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.

 

[Idolater]

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"?

►What is 'Apostolicity'? I've got a party asking me. I always thought it was Apostolic patrimony, for lack of a better term, but this [fellow's] acting like he's never heard the word and can't conceive of what it might mean. Isn't it just everything that came out of the Apostles? And, how did Vincent of Lerins say that we can know what is Apostolic?


GPT-4o mini

Apostolicity refers to the quality or state of being apostolic, which is often associated with the teachings, practices, and authority of the apostles of Jesus Christ. It encompasses the idea that certain beliefs and practices in Christianity are rooted in the teachings and actions of the apostles, who were the original followers of Christ and played a foundational role in the establishment of the Church.

Key Aspects of Apostolicity:​

1. Apostolic Teaching: Apostolicity emphasizes the importance of adhering to the teachings that were handed down by the apostles. This includes the core doctrines of the Christian faith as recorded in the New Testament.
2. Apostolic Succession: In some Christian traditions, apostolicity is also linked to the concept of apostolic succession, which is the belief that the authority of the apostles has been passed down through an unbroken line of bishops. This is particularly significant in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches.
3. Apostolic Practices: It also involves the practices and rituals that were established by the apostles and have been maintained throughout the history of the Church.

Vincent of Lerins and Apostolicity:​

Vincent of Lerins, a theologian from the 5th century, is known for his work "Commonitorium," in which he discusses how to discern true Christian doctrine. He proposed a principle for determining what is apostolic and, therefore, authentic in the Christian faith. His famous formulation is often summarized as follows:

• "Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est": This Latin phrase translates to "What has been believed everywhere, always, and by all."

This principle suggests that to determine whether a belief or practice is truly apostolic, one should consider whether it has been universally accepted by the Church throughout history and across different regions. If a teaching has been consistently held by the Church from the time of the apostles to the present, it can be considered apostolic.
In summary, apostolicity refers to the teachings and practices that originate from the apostles, and Vincent of Lerins provided a criterion for discerning what is apostolic based on the universality and historical continuity of beliefs within the Church.


►So which of the three part test did Arianism fail, in order that the Church confidently declared it to not be Apostolic, at Nicaea in AD 325?

GPT-4o mini

Arianism, a theological doctrine that denied the full divinity of Jesus Christ, was deemed heretical by the early Church, particularly at the First Council of Nicaea in AD 325. The Church's rejection of Arianism can be understood in the context of Vincent of Lerins' three-part test for apostolicity, which states that a belief must be:

1. What has been believed everywhere (ubique): Arianism failed this criterion because it was not universally accepted within the Christian community. The majority of bishops and theologians at the time upheld the belief in the full divinity of Christ, as articulated in the Nicene Creed.
2. What has been believed always (semper): Arianism also failed this aspect, as the belief in the full divinity of Christ had been a consistent teaching of the Church since the time of the apostles. The early Church Fathers, such as Ignatius of Antioch and Athanasius, affirmed the divinity of Christ, and this belief was foundational to the Christian faith.
3. What has been believed by all (ab omnibus): Arianism did not meet this criterion either, as it was rejected by a significant portion of the Church. The Council of Nicaea, which included bishops from various regions, overwhelmingly affirmed the Nicene Creed, which stated that Jesus Christ is "true God from true God," countering Arian claims.

In summary, Arianism failed all three parts of Vincent of Lerins' test for apostolicity: it was not believed everywhere, it had not been believed always, and it was not accepted by all. This led the Church to confidently declare Arianism as non-apostolic and heretical at the Council of Nicaea.


►:/

GPT-4o mini

I apologize if my response didn't meet your expectations or if it was unclear. If there's a specific aspect you'd like to discuss further or if you have additional questions, please let me know, and I'll do my best to assist you!

 

[Right Divider]

@Idolater Apparently, one of the joys of Catholicism is blissful ignorance.

There is no such Biblical doctrine as "Apostolic succession". There is ONE apostolic replacement, as Judas Iscariot had to be replaced. Acts 1:15-26

Romanism is a false religion... flee it with much haste!

 

[Idolater]

►OK. Now I've got the party who insists on misunderstanding what Apostolic succession denotes, which ofc, is not that there are any new Apostles, but only that the Apostles were the first Bishops. Bishops are not Apostles, but this guy constantly, contentiously and incorrigibly says that therefore there is no Apostolic succession, because of his stubborn view. So how do I respond to this type of guy. I'm tired of trying to convince him to stop being ridiculous. That's not what Apostolic succession means, that's never what it's meant. Help?

GPT-4o mini

Dealing with someone who holds a stubborn view can be challenging, especially on theological matters. Here are some strategies you might consider when discussing Apostolic succession with this individual:

1. Clarify Definitions​

• Apostolic Succession: Emphasize that Apostolic succession refers to the belief that the authority and teachings of the apostles have been passed down through an unbroken line of bishops. While bishops are not apostles, they are seen as successors who carry on the apostolic mission and authority.
• Historical Context: Explain that the early Church recognized the need for leadership and governance after the apostles, leading to the establishment of bishops as successors to ensure continuity in teaching and practice.

2. Use Historical Examples​

• Early Church Practices: Point to historical examples of how the early Church appointed bishops to lead congregations and maintain doctrinal integrity. Figures like Ignatius of Antioch emphasized the importance of bishops in preserving the faith.
• Council Decisions: Reference how councils, such as Nicaea, were composed of bishops who were seen as successors to the apostles, affirming the continuity of leadership and teaching.

3. Address Misunderstandings​

• Distinction Between Roles: Acknowledge that while bishops are not apostles, they fulfill a different but essential role in the Church. Apostolic succession does not imply the creation of new apostles but rather the continuation of apostolic authority through the episcopacy.
• Unity of the Church: Emphasize that Apostolic succession is about maintaining the unity and integrity of the Church's teachings, which is crucial for the faith's continuity.

4. Focus on Common Ground​

• Shared Beliefs: Try to find common ground in your beliefs about the importance of leadership and authority in the Church. This can help shift the conversation from contention to collaboration.
• Respectful Dialogue: Encourage a respectful dialogue where both parties can express their views without dismissing each other. This can create a more constructive environment for discussion.

5. Know When to Step Back​

• Recognize Limits: Sometimes, despite your best efforts, it may not be possible to change someone's mind. Recognize when the conversation is becoming unproductive and consider stepping back or agreeing to disagree.
• Focus on Your Understanding: Ultimately, it's important to hold to your understanding of Apostolic succession and the historical context in which it developed, even if others do not share that view.

By approaching the conversation with clarity, historical context, and a focus on respectful dialogue, you may be able to help the individual understand the concept of Apostolic succession more accurately. However, it's also important to recognize when to disengage if the discussion becomes too contentious.


►


GPT-4o mini

I understand that this can be a frustrating situation! If you have any specific points you'd like to address or if there's anything else I can help you with, just let me know. I'm here to assist!


►:|


GPT-4o mini

I see that you might be feeling a bit exasperated. If there's something specific on your mind or if you have any other questions or topics you'd like to discuss, please feel free to share. I'm here to help!


Plain.

 

[Right Divider]

►OK. Now I've got the party who insists on misunderstanding what Apostolic succession denotes, which ofc, is not that there are any new Apostles, but only that the Apostles were the first Bishops. Bishops are not Apostles, but this guy constantly, contentiously and incorrigibly says that therefore there is no Apostolic succession, because of his stubborn view. So how do I respond to this type of guy. I'm tired of trying to convince him to stop being ridiculous. That's not what Apostolic succession means, that's never what it's meant. Help?

Hilarious!!!

By its very name, Apostolic Succession, means that they did not change the name from "Apostle" to "Bishop".

You can try to "prove" your theory any way that you like, but it's like all other false and unbiblical RCC doctrines. Invented out of thin air.

Your new toy is not helping you at all.

 

[Idolater]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1936595946785394780

 

[Nick M]

5 Now He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who also has given us the Spirit as a guarantee. 6 So we are always confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord. 7 For we walk by faith, not by sight. 8 We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord.

Paul does not offer a third choice. In the body, or after death with Christ. Referring to believers of course.

 

[Clete]

►What is 'Apostolicity'? I've got a party asking me. I always thought it was Apostolic patrimony, for lack of a better term, but this [fellow's] acting like he's never heard the word and can't conceive of what it might mean. Isn't it just everything that came out of the Apostles? And, how did Vincent of Lerins say that we can know what is Apostolic?

For the record, I hadn't ever heard the term "Apostolicity" either. I'd wager that barely 5% of non-catholic church goers have any familiarity with the term at all and likely less than half of non-Catholic pastors and otherwise seminary trained would know it either.


Also, if you ask Chat GPT a question with a clear implication that the "party" you're interacting with is one thing or another, it will pick up on that and answer you with the tone and intent it thinks you're bringing to the discussion. It is designed to be an echo chamber. So says Chat GPT itself....

"I am designed to be helpful, polite, and responsive to your goals and values. That means I try to understand where you're coming from and engage with you on that basis. The problem is, if someone wants flattery or confirmation bias, it’s easy for me—or any system like this—to fall into the trap of reinforcing it."

Not that it won't ever disagree with you, it definitely will, but it's default is to be at least as agreeable as it is honest and so it requires an intellectually honest user who is diligently watching out for confirmation bias.