Declaratory. Saying it doesn't make it so. Bald assertion.
Which is why I following it up with an entire post that you just spent at least an hour (probably more) responding too.
Also, a "just so", very convenient explanation.
That sentence does not make sense.
Also, you're captured by your own position so that entertaining the majority report of secular historians isn't even an ontological possibility for you, which obv has very low initial plausibility.
That sentence, also, does not make sense.
iow it doesn't even need a defeater. It's self-defeated and auto-defeated.
A claim which you never substantiate throughout the rest of your post. In other words...
"Declaratory. Saying it doesn't make it so. Bald assertion."
Elders and bishops (and overseers and presbyters and even some fathers (cf. 1st John 2, 1st Corithians 4) are synonyms. Later in the first century priests would be distinguished from bishops, as potential bishops-in-waiting. Deacons have always been a distinct office from the beginning.
Irrelevant. The Catholics version of these things bears no resemblance to that which is actually taught in scripture.
Incidentally, neither I John 2 nor I Corinthians 4 have anything to do with the topic of "overseers and presbyters and even some fathers". If you think otherwise then I would just ask you why you bother actually reading the bible in the first place. What exactly is the point of pretending that your doctrine is biblical? Who are you trying to fool - yourselves? I don't get it.
The papacy is a distinct office from all the rest of the bishops. He's not just "first among equals", his office is distinct. The idea that his office is just another patriarchate is partisan (the party in question being namely, Eastern Orthodoxy).
Yeah well, to the extent that this is so, is exactly the extent to which it is even further afield from anything biblical than is the Catholic "office of Bishop".
And there have been no new public revelations since the Apostles, so that part of the Apostolic ministry died with them. The bishops, in being successors of the Apostles, are therefore to preserve, teach and transmit all that the Apostles left behind, in writing and by word-of-mouth (the former being Sacred Scripture and the latter being Sacred Tradition).
Sounds good except that you do not give a damn about what the scripture actually says. What you care about is what the Pope and the other "saints", bishops, deacons, priests, et al say about the scripture. Your own citation of I John 2 and I Corinthians 4 in support of the idea that "Elders and bishops (and overseers and presbyters and even some fathers are synonyms, is proof of that.
Liars go to - purgatory?
The offices were instituted by Jesus and the Apostles, and the Scripture, even the Protestant versions of the Scripture, prove it explicitly. 1st Timothy 3:1 has Paul presuming the office of bishop is already ontologically real. Jesus singles out Peter to set out particular duties just for him, and then John's Gospel, written after Peter died, into a subsequent pontificate, bolsters the Scriptural written record of the distinction of Peter's office by including the "Feed My sheep" conversation between our Lord and Peter.
Both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are generated by the Apostles, and they were given the teaching authority of Jesus. That's called the magisterium, the bishops together with the pope have this teaching authority, but as I said, there's no new public revelation, so the magisterial power is to preserve, teach and transmit what the Apostles left with us after they all died, whether written, or spoken.
Well, when you're allowed to read anything you want into the scripture then such claims can be made without possible refutation. It is fundamentally irrational and further proof that you, in fact, do not adhere to these beliefs on the basis of reason alone as your previous post claimed.
The Hypostatic Union was dogmatically defined by the magisterium no later than the sixth century–about 1000 years before John Calvin ever dreamed it up.
Yes, I know. It was stupidity then, it was stupidity when Calvin reiterated it and it remains stupidity to this day. It exists to preserve Augustinian doctrines which Augustine imported from Socrates, Aristotle and Plato.
I didn't say it was generated on rational grounds. I said I accept it just on rational grounds alone.
I know what you said and I proved that your claim is impossible. It is a flagrantly irrational document that makes no attempt to support its doctrines via rational arguments. A great many of the doctrines that it teaches cannot even be presented on purely rational grounds, much less accepted on that basis.
To say nothing of my faith, is what I meant. Assuming there's a God (and there's a lot of defeaters against the notion that He is fictional, or not ontologically real), then there is obv authentic divine communication to us, and it is briefly that this Catechism of the Catholic Church is the lens through which we ought to look at all of the content He gives us.
That is literally stupidity, Idolater.
Now look, I'm not saying that to insult you. I'm telling you factually that if this is what you consider to be a rational thought, you've been tricked, you've been lied to, you've been conned and your mind has been hijacked to the point of near total dysfunction.
I am not kidding nor am I in the least bit exaggerating when I state the simple fact that there are LOTS of doctrines within that document that are FLAGRANTLY, OPENLY, INTENTIONALLY and PROUDLY irrational to the extent that they literally cannot even be presented on rational grounds. And now, you're here basically saying that if God exists then He must communicate with us and this irrational document is the lens through which we have to understand that communication! Are you Catholics lucky! God, being wholly incapable of writing a book that can simply be read and understood, gave you guys a Catechism by which to understand it! I mean, one might have expected Him to have simply put the Catechism stuff in the book to begin with but, hey, who we to question such things, right?
You Catholics have a talent for taking a problem and then proposing as a solution to that problem that does nothing at all but back up the same problem a step. You solve the problem of Jesus being born with a sin nature not by teaching the His conception was immaculate but that Mary's conception was immaculate. Never mind the fact that all that does is move the same problem back a single generation. Now, here, you propose to solve the issue of understanding the scripture by just adding another document to read as though that somehow fixes anything. Where the "lens" through which you look to understand the catechism?
Can you not see the problem with offering a flagrantly irrational "lens" by which some other document is to be "understood"? It's complete madness!
Right; that's kind of what I mean by saying there are many defeaters (with very high initial plausibility) against the proposition of Him not being ontologically real.
There couldn't even be any such mental discipline as "ontology" if God does not exist.
Acknowledging that God exists and that He communicates with us is a very far cry from anything that can even be presented as evidence that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is even a legitimate doctrinal document, never mind the "lens" through which we're to understand God's actual word! Such a claim is so ludicrously ridiculous that I'm more than a little flabergasted that anyone can state it outloud and keep a straight face.
The idea that morality is knowable without believing in God, is one of the defeaters against the idea that He's not real.
There could be no such thing as "knowledge" - of any sort - theological or otherwise - if God does not exist.
Right, and this is just stating the obv, right? If God is real then ofc every truth peacefully and smoothly and lovingly coexists with every other. If God's not real, and therefore the Catechism of the Catholic Church is unreliable, then you actually have to fight to support the idea that truth is even ontologically real in the first place, cf.:
“ The problem of truth is in a way easy to state: what truths are, and what (if anything) makes them true. But this simple statement masks a great deal of controversy. Whether there is a metaphysical problem of truth at all, and if there is, what kind of theory might address it, are all standing issues in the theory of truth. ”
If you can't grant through faith that God is real and that He communicates to us, you can't even grant that truth isn't just a concept reified by the mind, but with no ontological reality of its own.
The reality of God is not in dispute.
If the Catechism of the Catholic Church is legitimate, then God is irrational because the Catechism of the Catholic Church is irrational. If God is irrational then nothing can be known beacuse God Himself is the basis for and the source of all reason (see the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God). The irrational cannot be the basis for the rational and reason is the only means by which any truth claim can be falsified or proven. If nothing can be known then the Catechism of the Catholic Church is self-defeating and useless. Therefore, whether God exists or not, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is false.
God is NOT irrational. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is flagrantly irrational. Therefore, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is not legitimate.
QED x 2
I never suggested that the Catechism of the Catholic Church in teaching about reason, is the reason I accept it. I accept, because I believe God is real, which is faith, and reason; I accept because Jesus is God, which is again faith, and reason; I accept because how Jesus is God is particularly understood by the Trinity, and I accept because Jesus started a Church ... which is actually just reason.
The Catholic version of the Trinity doctrine is intentionally irrational. They teach it as irrational. They not only know its irrational, they teach that the fact that it is irrational is a feature not a defect and so, while you started this statement off well, it fell into a pit when you got to the Trinity doctrine.
(I fully accept the fact that God is indeed a Trinity, by the way. I simply reject the irrational overstatements and flagant irrationalities that the RCC adds to what the bible actually teaches in regards to this doctrine.)
That's not a statement of faith; that I accept Catholicism as Jesus's Church, is 100% reason, based on evidence, some of which is Scriptural, which I believe based on faith, but it is evidence either way, and so my conclusions are rational, and not statements or articles or tenets of faith.
Believing the irrational is true is not what faith is about and calling such an act of mental suicide "faith" doesn't make it actual faith and it certainly doesn't turn into something rational.
In short, your definition of the word "faith" is antithetical to reason. It is its opposite. Biblical faith has nothing to do with believing something in spite of a lack of evidence or in spite of an appearance of irrationality or any other anti-intellectual thing. Faith is the willingness to believe the truth and to reject falsehood. It is the willingness to accept the verdict of reasonable evidence without requiring unnasailable proof.
If faith had to do with believing something in spite of it being irrational then what doctrine could ever be falsified?
You will not be able to offer any answer to that question without appealing to the very reason your definition of faith tells me that I'm free to ignore.
Because Catholicism has the Trinity, and because Catholicism is historically corroborated, I rationally accept the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Old lies are still lies, Idolater.
Hinduism has a much longer history than does Catholicism and their doctrines have changed WAY less than any version of Catholicism you care to talk about.
The RCC is in the process of becoming a Woke waste of time that thinks homosexual perverts are children of God and that they can do any sexual thing they want, so long as they're married!!!!
Are you going to tell me that this immoral woke joke of a Pope you've got can establish the heresy he spits from his perverse mouth about homosexuals is historically corroberated? I dare you to try it.
On the basis of authority which is given to them since that authority is attached to their office. They hold the office which has the authority. The authority they have is teaching authority as regards us the lay faithful, not especially or primarily a secular, political authority. They have the same teaching authority as the Apostles, because this is the teaching authority of Jesus. But they don't receive new public revelations, so they're never going to introduce a new teaching, or change any ancient teaching, doctrine, dogma, de fide, dogmatically defined, Apostolic, Sacred, etc. There's never going to be another book of the Bible.
- In a letter to Jesuit Father James Martin, who ministers to the LGBT community, Pope Francis wrote:
- During a meeting with parents of LGBT children, Pope Francis said:
- In an interview with the Associated Press, Pope Francis stated:
These quotes are part of broader conversations where Pope Francis emphasizes the Church’s call to welcome and respect all individuals, including those who are homosexual. Is this what you mean by "they're never going to introduce a new teaching, or change any ancient teaching, doctrine, dogma, de fide, dogmatically defined, Apostolic, Sacred, etc."?
It doesn't take faith alone to believe their office has this power. It's a reasonable, rational conclusion, based on evidence, both evidence from Scripture, and also from secular history.
Nonsense. It is power that they gave themselves and command you to accept, not on the basis of reason, but on the basis of their authority.
That's just the Trinity. Unless you're Orthodox (meaning you don't believe the Holy Spirit is generated by the Son, but only by the Father), or a heretic. The Catholic version of the doctrine of the Trinity is just the Trinity simpliciter.
The Catholic version of the Trinity doctrine is flatly false. The only things it gets right is that has something to do with God and the number three is somehow involved.
The Orthodox believe in transubstantiation, they just don't like the terminology.
Orthodoxy believes these.
This teaching power was invoked exactly two times in history, the last time in 1950 I think.
Again Orthodoxy believes this.
Who cares what the Orthodox believe?
"Saints" are canonized saints in Heaven, they're confirmed to be there rn. That's what makes them "Saints" with a capital S. They're deceased Christians /believers who are rn in Heaven, ontologically. It's proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
If you actually believe that this is proven at all, never mind beyond a reasonable doubt, then you are, in fact, stupid. You've turned off your brain and don't really care about evidence or proof. You simply like using the words so that you SOUND like a reasonable human being. It's just verbal camoflage.
Right, salvation, deliverance, from temporal (not eternal) punishments you have earned in anything bad done in the body (2nd Corinthians 5:10). It's grace in that it's unmerited, and it's mercy. The Church has the power to forgive sins, in this way. Forgiving sins in the sense of commuting a sentence.
You are not a Christian in the biblical sense of the word.
Indulgences isn't really even a big deal–absolution is a big deal, and that's what happens in Confession (along with exorcism, which is not as big a deal as absolution but is still a bigger deal than indulgences).
Stunning.
It's really more about the offices that Jesus set up. We see Him set them up in the Bible (His Apostles set up the office of bishop with His authority), and secular history records the continuation of those offices plain as day, without controversy. It's what we call today Catholicism and the Catholic Church.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
You are, in fact, delusional. Either that, or you are lying, which would be better but for which I see no convincing evidence.
I see no reason to even discuss it with you except to further expose Catholicism as the anti-biblical heresy that it is.
