Hi guys

So..Yeah, I'm new here, and I was hoping one of you might know something that could help me out. I've been looking around but eh...90% of Theology/Church history sites are biased between one group of biblethumpers or another trying to paint the other as silly/moronic/satanic/whatever. I'm looking for an outside opinion.

Much as it might amuse some of you I'm actually an RE student and I've been pulled into a debate with a Catholic. Now, I've got a pretty good handle on what Catholics think about the world but I'm no expert on Catholic Church history. One of the things this guy is insisting upon is that the Catholic Church has at no point ever changed one of its teachings, doctrines or Dogmas, same today as it was a thousand years ago.

I've mentioned a few things across history that I know of like the sin of Ursury being abolished/"reinterpreted" (lending money with interest), the heretic popes Virgilius and Honorius, the idea that all non-Catholics are going to hell (rethought during vatican II) and the idea of Limbo vanishing but he's having none of it; these aren't infallible teachings and don't count.

I honestly thought some of Virgilius's statements could be counted as infalliable but either way...Do any of you guys know anything I could reference or refer to? Any tips are appreciated.

Vox

The fact is that as you bring up obvious changes in doctrine, the Catholic apologist will start narrowing the definition of doctrine until there is nothing left but believing in the divinity of Christ and that you can literally eat him after a man in a funny hat says some magic words over a plate of wafers.

It's best just to cut to the chase. Get their admission to the idea of Jesus as eternal smorgasbord, then point and laugh at the silly cunt.

Hmmm. Is 1870s Papal Infallibility thing retroactive to past popes? If so, usurey and limbo and stuff were definitely infallible doctrines that have been revised/discarded.

(June 11, 2014 at 1:35 pm)Cato Wrote: The fact is that as you bring up obvious changes in doctrine, the Catholic apologist will start narrowing the definition of doctrine until there is nothing left but believing in the divinity of Christ and that you can literally eat him after a man in a funny hat says some magic words over a plate of wafers.

It's best just to cut to the chase. Get their admission to the idea of Jesus as eternal smorgasbord, then point and laugh at the silly cunt.

Hehehe...Ah, I would have tried that myself only the automatic response is that I must be a hater and must have have daddy issues with Jesus.

So yeah, I was hoping to avoid the cracker jokes and try logic (I mean this is supposed to be a university) but...no luck.

(June 11, 2014 at 1:38 pm)ThePinsir Wrote: Hmmm. Is 1870s Papal Infallibility thing retroactive to past popes? If so, usurey and limbo and stuff were definitely infallible doctrines that have been revised/discarded.

Yes and no, proclamations like Boniface's "There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church" is, others like "Slavery is absolutely fine and natural" (Pius IX) are not. They're apparently only infallible if the Pope declares that he is defining a matter of faith and morals, if he's talking about faith or morality it's impossible for him to be wrong. I'm pretty sure all the Papal Bulls and Encyclicals are considered infallible.

(June 11, 2014 at 1:45 pm)Vox Wrote: So yeah, I was hoping to avoid the cracker jokes and try logic (I mean this is supposed to be a university) but...no luck.

That's the point. What makes you think logic is persuasive with somebody that believes in transubstantiation?

(June 11, 2014 at 1:49 pm)Vox Wrote: ...Fair point!

Funny part is that when I've actually sat collecting info on Catholicism for research for coursework (just in a pew at the back asking questions as they enter and leave) something like 60% of them either didn't know what transubstantiation was and I had to tell them or "they didn't know if they believed it".

I kid you not.

I believe you. I grew up in a Catholic household and had to complete CCD, despite my unbelief. I have run into several hard core Catholics that are oblivious to that tenet of the faith and are incredulous when told. Most ignore it as part of their practice of the faith though, kind of like me and Jesus channels in my TV subscription.

So why did the dickheads pardon Galileo in 1992?

There is little in life more full of shit than a catholic.