(December 2, 2016 at 7:40 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(December 2, 2016 at 7:30 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Doesn't everything happen according to 'God's' plan?

In the grand scheme, big picture sort of way, yes. But that does not mean that God is hand puppeting every single thing that happens in nature.

So, that means god has a plan, in which he knows that billions of abortions will occur?

In god's plan, what is the outcome for the mothers that choose to have abortions? What happens to the unborn?

(December 2, 2016 at 7:51 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(December 2, 2016 at 7:40 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: In the grand scheme, big picture sort of way, yes. But that does not mean that God is hand puppeting every single thing that happens in nature.

So, that means god has a plan, in which he knows that billions of abortions will occur?

In god's plan, what is the outcome for the mothers that choose to have abortions? What happens to the unborn?

It's impossible to know exactly the mind of God and why certain things happen as they do. But we believe God's plan includes allowing us free will. And yes, of course we believe He knows that many bad things will happen to innocent people as a result of free will. But the theory is that in the end the good that comes from humanity's intelligence and freewill will outweigh the bad that came from it, and everything will be made right. Exactly how, we don't know. 

I don't understand your last 2 questions. What is the outcome in terms of what?

---

(December 2, 2016 at 7:45 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote:

(December 2, 2016 at 12:45 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: ^This.

The Virgin Mary is whom we believe to basically have been the highest and most "important" (for lack of better word) Saint to ever exist. 

So um yeah... the Church does not teach that women are objects. 

Then the Church are teaching the Bible wrong. Because the Bible most certainly does teach that.

The teachings of the Church are expressed in official Church doctrines, such as the Catechism. As for the bible, it just depends on which part you read and/or how you interpret it. But that is why the authority of the Church takes precedence over the bible.

(December 2, 2016 at 8:51 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(December 2, 2016 at 7:51 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: So, that means god has a plan, in which he knows that billions of abortions will occur?

In god's plan, what is the outcome for the mothers that choose to have abortions? What happens to the unborn?

It's impossible to know exactly the mind of God and why certain things happen as they do. But we believe God's plan includes allowing us free will. And yes, of course we believe He knows that many bad things will happen to innocent people as a result of free will. But the theory is that in the end the good that comes from humanity's intelligence and freewill will outweigh the bad that came from it, and everything will be made right. Exactly how, we don't know. 

I don't understand your last 2 questions. What is the outcome in terms of what?

What happens to them in the 'afterlife'?

Does a old man, chosen by other fallible old farts, suddenly gain magical understanding of the bible to overthrow it's authority as "solo scripta" despite their whole faith relying on it? I don't really understand why catholics can believe the interpretations despite history repeatedly showing they are not infallible.
The senile old farts have thought themselves as gods like Pope Nicholas I declared that "the appellation of God had been confirmed by Constantine on the Pope, who, being God, cannot be judged by man." - Labb IX Dist.: 96 Can. 7, Satis evidentur, Decret Gratian Primer Para.
I mean after you have a "heretic" like Pope Honorious, or require reversals like Pope Zosimus reversing he predecessors pronouncements, how do you honestly believe that what the current pope is saying is truth and you won't be damned for following it by some future pope?

(December 2, 2016 at 7:45 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: Then the Church are teaching the Bible wrong. Because the Bible most certainly does teach that.

You know what catholics are like - too cool for bi-bool...

If god has a plan but doesn't know every detail of what will happen, then either we can divert his plan, or else he's continually adjusting for what we do so as to counteract any choices he doesn't like.

He could have made it so no one ever gets pregnant unless they want to. But he didn't. He's more concerned with stopping us investigating any more than a tiny fraction of his creation by attaching us to a planet and surrounding us with toxic atmosphere.

(December 2, 2016 at 9:02 pm)Aoi Magi Wrote: Does a old man, chosen by other fallible old farts, suddenly gain magical understanding of the bible to overthrow it's authority as "solo scripta" despite their whole faith relying on it? I don't really understand why catholics can believe the interpretations despite history repeatedly showing they are not infallible. [1]

The senile old farts have thought themselves as gods like Pope Nicholas I declared that "the appellation of God had been confirmed by Constantine on the Pope, who, being God, cannot be judged by man." - Labb IX Dist.: 96 Can. 7, Satis evidentur, Decret Gratian Primer Para. [2]

I mean after you have a "heretic" like Pope Honorious, or require reversals like Pope Zosimus reversing he predecessors pronouncements, how do you honestly believe that what the current pope is saying is truth and you won't be damned for following it by some future pope? [3]

1) The Catholic Church has never held to the concept of "sola scriptura". It does not rely on "sola scriptura". It is not a religion of a book. It is a religion of a person and the community he founded. That community wrote the scriptures, and that same community today is the Catholic Church. Catholic infallibility is and always has been a very qualified and specific meaning. I'd invite you to see what it actually means.

2) This quotation does not exist. It is a misrepresentation of things he probably did say, namely: the affirmation of the donation of Constantine (giving the Pope temporal authority over the Western empire, leading eventually to the Papal States), and the affirmation that the Pope had the highest authority on earth (NOT that the Pope is God). Given that Nicholas was Pope at a time of bad relations with the Patriarchs of the East (especially Photius in Constantinople), it is not surprising that he would be trying to assert his authority.

As it turns out, the "donation of Constantine" was forgery. Everyone at the time, however, (including the Pope, Byzantine Emperor, Western Emperor, and the Eastern Bishops) thought it was real.

3) There is a difference between material heresy (unknowingly believing something that is heretical) and formal heresy (knowingly believing something that is heretical, and publically teaching said heresy in spite of ecclesial requests to stop). There is a difference between every-day things the Pope says (non-infallible personal remarks and correspondence and interviews) and very specific things he says for the purpose of teaching (non-infallible magisterial teaching like exhortations, encyclicals, apostolic letters, etc.) and very specific things he says for the purpose of solemnly and finally defining a dogma/aspect of a dogma (infallible ex-cathedra pronouncements).

Pope Honorius may have been a material heretic. That is not a problem. Almost every Catholic is probably a material heretic in some way (i.e. there is probably something we think in good-faith that the Church teaches, but we are actually wrong about). He never, however, solemnly defined his material heresy as a dogma. If he had done that, then you would have a point.

---

(December 2, 2016 at 7:45 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: Then the Church are teaching the Bible wrong. Because the Bible most certainly does teach that.

Welcome to the Reformation. Challenging the Church's interpretive authority since 1517.

---

(December 3, 2016 at 4:01 am)robvalue Wrote: If god has a plan but doesn't know every detail of what will happen, then either we can divert his plan, or else he's continually adjusting for what we do so as to counteract any choices he doesn't like. [1]

Indeed. The question regarding the relationship between divine freedom/providence and human freedom centers on what you brought up. The Catholic Church has two different positions from which you can choose: The Thomistic and the Molinist. Both preserve human freedom and divine freedom in different ways, and you can go with the one your find more adequate.

(December 3, 2016 at 5:35 am)Ignorant Wrote:

(December 2, 2016 at 9:02 pm)Aoi Magi Wrote: Does a old man, chosen by other fallible old farts, suddenly gain magical understanding of the bible to overthrow it's authority as "solo scripta" despite their whole faith relying on it? I don't really understand why catholics can believe the interpretations despite history repeatedly showing they are not infallible. [1]

The senile old farts have thought themselves as gods like Pope Nicholas I declared that "the appellation of God had been confirmed by Constantine on the Pope, who, being God, cannot be judged by man." - Labb IX Dist.: 96 Can. 7, Satis evidentur, Decret Gratian Primer Para. [2]

I mean after you have a "heretic" like Pope Honorious, or require reversals like Pope Zosimus reversing he predecessors pronouncements, how do you honestly believe that what the current pope is saying is truth and you won't be damned for following it by some future pope? [3]

1) The Catholic Church has never held to the concept of "sola scriptura". It does not rely on "sola scriptura". It is not a religion of a book. It is a religion of a person and the community he founded. That community wrote the scriptures, and that same community today is the Catholic Church. Catholic infallibility is and always has been a very qualified and specific meaning. I'd invite you to see what it actually means.

2) This quotation does not exist. It is a misrepresentation of things he probably did say, namely: the affirmation of the donation of Constantine (giving the Pope temporal authority over the Western empire, leading eventually to the Papal States), and the affirmation that the Pope had the highest authority on earth (NOT that the Pope is God). Given that Nicholas was Pope at a time of bad relations with the Patriarchs of the East (especially Photius in Constantinople), it is not surprising that he would be trying to assert his authority.

As it turns out, the "donation of Constantine" was forgery. Everyone at the time, however, (including the Pope, Byzantine Emperor, Western Emperor, and the Eastern Bishops) thought it was real.

3) There is a difference between material heresy (unknowingly believing something that is heretical) and formal heresy (knowingly believing something that is heretical, and publically teaching said heresy in spite of ecclesial requests to stop). There is a difference between every-day things the Pope says (non-infallible personal remarks and correspondence and interviews) and very specific things he says for the purpose of teaching (non-infallible magisterial teaching like exhortations, encyclicals, apostolic letters, etc.) and very specific things he says for the purpose of solemnly and finally defining a dogma/aspect of a dogma (infallible ex-cathedra pronouncements).

Pope Honorius may have been a material heretic. That is not a problem. Almost every Catholic is probably a material heretic in some way (i.e. there is probably something we think in good-faith that the Church teaches, but we are actually wrong about). He never, however, solemnly defined his material heresy as a dogma. If he had done that, then you would have a point.

....right, I guess similar quotes like Innocent III saying "Indeed, it is not too much to say that in view of the sublimity of their offices the priests are so many gods." also fake.


so why a teaching from a fallible man cannot also be fallible?

(December 2, 2016 at 12:35 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(December 2, 2016 at 12:27 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: No, it does not. 
When a Catholic wants to know what the catholic position is on something, we crack open the Catechism. Not the bible. And especially not the OT lol. Contrary to the protestant religions, in Catholicism, the authority of the Church comes first, before the words of the bible which are confusing and can be interpreted in many different ways. 
So yes, if you're claiming that Catholicism teaches that women are objects, you'd have to point to official Catholic doctrine that states such.

And that is why you don't argue the Bible with catholics.
The CCC is, unlike the Bible, a well thought out document. It's basically fool proof, even if it starts off with the wrong premise - there is a god.

The cathechism a foolproof document? It's simply a document with a lot of strictures crossed out and followed by "forget we ever said that", usually coming 50 years after every catholic has given up on the stricture as too stone age to live by.

Catholic dogma is a mess to an extreme extent, mainly because one of the few rules they are not willing to drop is "we are never wrong".

(December 3, 2016 at 6:17 am)Aoi Magi Wrote: ....right, I guess similar quotes like Innocent III saying "Indeed, it is not too much to say that in view of the sublimity of their offices the priests are so many gods." also fake. [1]


so why a teaching from a fallible man cannot also be fallible? [2]

1) I doubt this one is fake. You don't have to be a philologist to catch the figurative sense here. The priest has always occupied a position of authority, and has often (sadly) abused that authority. Are you suggesting that Innocent III actually taught that priests are gods?

2) They often are. Everything the Pope says is not infallible. Only very specific things, said in very specific ways, said under very specific circumstances can be considered infallible. To give you a sense of how often: there are less than 10 instances of infallible statements given by Popes. That is like once every 300 years.

For example, the latest encyclical of Pope Francis, Laudato Si, does not contain any such statements.