Catholic bullshit and defenses for it

[Abhorsen]

That doesn't solve the issue because there are still at least two problems I see. 1st What books are part of the Bible and how is it determined that something is infallible. 2nd Who is the normative authority that interprets scripture. It's all fine and good to say the holy spirit won't lead you astray if you are reading honestly. But the MASSIVE differences between protestants will deny this. How can we both be guided by the holy spirit if we come to two different contradictory positions. AKA polygamy is allowed vs not allowed. Child baptism is necessary vs it is a sin, etc.

No, that does solve the issue you raised. Now you are raising two new issues.

In regards to 1? Well first, the new testament canon of various branches of Christianity is nearly identical in regards to what books are in canon, with Orthodox Tewahedo (a subset of the Oriental Orthodox) being the one outlier. This was set up by early church fathers maybe by the year 200. Then, guided by the new testament, which virtually all agree on, Protestants use the Old testament relied on by Jesus (i.e. your old testatment minus the apocrypha), which is where different Christian branches disagree. Jesus is the Word, so what he repeats is where the Old Testament gets its authority. Now obviously, this is going to be a fallible list of infallible books, as we fallible humans are trying to determine what books Jesus used during his time on earth. Maybe he signed off on more, but it wasn't recorded, though I doubt it.

Note that the Catholic canon has only been 'infallibly' listed out since the council of Trent in the 1500s. That's not a sign of perfection. Much better to base it off of an actually infallible source. More, that means for 1500 years, they too were using a fallible list of infallible books. And yes, there was disagreement.

I'd also note that you don't have to be infallible to notice infallibility. Moses didn't need a secondary source clarifying that yes, the burning, speaking bush was God and infallible, despite Moses himself being fallible.

More on this:



As for 2: there isn't one. We are fallible humans trying our best to interpret an infallible work, so we will have differences. But the general rule is that there is triage of problems with interpretation, and unless it directly contradicts the Nicene creed (like Jehova's Witnesses or Mormons), that person's stated beliefs are still Christian. And yeah, that is giving some authority to tradition, but fallible authority, and to the right kind of tradition: tradition that was written down while the Church was still one and was still fairly close to Jesus and it wasn't advantageous to. In short, Authority shrank, from Jesus being the Word Incarnate, to the Apostles baptized in the Holy Spirit, to the gospel writers (some apostles, such as John, Peter and Paul, but not all, notably Luke was not one) writing inspired by the Holy Spirit, to church fathers and others who remembered that authority, and etc. As time goes on, more and more fallibility was mixed in with the infallibility.

How do we know? A bunch of different churches all claim infallibility in their teaching/traditions. And then they got stuff wrong, and then went in other directions. In short, claims continual infallible tradition are completely wrong, as the traditions have clearly been changing and still do. Maybe you could argue that the old church fathers may have been infallible for some of the councils, but which ones? Which councils? Etc. The only thing we know is true is the Word of God.

 

[King Krávoka]

I have never believed in original sin, nor will I ever, since I have read the eighteenth chapter of the Book of Ezekiel.

 

[Stargazer]

I've answered every question you've asked. Whether those answers are satisfactory to you given that you don't actually believe in papal infallibility, the authority of the Church, or sources of revelation is entirely different. Sedevacantism is definitely not the place to start in any sincere attempt to convert a Protestant to Catholicism. That's leaving aside that there are far better researched and more eloquent and more detailed defenses for these doctrines than I'm going to be able to give you.

Of the questions you've asked me on this topic, which haven't I answered?

I've questioned the reasons you have, as a Catholic, to reject the authority of John XXIII and his successors. You've evaded actually giving substantial reasons for doing that. And from my Protestant perspective, I think that's at least in part because it would be very hard to do so without undermining the dogmas of papal infallibility, apostolic succession, the authority of the church, etc, in the process. Basically, why stop at John XXIII and Vatican II? How do you know they lacked authority or were in error, but Paul III and Trent did have authority and were not in error?

...presenting the Greek word used in the translation, showing its root, explaining what the conjugation is and the conclusion you can logically make from that, isn't "showing" it? What, exactly, would constitute a proper defense of "full of grace" being a better fit than "favored one"?

Going beyond a conclusion you "can" logically make about the translation to a conclusion you must logically make.

I suppose reproductions of the DRA could be. I don't really know if the DRA copy on BibleGateway, for example, has an imprimatur. It definitely lacks the obligatory commentary that should be there (which at least relieves it of the need for a nihil obstat). But for copies with both an imprimatur and nihil obstat? Nope. Guaranteed error-free with commentary in line with the faith.

Interesting. This is demonstrably false, given that we know the Hebrew pronoun in Genesis 3:15 is masculine and can't be referring back to the woman. The DRA is in error.

Alrighty. Good to know that's what you mean.

So I would argue you misused the concept of "saving" in your argument. Mary may have been "saved" in the sense that I would use the term, but there's no reason from the text to assume that she was "saved" in the sense you use the term and thus no reason to draw conclusions based on that.

So Abraham was required to do works by obeying God's command to leave the land of his father, and refraining from insulting/denying God? I don't get how you are saying this is faith but not works.

Nope, it was not because of his works that Abraham was counted as righteous. It was because of his faith. In the scenario you gave, we know that Abraham wouldn't have been righteous because his behavior would demonstrate a lack of faith. Genuine faith is proceeded by works, and we can know there is a lack of faith in a person without works. But that doesn't mean the works are what makes the person counted righteous. The Bible is clear that his faith is what was counted to Abraham as righteousness, not his works

You literally said you aren't concerned about the eternal fate of the people who are responsible for you being born right now, and said. "I don't think any Christian should be hugely concerned either" Saying I don't think any Christian should be in regards to something makes it seem like you are calling it something sinful or on the border like astrology or whatever.
"I don't think any Christian should be interested in astrology." Is a valid thing to say as belief in this superstition can be sinful.

But what you said has implications beyond that. It in my mind takes your version of Protestantism out of Christianity. Christianity is ALL ABOUT LOVING YOUR NEIGHBOR. Not caring for their soul is a sin I think. Christianity is more compassionate than Judaism, and what you just said is even more callous than Judaism. Jews can be argued to not care about other groups of people but they at least care about other Jews not just themselves or maybe their own family. A Jew is responsible for all other Jews. This means taking care of their physical needs if they are poor or starving of course but it also means looking out for their spiritual needs making sure they are following the will of the Lord.

Sorry but saying you shouldn't care about other's souls is a hot take

Responsible for Each Other

www.ssdsbergen.org

Not being particularly concerned about the fate of people who died thousands of years ago, who I never met and never had any chance to interact with or influence, means I'm sinning by failing to love my neighbor? You are a ridiculous person if you can't see the utter absurdity of that accusation.

 

[posh-goofiness]

I've questioned the reasons you have, as a Catholic, to reject the authority of John XXIII and his successors. You've evaded actually giving substantial reasons for doing that. And from my Protestant perspective, I think that's at least in part because it would be very hard to do so without undermining the dogmas of papal infallibility, apostolic succession, the authority of the church, etc, in the process. Basically, why stop at John XXIII and Vatican II? How do you know they lacked authority or were in error, but Paul III and Trent did have authority and were not in error?

The most complete summary of the sedevacantist position I know of. Long, but thorough.

Going beyond a conclusion you "can" logically make about the translation to a conclusion you must logically make.

That's not how theologians approach the problems inherent to translation. The mere fact that they need to reference other parts of Scripture for context clues for both allegorical and for literal interpretation makes this assertion false. Furthermore, by Protestant standards, its a personal interpretation- who are you to tell me its wrong on that basis of what I can get from the translation versus what I must get from it based on, again, your personally preferred translation?

Interesting. This is demonstrably false, given that we know the Hebrew pronoun in Genesis 3:15 is masculine and can't be referring back to the woman. The DRA is in error.

Alright.

 

[stephen the barbarian]

i think this vid sums up the thread.
tl:dr the claims of the Catholic Church are non-falsifiable;
if you try to argue over scripture, they point to tradition, try to argue over tradition, they point to the ministerium.
this means that everything boils down to "because i said so."

and that's not a compelling idea.

 

[Stargazer]

The most complete summary of the sedevacantist position I know of. Long, but thorough.

I'm not all that interested in watching a long video on the entire sed position. I asked you a question. If you're not going to simply answer the question, you might as well just say you don't know a real answer to the question. The least you could do is timestamp where the video addresses my question.

That's not how theologians approach the problems inherent to translation. The mere fact that they need to reference other parts of Scripture for context clues for both allegorical and for literal interpretation makes this assertion false. Furthermore, by Protestant standards, its a personal interpretation- who are you to tell me its wrong on that basis of what I can get from the translation versus what I must get from it based on, again, your personally preferred translation?

Who are you to talk about what "theologians do"? Or what "Protestant standards" are? You offered this as a prooftext for the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. The only standard I'm employing is the logical standard that if you want to prove a claim, your claim must be the only reasonable explanation for the evidence presented. The evidence in this case being the text of Scripture where Gabriel greets Mary. Your claim of Mary being born without sin doesn't meet that standard - you more or less admitted it by not challenging my position that your claim isn't something that must be concluded from the text. So it remains unproven, and there are still other Biblical doctrines regarding human nature that stand in contradiction to it. I see no reason as a Christian to accept the Roman church's dogmatic teaching on the matter, in fact I see it as contradictory to sound doctrine and it opens the door wide open to a kind of idolatry. All of which I'm sure you're aware places me outside the faith according to your church.

Alright.

Should I take this as a concession, or an acknowlegdement without a concession? If you have no rebuttal to this but it doesn't change your position, it's almost like what the Bible actually says doesn't actually matter to you to begin with. Your argument wasn't actually a reason why you believe what you believe.

 

[RenegadeInterrupt]

TLDW: He mentions how Ayn Rand inspired The Church of Satan and that's basically the thrust of the vidya

 

[ATP]

I'm not all that interested in watching a long video on the entire sed position. I asked you a question. If you're not going to simply answer the question, you might as well just say you don't know a real answer to the question. The least you could do is timestamp where the video addresses my question.



Who are you to talk about what "theologians do"? Or what "Protestant standards" are? You offered this as a prooftext for the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. The only standard I'm employing is the logical standard that if you want to prove a claim, your claim must be the only reasonable explanation for the evidence presented.

Very well.God could have not sin.Original sin is passed from parents.Thuse,if there were no Immaculate Conception,Jesus would inherit oryginal sin.
As long as you belive that Jesus is also human,not only God,you must belive in Holy Mary.

The evidence in this case being the text of Scripture where Gabriel greets Mary. Your claim of Mary being born without sin doesn't meet that standard - you more or less admitted it by not challenging my position that your claim isn't something that must be concluded from the text. So it remains unproven, and there are still other Biblical doctrines regarding human nature that stand in contradiction to it. I see no reason as a Christian to accept the Roman church's dogmatic teaching on the matter, in fact I see it as contradictory to sound doctrine and it opens the door wide open to a kind of idolatry. All of which I'm sure you're aware places me outside the faith according to your church.



Should I take this as a concession, or an acknowlegdement without a concession? If you have no rebuttal to this but it doesn't change your position, it's almost like what the Bible actually says doesn't actually matter to you to begin with.

In which place? becouse it,for example, wrote fairy tales about powerpuff Salomon state from Euprah to Egypt which never existed.

Your argument wasn't actually a reason why you believe what you believe.

 

[posh-goofiness]

I'm not all that interested in watching a long video on the entire sed position. I asked you a question. If you're not going to simply answer the question, you might as well just say you don't know a real answer to the question. The least you could do is timestamp where the video addresses my question.

And I gave answers that you found unsatisfactory. They're always going to be unsatisfactory to you because you don't have the same baseline givens Catholics do. The succinct answer will be wholly unsatisfactory to you- the Church cannot have a substantial change. That's it. There's a bunch of downstream effects from that like the canons for public vs private heresy, and the validity of sacraments, and at what point someone isn't Catholic anymore, and on and on that you also find unsatisfactory because, again, you don't share the same givens as Catholics do.

Who are you to talk about what "theologians do"? Or what "Protestant standards" are?

No one, really. But since there's 1000s of Protestant sects, you can conclude that they have different interpretations of the Bible. Who's to say which are correct, right?

You offered this as a prooftext for the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. The only standard I'm employing is the logical standard that if you want to prove a claim, your claim must be the only reasonable explanation for the evidence presented. The evidence in this case being the text of Scripture where Gabriel greets Mary. Your claim of Mary being born without sin doesn't meet that standard - you more or less admitted it by not challenging my position that your claim isn't something that must be concluded from the text.

By that standard, neither have you, especially with Protestant theology. There is no must here. At best, there's strong evidence for or against based on what your preferred translation is.

So it remains unproven, and there are still other Biblical doctrines regarding human nature that stand in contradiction to it.

I can acknowledge that, sure. Of course, that's not actually a contradiction for Catholics since the Immaculate Conception is possible and implemented through Christ's sacrifice and not by Mary's nature.

I see no reason as a Christian to accept the Roman church's dogmatic teaching on the matter, in fact I see it as contradictory to sound doctrine and it opens the door wide open to a kind of idolatry. All of which I'm sure you're aware places me outside the faith according to your church.

Not sure where the idolatry part comes into it but, yes, not accepting dogmatic teaching does do that, yes.

Should I take this as a concession, or an acknowlegdement without a concession? If you have no rebuttal to this but it doesn't change your position, it's almost like what the Bible actually says doesn't actually matter to you to begin with. Your argument wasn't actually a reason why you believe what you believe.

The latter. The Bible has plenty of translations and revisions and lost then found archeological translations. It's still got a 99% integrity or something ridiculous like that. Who even knows how St. Jerome's translation has the feminine Latin from masculine Hebrew? Maybe we find an even older scrap of the Hebrew with the feminine pronoun and it was part of the corpus he used to translate to Latin and suddenly this passage's translation gets thrown into doubt. Maybe we don't. Considering his proximity (temporally) to the source of truth I think I'll trust that over translations found now, this of course leaves aside that this is about a preference in translation.

I did look up the DRA though- no nihil obstat which was unexpected. It only has an imprimatur. The Sixto-Clementine is still the only sanctioned (dogmatically error-free) translation. It's very odd.

To your final two statements: that's very... interesting. You understand that Catholics believe the exact opposite, right? I suppose, I would rebut that insulting statement like this. Protestant arguments for why they believe what they believe aren't their true reason either.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

TLDW: He mentions how Ayn Rand inspired The Church of Satan and that's basically the thrust of the vidya

to be fair The Devil has always been known to take truths and twist them. Heck the way he tempted jesus was to try and use the words of his father against him. So can I imagine them using Ayn Rand as "insperation?" sure...that doesin't make them the truthful.

 

[RenegadeInterrupt]

to be fair The Devil has always been known to take truths and twist them. Heck the way he tempted jesus was to try and use the words of his father against him. So can I imagine them using Ayn Rand as "insperation?" sure...that doesin't make them the truthful.

If you go by the Christian interpretation of Satan, sure. But the Jewish interpretation of Satan as a divine prosecutor of sorts doesn't do this shit. I think the flaw of the Church of Satan is that they take the Christian interpretation of Satan as literal evil and try to make him some sort of protagonist. It simply doesn't work. The Church of Satan are entitled to their interpretation of Satan but I firmly believe it is an incorrect one.

 

[Carrot of Truth]

Hot take but Martin Luther did nothing wrong and was 100% justified in causing the schism.

 

[TheRomanSlayer]

Hot take but Martin Luther did nothing wrong and was 100% justified in causing the schism.

Luther wouldn't be a thing if the issue of Alexander VI and Savonarola had been resolved a lot sooner.

 

[King Arts]

to be fair The Devil has always been known to take truths and twist them. Heck the way he tempted jesus was to try and use the words of his father against him. So can I imagine them using Ayn Rand as "insperation?" sure...that doesin't make them the truthful.

I think you are misunderstanding. Anarcho capitalist/libertarian principles as a good thing are a completely modern phenomenon. You can look at traditional stories like A Christmas Carol where Scruge's selfishness is seen as an evil sin. That was from the 1800's, the same time people criticized robber barrons, before that good nobles tried to live under doctrines like noblesse oblige. Not that they actually upheld it often, but still society thought they should. You don't have freedom to do what you want, you have duties to those who are weaker than you, you have duty to those above you. And this particular story of Paradise lost by John Milton, Satan is given *sympathetic* motivations, Shapiro and his modern type that support individual freedom are not Christian at all. It is alien to the religion, it's not Satan trying to twist Ayn Rand's ideas into becoming anti christian and evil. Under Christianity Ayn Rands ideas ARE evil from the start, the ideas she spawned were copied from the devil they weren't a good thing twisted, they were just almost pure evil from the start.

*(note when I say sympathetic it doesen't mean you are suppose to support him or agree with the motivation, merely understand them and see him as a villain with actual reasons. Most Christian representations before this did not give any reason for satan besides "Muhhahaha I'm evil!" In paradise lost he is still evil he is greedy and prideful and wants to get in charge but you can see how a realistic evil person would have that and act like. Other depictions of why satan fell are given by Islam, and Mormonism are bad because they actually make the devil TOO justified and make it seem like satan has an actual good reason. For Mormons Jesus and Lucifer were brothers who each tried to become the savior of humanity, aka Lucifer wanted to take Jesus's place and get crucified himself. the differance is that Jesus wants to do the same thing all the other world's gods have done and only let those who are true to the faith ascend to become gods, the best outcome in Mormon cosmology. Lucifer wanted to force everyone to be saved, so everyone would evolve into gods/go to the highest level of Mormon heaven.)

Hot take but Martin Luther did nothing wrong and was 100% justified in causing the schism.

Nah man schism is bad. Christianity is supposed to be unified, having any hick just make up their own Church has been a disaster that allowed woke Church's that's worse than the corrupt Catholics.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

I think you are misunderstanding. Anarcho capitalist/libertarian principles as a good thing are a completely modern phenomenon. You can look at traditional stories like A Christmas Carol where Scruge's selfishness is seen as an evil sin. That was from the 1800's, the same time people criticized robber barrons, before that good nobles tried to live under doctrines like noblesse oblige. Not that they actually upheld it often, but still society thought they should. You don't have freedom to do what you want, you have duties to those who are weaker than you, you have duty to those above you. And this particular story of Paradise lost by John Milton, Satan is given *sympathetic* motivations, Shapiro and his modern type that support individual freedom are not Christian at all. It is alien to the religion, it's not Satan trying to twist Ayn Rand's ideas into becoming anti christian and evil. Under Christianity Ayn Rands ideas ARE evil from the start, the ideas she spawned were copied from the devil they weren't a good thing twisted, they were just almost pure evil from the start.

*(note when I say sympathetic it doesen't mean you are suppose to support him or agree with the motivation, merely understand them and see him as a villain with actual reasons. Most Christian representations before this did not give any reason for satan besides "Muhhahaha I'm evil!" In paradise lost he is still evil he is greedy and prideful and wants to get in charge but you can see how a realistic evil person would have that and act like. Other depictions of why satan fell are given by Islam, and Mormonism are bad because they actually make the devil TOO justified and make it seem like satan has an actual good reason. For Mormons Jesus and Lucifer were brothers who each tried to become the savior of humanity, aka Lucifer wanted to take Jesus's place and get crucified himself. the differance is that Jesus wants to do the same thing all the other world's gods have done and only let those who are true to the faith ascend to become gods, the best outcome in Mormon cosmology. Lucifer wanted to force everyone to be saved, so everyone would evolve into gods/go to the highest level of Mormon heaven.)



Nah man schism is bad. Christianity is supposed to be unified, having any hick just make up their own Church has been a disaster that allowed woke Church's that's worse than the corrupt Catholics.

I'm not going to bother arguing with you, have a good day man.

 

[Carrot of Truth]

Nah man schism is bad. Christianity is supposed to be unified, having any hick just make up their own Church has been a disaster that allowed woke Church's that's worse than the corrupt Catholics.

There was no way Christianity was ever going to stay unified, Heck it wasn't by this point anyways. Even ignoring Jan Hus the split with the Greek Orthodox was the true first schism.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

There was no way Christianity was ever going to stay unified, Heck it wasn't by this point anyways. Even ignoring Jan Hus the split with the Greek Orthodox was the true first schism.

Heck it started splitting off IMEDIATLY after it's founding and that was when the apostilles were still alive and well, heck the apostilles disagreed amongst THEMSELVES sometimes (the dispute over john mark)

 

[King Arts]

I'm not going to bother arguing with you, have a good day man.

Oh ok, I hope you have a good day.

 

[King Arts]

There was no way Christianity was ever going to stay unified, Heck it wasn't by this point anyways. Even ignoring Jan Hus the split with the Greek Orthodox was the true first schism.

Just because it was not possible does not mean it was good. The world can't be perfect until Christ returns. It doesn't mean that it not being perfect is good. Schism breaking apart the faith more is bad.

 

[Scottty]

Hot take but Martin Luther did nothing wrong and was 100% justified in causing the schism.

It was not Luther who caused the schism. It was the corrupt old men in robes and funny hats who refused to listen or engage with his complaints who made the division unavoidable.