetual virginity

The underlined: Why do you think if she had children by another man she would be an adulteress? What if she was married to two men? Like how men can be married to two or more women and not be considered an adulteress.

Aside from the adultery/polygamy implications which are very serious and unfitting, we go back to typology. More precisely to Mary's role as the new Eve (just as Christ is the new Adam) and her consecrated life to the Lord. Read this and tell me what you think.

What about where what the church teaches, and what various popes have declared, that DIRECTLY and CLEARLY contradicts Scripture???!!!

The list of CC teachings that directly contradict Scripture is lengthy! According to the CC, those of us here whom are Christians and yet reject the Catholic Church are NOT saved because we "refuse to either enter it or remain in it":

Catholic Doctrine: "Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. (CCC 846)

And as salvation is THE most critical thing which we must understand as to what is required for salvation, here's an examination - of Scripture's teachings vs. CC teachings: What Does the Catholic Church Teach Concerning Salvation? Parts 1 - 5

https://www.jashow.org/articles/general ... on-part-1/

https://www.jashow.org/articles/general ... on-part-2/

https://www.jashow.org/articles/general ... on-part-3/

https://www.jashow.org/articles/general ... on-part-4/

https://www.jashow.org/articles/general ... on-part-5/

Philip wrote:What about where what the church teaches, and what various popes have declared, that DIRECTLY and CLEARLY contradicts Scripture???!!!

Philip, Philip, Philip,

That just means you're interpreting scripture wrong. You have no business interpreting scripture. Leave that to the magisterium. You just be a good little doobie, and do what you're told.

Rick: You just be a good little doobie, and do what you're told.

Haha, and I bet you know all about "doobies!"

Philip wrote:What about where what the church teaches, and what various popes have declared, that DIRECTLY and CLEARLY contradicts Scripture???!!!

All kidding aside, it's a common misconception that the promise of infallibility is given to the pope or to the magisterium as persons as a blanket promise at all times and in all places. Popes and bishops are just as fallible as anyone of us, if not more. Infallible pronouncements are declared as such only when the pope (after various consultations with the bishops) they are made ex cathedra (from the seat of Peter) by the power and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Contrary to popular belief it is a rare occurrence.

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:I am not sure where we got the notion that with the HS comes infallible truth or knowledge.
The apostles were not infallible and they made mistakes, as did the next generations.

The Catholic Church pronounces them infallible, so that their doctrine won't be questioned.

Isn't that circular reasoning?

The church makes them infallible. Then by what basis are they infallible? The infallible doctrine that the church holds to, says so.

On the basis of Christ's promise for guidance by the H.S. Without that notion I would agree it boils down to circular reasoning, from all sides.

Christ promised that the HS would guide Us, not make us infallible.
Peter wasn't, Paul wasn't, james wasn't, the Apostolic Fathers weren't.

Byblos wrote:

Philip wrote:What about where what the church teaches, and what various popes have declared, that DIRECTLY and CLEARLY contradicts Scripture???!!!

All kidding aside, it's a common misconception that the promise of infallibility is given to the pope or to the magisterium as persons as a blanket promise at all times and in all places. Popes and bishops are just as fallible as anyone of us, if not more. Infallible pronouncements are declared as such only when the pope (after various consultations with the bishops) they are made ex cathedra (from the seat of Peter) by the power and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Contrary to popular belief it is a rare occurrence.

Actually, this is quite correct.
The problem is that, though rare, it does happen.

Do the Popes and Bishops know they are just as fallible as the rest of us?

No church makes Anyone Infallible.

Regarding Mary, I think we have to look at her importance in the Bible - who was she really? At the beginning of two of the Gospels she's the young woman who was happy to be chosen to be the mother of the Messiah. She's mentioned briefly a few times through the Gospels - at Jesus' first miracle for example. When he's put to death she's there in support and grief. That's about it. The rest of the New Testament is all about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and of course the apostles. So technically I suppose she's the mother of God, in a way, but it's the triune God who can save us, who hears our prayers, who guides us.

Nicki -- very good post.

Nicki wrote:... but it's the triune God who can save us, who hears our prayers, who guides us.

Did anyone state otherwise?

Philip wrote:What about where what the church teaches, and what various popes have declared, that DIRECTLY and CLEARLY contradicts Scripture???!!!

The list of CC teachings that directly contradict Scripture is lengthy! According to the CC, those of us here whom are Christians and yet reject the Catholic Church are NOT saved because we "refuse to either enter it or remain in it":

Catholic Doctrine: "Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. (CCC 846)

To address the above,

Does that offend you? It shouldn't, considering you believe exactly the same thing but with respect to a wider circle (maybe). You would have no problem whatsoever telling a Muslim or a Hindu if they don't belong to the body of Christ they can't be saved. Except in your case you are making a definitive, absolute statement whereas the Catholic Church makes no such thing.

What does it take to be considered in the body of Christ? Baptism, that's it. Whether or not one must do something to stay in the body of Christ is moot and besides the point. And let's not get bogged down by what baptism is, by water, by immersion, infant, etc. The Catholic church recognizes all forms of baptism as valid including baptism of the heart, by fire, and by desire. In other words the body of Christ most certainly includes those who do not profess to be members of the Catholic Church. In fact, the Church does not make pronouncements one way or the other as to the status of anyone's salvation as this is God's decision and God's alone. The only definitive positive statements the church makes are related to saints. Otherwise, the belief is that ALL can be saved including those who never even heard the Gospel because God's desire can be known through the natural light of reason.

In other words, if the Church's claims are true, then it is the body of Christ. Those who profess to be in the body of Christ are closer to the fullness of truth. Those who are in the body but are schismatic have some measure of the truth bot not all. And those who are on the outside live in the hope of God's mercy but might still attain salvation.

So before we attack a position, please be sure it is the position in its entirety, not just some small piece or caricature of it.

As for the rest of the links, I have no interest in debating such topics and even less interest in reading so-called 'sources'. If anyone has a question, ask.