Announcement

Collapse

Comparative Religions 101 Guidelines

Welcome to Comp Religions, this is where the sights and sounds of the many world religions come together in a big World's Fair type atmosphere, without those delicious funnel cakes.

World Religions is a theist only type place, but that does not exclude certain religionists who practice non-theistic faiths ala Buddhism. If you are not sure, ask a moderator.

This is not a place where we argue the existence / non-existence of God.

And as usual, the forum rules apply.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Catholic Problems

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
    Oh....well you probably should've mentioned THAT first. As for the Church of Europe...well, I don't live in Europe so, I suppose I don't have any "hands on" knowledge, however....I'm not even sure which one you're talking about. Are you talking about the Church of England, or just 'a' Church in general?
    The Roman Catholic Church. I didn't have much experience of the others, except for what I described above. However, I also did some work with the L'Arche community founded by Jean Vanier. That was very inspiring.

    Oh, wait. You didn't answer my question.
    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
      Well that's... not right. By that logic, God didn't need Moses as a mediator because he was already the head of Israel.
      That was, y'know, before Jesus.
      That said, he's simply the earthly representative of Christ,
      Why not every bishop as an earthly representative of Christ, as the East teaches?
      not actually Christ himself, or something of the such, 'that' would be dumb.
      Yes, that would be dumb.
      Well....I'd be lying if I said that I didn't think an article by James White would show up in this debate. I'll have to get back to you on this, as it'll take me a while to sift through his typical brand of arrogant jackassery. However, he was already floored on these topics in his debates with Tim Staples and Robert Sungenis, so maybe try those....you know, without the spin White puts on them.
      I would rather not have used James White myself, but I figured even he could quote something correctly. It turns out I could have simply linked to the online Catholic Encyclopedia, which also admits Honorius wrote "Wherefore we acknowledge one Will of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . ."
      I uh....really still don't see what you're getting, especially the "fraught with peril" part.
      The East teaches that using one's imagination is precisely the wrong thing to do when meditating on God, since it is quite susceptible to demonic influence.
      Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

      Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
      sigpic
      I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

      Comment


      • #33
        Well, I read through it....and...it's his typical style of damage control, after getting his butt kicked in debate. His entire counter-argument essentially rests upon, quote:


        "The universal church at that time did not believe in the idea that a council had to await the approval of the bishop of Rome. That concept had to wait to find its universal expression in the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals almost 200 years yet in the future from the time of the 6th Ecumenical Council and Pope Leo."

        The idea that the expression of this doctrine in the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals somehow proves it did not exist beforehand, is utterly laughable.

        So is this:
        he uses the anathema and says that Honorius “permitted her who was undefiled to be polluted by profane teaching.” It is self-evident that Madrid’s forced reading is in error for two reasons: first, the 6th Ecumenical Council specifically said that Honorius and the others taught the heresy. Was the Council wrong? Did Leo say it was wrong? No, he did not.
        But Whitey boy, you just said yourself: The Council said that Honorius 'taught' the heresy, but Leo only said that Honorius 'permitted' the heresy to be taught. If he was truly affirming the decisions of the Council, then why did he say something completely different than what the council said?

        Well, this is typical White damage control, nothing to see here.

        Moving on, the "we confess" part, I feel, is dealt best with this article here:

        http://www.catholic-legate.com/apolo...ntpolemic.aspx

        P.S.: Okay, maybe I was a little too mean to him with that response, but still, the points I made stand.
        Last edited by TimelessTheist; 04-01-2014, 11:16 PM.
        Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

        -Thomas Aquinas

        I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

        -Hernando Cortez

        What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

        -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
          Well, seeing as how I just recently debated an anti-Roman Jansenist heretic (Quite well, if I do say so myself :D), it put me in a debating mood, and there isn't a thread like this yet, I'll be the first to do something like this. To anyone either is not a Roman Catholic, or was one and left, I want to know: Why? Tell me any problems you have with the Church of Rome, and I'll answer them to the best of my abilities.
          The arrogance.

          816 "The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it.... This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him."

          The Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism explains: "For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God."

          Comment


          • #35
            That was, y'know, before Jesus.
            It's still the same principle of having an earthly representative of God here on Earth. I can think of a few advantages of having a human mediator between God and man, as I'm sure you can.

            Why not every bishop as an earthly representative of Christ, as the East teaches?
            If that's your position, then how exactly can you rail against mine? As an answer to the question: The position was given to Peter, specifically, by Jesus, that is why.

            The East teaches that using one's imagination is precisely the wrong thing to do when meditating on God, since it is quite susceptible to demonic influence.
            Eh...well. I don't really have a response to that, because we don't teach that. Although, I'll admit, I have no idea where said teaching of the East comes from. Do you mind telling me?
            Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

            -Thomas Aquinas

            I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

            -Hernando Cortez

            What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

            -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
              Well, seeing as how I just recently debated an anti-Roman Jansenist heretic (Quite well, if I do say so myself :D), it put me in a debating mood, and there isn't a thread like this yet, I'll be the first to do something like this. To anyone either is not a Roman Catholic, or was one and left, I want to know: Why? Tell me any problems you have with the Church of Rome, and I'll answer them to the best of my abilities.
              One of the main reasons why I left the Roman Catholic Church was because of their prayer/worship rendered unto Mary and other people when God alone ought to be prayed to/worshiped.

              Comment


              • #37
                The idea that the expression of this doctrine in the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals somehow proves it did not exist beforehand, is utterly laughable.
                As an addition to this: http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com...-councils.html

                Once again, his argument that they didn't believe in Petrine Primacy until said forgery was written, is completely unteneable.
                Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

                -Thomas Aquinas

                I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

                -Hernando Cortez

                What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

                -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by foudroyant View Post
                  One of the main reasons why I left the Roman Catholic Church was because of their prayer/worship rendered unto Mary and other people when God alone ought to be prayed to/worshiped.
                  Veneration is not the same as worship. Prayer is also not the same as worship . Even then, we pray 'for' them, and ask them to pray for us. We do not pray 'to' them as we do to God.
                  Last edited by TimelessTheist; 04-02-2014, 08:19 AM.
                  Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

                  -Thomas Aquinas

                  I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

                  -Hernando Cortez

                  What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

                  -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                    The arrogance.
                    Stating the facts is not arrogance. By that logic, Jesus was arrogant when he said he was the son of God.
                    Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

                    -Thomas Aquinas

                    I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

                    -Hernando Cortez

                    What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

                    -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
                      Stating the facts is not arrogance. By that logic, Jesus was arrogant when he said he was the son of God.
                      This is the point where you'd be expected to back up the factual claims.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
                        Well, I read through it....and...it's his typical style of damage control, after getting his butt kicked in debate. His entire counter-argument essentially rests upon, quote:


                        "The universal church at that time did not believe in the idea that a council had to await the approval of the bishop of Rome. That concept had to wait to find its universal expression in the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals almost 200 years yet in the future from the time of the 6th Ecumenical Council and Pope Leo."

                        The idea that the expression of this doctrine in the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals somehow proves it did not exist beforehand, is utterly laughable.
                        How is that White's central counter-argument? Did you just pick something you felt safe in mocking? IMO James White is giving the theory too much credence in ascribing its universality to the time of the Pseudo-Decretals. It was important to the East to have Western recognition of the results of ecumenical councils because the West was part of the universal church, not because the Pope dictated what the universal church believed. Local councils in the East couldn't care less about what the Pope thought of their decrees.
                        So is this:
                        he uses the anathema and says that Honorius “permitted her who was undefiled to be polluted by profane teaching.” It is self-evident that Madrid’s forced reading is in error for two reasons: first, the 6th Ecumenical Council specifically said that Honorius and the others taught the heresy. Was the Council wrong? Did Leo say it was wrong? No, he did not.
                        But Whitey boy, you just said yourself: The Council said that Honorius 'taught' the heresy, but Leo only said that Honorius 'permitted' the heresy to be taught. If he was truly affirming the decisions of the Council, then why did he say something completely different than what the council said?

                        Well, this is typical White damage control, nothing to see here.
                        Actually, it's not:
                        Source: Catholic Encyclopedia

                        The new pope, Leo II, had naturally no difficulty in giving to the decrees of the council the formal confirmation which the council asked from him, according to custom. The words about Honorius in his letter of confirmation, by which the council gets its ecumenical rank, are necessarily more important than the decree of the council itself: "We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Sergius, ...and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted." This appears to express exactly the mind of the council, only that the council avoided suggesting that Honorius disgraced the Roman Church. The last words of the quotation are given above as in the Greek of the letter, because great importance has been attached to them by a large number of Catholic apologists. Pennacchi, followed by Grisar, taught that by these words Leo II explicitly abrogated the condemnation for heresy by the council, and substituted a condemnation for negligence. Nothing, however, could be less explicit. Hefele, with many others before and after him, held that Leo II by the same words explained the sense in which the sentence of Honorius was to be understood. Such a distinction between the pope's view and the council's view is not justified by close examination of the facts. At best such a system of defence was exceedingly precarious, for the milder reading of the Latin is just as likely to be original: "but by profane treachery attempted to pollute its purity".

                        © Copyright Original Source


                        (emphasis added) I disagree with the article's assertion that Leo's letter made the council ecumenical - it takes a subsequent universal council for that - but it is a Catholic source that roundly disagrees with your characterization of Honorius.

                        Moving on, the "we confess" part, I feel, is dealt best with this article here:

                        http://www.catholic-legate.com/apolo...ntpolemic.aspx
                        The word games the author plays to get around Agatho's condemnation of Honorius are amusing. The CE article explains quite well why Honorius was not condemned at the Lateran Council of 649 - and Pope John IV supported both Honorius and Sergius, so he can hardly be taken to unequivocally support the "orthodoxy" of Honorius.
                        Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                        Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                        sigpic
                        I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
                          Veneration is not the same as worship. Prayer is also not the same as worship . Even then, we pray 'for' them, and ask them to pray for us. We do not pray 'to' them as we do to God.

                          1. Show me an example from the Bible that when someone or something is prayed to it is not worship. In 1 Kings 18:26 praying to Baal is worshiping Baal.
                          2. By praying to Mary you are attributing omniscience to her in that she would have to know the totality of the hearts of all. See Post 1
                          http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...cience)‏

                          Indeed, may times prayers are silent so it is not the same as asking someone to pray for you.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            How is that White's central counter-argument? Did you just pick something you felt safe in mocking? IMO James White is giving the theory too much credence in ascribing its universality to the time of the Pseudo-Decretals. It was important to the East to have Western recognition of the results of ecumenical councils because the West was part of the universal church, not because the Pope dictated what the universal church believed. Local councils in the East couldn't care less about what the Pope thought of their decrees.
                            Well, it's essentially one of the two counter-arguments he used in that piece, so I don't understand why defining it as a central argument is so wrong. As for your other point, I disagree. I direct you to the article I just posted on the subject of Papal Primacy and the early Church. Now, what source do you use to justify your view that the Eastern Churches felt this way?

                            (emphasis added) I disagree with the article's assertion that Leo's letter made the council ecumenical - it takes a subsequent universal council for that - but it is a Catholic source that roundly disagrees with your characterization of Honorius.
                            Well that's.....odd. I've never heard of 'that' translation of it, heck, even James didn't argue against the English translation of the text itself, but then again, I'm not an expert in those things. I'll need to find a copy of it in it's original language, and then a lexicon, to find out of if CE is accurate or not, but considering there are plenty of qualified scholars that claim it says the exact opposite, I'm still leaning towards the translation used by the apologists.

                            Although, you should note that the same source you cited, also says that the writings were not made "ex cathedra", and thus, do not provide any proof against Papal Infalliability even if he was wrong, which I'm still not granting.

                            The word games the author plays to get around Agatho's condemnation of Honorius are amusing.
                            So, in other words, you can't respond to the arguments?
                            Anyway, my point was that this piece refutes the idea that Pope Honorius 'taught' the heresy, as shown in the first section, where he deals with Honorius' own words, such as the "We confess" part.

                            and Pope John IV supported both Honorius and Sergius, so he can hardly be taken to unequivocally support the "orthodoxy" of Honorius.
                            He most certainly did not support Sergius. Pope John IV condemned Monothelitism as heresy.
                            Last edited by TimelessTheist; 04-02-2014, 05:49 PM.
                            Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

                            -Thomas Aquinas

                            I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

                            -Hernando Cortez

                            What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

                            -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              1. Show me an example from the Bible that when someone or something is prayed to it is not worship. In 1 Kings 18:26 praying to Baal is worshiping Baal.
                              Revelation 5:8 shows the saints handing the "prayers of the people" to God. 'nuff said.
                              Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

                              -Thomas Aquinas

                              I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

                              -Hernando Cortez

                              What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

                              -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
                                Revelation 5:8 shows the saints handing the "prayers of the people" to God. 'nuff said.
                                Yeah "'nuff said" because this passage does not support what you are asserting.

                                Praying to Baal is worshiping Baal (1 Kings 18:26). Your example of asking someone to pray for you did not work as well because as I already pointed out many times prayers are silent.


                                Pray only to God and you will be doing what the Bible teaches is the correct thing to do.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X