The Joys of Catholicism

[Idolater]

That's an interesting point.

I've always found it baffling that so few scientists seem able to recognize the circular reasoning behind much of the ice core data interpretation. I'm not even talking about the high-profile figures who have books to sell, institutions to protect, or agendas to promote. Their bias is almost expected.

What puzzles me more are the everyday researchers, the ones actually working with the data. They, it seems to me, should, in theory, be more objective. They often seem blind to the fact that their conclusions are preloaded into their assumptions. Instead of letting the evidence lead them, they let their worldview dictate how the evidence must be understood.

You would think that every once in a while, a young scientist, fresh out of school, without a reputation to defend and who is genuinely curious would raise a hand and say, “Hold on a second. Shouldn't we be letting the data guide our theories, not the other way around?” But that seems to never happen.

This is a good analogy, taken from another, unrelated thread, for why while born Evangelical, I eventually converted to Catholicism. Substitute "Evangelicals" for "scientists" or "researchers", "Biblical" or "Bible" for "ice core data", to get what I mean.

 

[Clete]

This is a good analogy, taken from another, unrelated thread, for why while born Evangelical, I eventually converted to Catholicism. Substitute "Evangelicals" for "scientists" or "researchers", "Biblical" or "Bible" for "ice core data", to get what I mean.

It is weirdly surreal how badly your analogy backfires. I have a difficult time believing anyone can be this blindly unaware of themselves.

You took my criticism of scientists who inject their assumptions into the evidence and then pretend to discover conclusions that were preloaded from the start and tried to apply that to Evangelicals reading the Bible. If you had stopped to think through what you were actually saying, you might have noticed that the problem I described applies far more directly to Catholicism than to nearly anything Evangelical.

Catholic theology begins with institutional dogma and then reshapes Scripture to fit. The Magisterium defines the worldview, and the Bible must be made to conform to it. Tradition serves as the filter, and anything that does not pass through cleanly is revised or ignored. That is not just a similarity to the error I described, it is the textbook definition of it!

By contrast, Evangelicalism, at its best, begins with an objective standard. That standard being Scripture itself. It does not always succeed, but it at least recognizes the principle that doctrine should be judged by the Word of God rather than the reverse. It tries to follow the evidence wherever it leads rather than building fences around a system and forcing the evidence to stay inside.

What you offered as a clever turn of the argument has boomeranged and hit your own position square between the eyes. The very thing you accused Evangelicals of doing is the lifeblood of Catholic theology. It is not escaping the problem I described, it is the longest lived and most carefully engineered version of it.

That said, it is not untrue that some Evangelicals, by which you likely just mean Protestants in general, fall into the same trap. Anyone who embraces Augustinian doctrine, whether Catholic or Protestant, is guilty of importing Aristotelian philosophical assumptions about the nature of God and interpreting everything else in their worldview, whether theological or otherwise, through that lens. The error is real, but it is not uniquely Protestant. In fact, it is basically the portion of Catholicism that survived the Reformation intact.

 

[Right Divider]

 

[Idolater]

@Idolater, to your knowledge, do a lot (or any) of your fellow RCs take the so-called "prophecy of St. Malachy"/"Petrus Romanus" stuff seriously? I don't remember much from the meagre, desultory reading I've done on the subject over the years, but according to Wikipedia, at least, the "prophecy" ends with "Peter the Roman, who will pasture his sheep in many tribulations, and when these things are finished, the city of seven hills [i.e. Rome] will be destroyed, and the dreadful judge will judge his people. The End."

Apparently some people who take this "prophecy" seriously in some way or another, as though it really were truth about future events, claim that "Peter the Roman" was a reference to Francis I. I, personally, don't really know how all of that is imagined to work itself out or make sense, but something stood out to me as kind of poetic, or ironic, against the idea of the city of Rome getting destroyed at the end of the career of this "Petrus Romanus" -- if "Petrus Romanus" were really supposed to be a reference to the late Francis: viz., the fact that the date of Francis' death is the anniversary of the traditional date of the founding of Rome, on 21 April 753 B.C.

It's a tad interesting, but the rest of the "prophecy" seems less likely than just random chance would have been.

As far as private revelations go, I see Fatima as the best attested, since it actually happened in the age of photography and there are pictures to go along with all the testimonies.

 

[Nick M]

Catholic theology begins with institutional dogma and then reshapes Scripture to fit.

Quoted for truth.

 

[Idolater]

Quoted for truth.

"Catholic theology begins with institutional dogma and then reshapes Scripture to fit."

Question is, Is there such a thing as Apostolicity. If there is, then this is what you're calling here 'institutional dogma'. But we call it "the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" Jude 3, and also however the "Word of God", 1st Thessalonians 2:13, the "Apostles' doctrine" Acts 2:42, and for that matter, the Gospel itself, as an umbrella term (which covers what you or we might call here at TOL the 'Gospel proper', but also just the entirety of the one (Ephesians 4:5) Christian faith). Also, the "deposit of faith".

So, "Catholic theology begins with" Apostolicity, that's true. We have Apostolicity alongside Scripture ... and Scripture comes out of Apostolicity. In fact JESUS comes out of Apostolicity. Nobody would ever know Who Jesus is, outside of Apostolicity. Apostolicity is the reason we know Who He is. Jesus Christ is the tip of the spear of Apostolicity. Whenever anybody says anything about Jesus, you're hearing the tip of the spear of Apostolicity.

Even Josephus isn't so much attesting to Jesus's historicity, as he's attesting to the historicity of Apostolicity. And Apostolicity is definitely historic.

So yes, Catholic theology begins with Apostolicity, but it doesn't "reshape Scripture" to fit. Scripture comes out of Apostolicity. It doesn't because it can't, conflict with Apostolicity, they go together, coming out of the same source: the Apostles.

 

[Right Divider]

Question is, Is there such a thing as Apostolicity.

You have more versions of baloney than a deli.

 

[Clete]

So yes, Catholic theology begins with Apostolicity, but it doesn't "reshape Scripture" to fit. Scripture comes out of Apostolicity. It doesn't because it can't, conflict with Apostolicity, they go together, coming out of the same source: the Apostles.

How many blatantly obvious counter examples are there?!!!

Purgatory is place or state of purification after death before heaven.

Scripture reshaped:

Luke 23:43 [Jesus speaking to the thief on the cross], “Today you will be with Me in Paradise."​

​

II Corinthians 5:8 To be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord.​

​

The Catholic Church teaches that priests must remain celibate, claiming this is in keeping with apostolic tradition.

Scripture reshaped:

Matthew 8:14 Now when Jesus had come into Peter’s house, He saw his wife’s mother lying sick with a fever.

I Corinthians 9:5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?


The Catholics Church teaches that believers can and should pray to saints to intercede.

Scripture reshaped:

I Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and ONE Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.​

​

Isaiah 8:19 Should not a people seek their God? Should they seek the dead on behalf of the living?​

I could go on and on and on. Papal infallibility, transubstantiation and practically every doctrine that touches Mary, including...

• The immaculate conception of Mary
• The assumption of Mary, and...
• The title “Queen of Heaven” for Mary

All of which are directly and undeniably contrary to the clear teaching of scripture.

Then there's calling priests "Father", the use of graven images in worship, salvation through sacraments and on and on the list goes.

If I thought anyone would read it, I'd have listed these all one by one and quoted the scriptures that they violate, but almost no one would have read it and Idolater clearly has no regard for what the Bible says when it comes to persuading his mind about doctrinal matters and so it wouldn't have moved him an inch even if he had read it.

These doctrines, (I mention eleven above, but I have identified twenty seven in total - there's probably more), are not merely unbiblical, they are heretical. Taken together, they amount to a belief system that stands outside the bounds of true biblical Christianity. Catholicism is, in fact, a false religion, built on a false gospel, with no more power to save than Hinduism or the worship of Zeus and Apollo. In many ways, it is worse, because it cloaks itself in biblical language, disguising false religion with the appearance of truth.




For those of you who are interested, here my list of twenty seven Catholic doctrines or practices that reshape, contradict, or go beyond the clear teaching of Scripture along with the passages that they "reshape" (i.e. contradict, completely ignore or grossly misapply)...

1. Original Sin as Inherited Guilt: Ezekiel 18:20, Romans 5:12 (misapplied)
2. Baptismal Regeneration (especially of infants): Acts 2:38, Acts 8:36–37
3. The Immaculate Conception of Mary: Luke 1:47, Romans 3:23
4. The Assumption of Mary: No scriptural basis whatsoever
5. Mary as the “Queen of Heaven”: Jeremiah 7:18
6. Veneration of Mary as Mediatrix and Co‑Redemptrix: I Timothy 2:5, John 14:6
7. Prayers to Saints and Mary: I Timothy 2:5, Isaiah 8:19
8. The Treasury of Merit: Ephesians 1:7, Philippians 3:9
9. Indulgences: Hebrews 9:28, Romans 5:1
10. Purgatory: Luke 23:43, II Corinthians 5:8
11. The Rosary and Repetitive Prayer: Matthew 6:7
12. Use of Graven Images in Worship: Exodus 20:4–5
13. Confession to a Priest: I John 1:9, Hebrews 4:16
14. Extreme Unction (Last Rites): James 5:14–15 (misapplied)
15. Mandatory Priestly Celibacy: Matthew 8:14, I Corinthians 9:5
16. Holy Orders Conferring Ontological Change: I Peter 2:9, Hebrews 10:19–22
17. Calling Priests “Father”: Matthew 23:9
18. Papal Infallibility: Galatians 2:11, Acts 10:26
19. Papal Primacy and Universal Jurisdiction: I Peter 5:1–3, Mark 10:42–45
20. Tradition Equal to or Above Scripture: Matthew 15:3, 6, Mark 7:13
21. Seven Sacraments as Channels of Grace: Ephesians 2:8–9, Romans 11:6
22. Salvation Through the Sacraments: Titus 3:5, Romans 5:1
23. The Mass as a Re‑sacrifice of Christ: Hebrews 9:25–28, Hebrews 10:10
24. Transubstantiation: John 6:63, Hebrews 10:12, 14
25. Canonization of Saints: I Corinthians 1:2, Romans 1:7
26. Supersessionism (Church replaces Israel): Romans 11:1–2, Romans 11:25–29
27. Feasts and Holy Days not Found in Scripture: Galatians 4:9–11, Colossians 2:16–17

 

[7djengo7]

Question is, Is there such a thing as Apostolicity.

The question is, To what (if anything) are you even referring by your word, "Apostolicity"? Judas was an Apostle. He betrayed Christ and hanged himself. Are betraying Christ and hanging oneself examples of "Apostolicity"?

We have Apostolicity alongside Scripture

What you don't seem to have is Scripturality.

Scripture comes out of Apostolicity.

That reminds me of "Come out of her, my people!"

Nobody would ever know Who Jesus is, outside of Apostolicity.

Wouldn't Jesus even know Who He is without what you call "Apostolicity"?

Apostolicity is the reason we know Who He is.

Do you, though?

So yes, Catholic theology begins with Apostolicity, but it doesn't "reshape Scripture" to fit. Scripture comes out of Apostolicity. It doesn't because it can't, conflict with Apostolicity, they go together, coming out of the same source: the Apostles.

That's a major difference between Christianity and what you teach: Christians believe God is the Source of all Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16), whereas you teach that men are. To say that the Apostles are the source of what the Apostles wrote is to fail to receive the Word of God "as it is in truth, the Word of God" (1 Thessalonians 2:13).

 

[Idolater]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1935429211717620190

 

[Idolater]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1935517955321905472

 

[7djengo7]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1935429211717620190

Interesting choice: use of an image of a skull and crossbones to represent being a Romanist.

 

[Nick M]

You have more versions of baloney than a deli.

I won't take a stab at the Chewbacca defense either.