Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: July 26, 2025, 8:21 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Atheists, tell me, a Roman Catholic: why should I become an atheist?
RE: Atheists, tell me, a Roman Catholic: why should I become an atheist?
(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.
Reply



Messages In This Thread
RE: Atheists, tell me, a Roman Catholic: why should I become an atheist? - by Ignorant - December 3, 2016 at 5:35 am

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Are Atheists Afraid to Join Atheists? Asmodeus 10 2007 October 26, 2024 at 9:09 am
Last Post: Asmodeus
  British Non-Catholic Historian on Historical Longevity of the Roman Catholic Church. Nishant Xavier 36 3913 August 6, 2023 at 4:48 pm
Last Post: LinuxGal
  Atheists will worship the Antichrist and become theists during the Tribulation Preacher 53 6382 November 13, 2022 at 3:57 am
Last Post: Fake Messiah
  Athiest parent sending child to Catholic school EchoEllis 36 6998 December 2, 2021 at 10:24 am
Last Post: brewer
Lightbulb Here is why you should believe in God. R00tKiT 112 21307 April 11, 2020 at 5:03 pm
Last Post: The Valkyrie
  What made you become an atheist? Atomic Lava 69 10038 December 12, 2019 at 7:16 pm
Last Post: The Valkyrie
  How should an atheist react to discrimination? Der/die AtheistIn 21 4155 March 26, 2019 at 9:14 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  What made you become an atheist? Handprint 170 59896 October 3, 2018 at 5:06 am
Last Post: Cod
  Our Role(s) as Atheists on an Atheist Forum. ignoramus 28 5423 May 12, 2018 at 9:01 am
Last Post: Edwardo Piet
  I enjoy far right atheists more than lgbt marxist atheists Sopra 4 2789 February 28, 2018 at 9:09 pm
Last Post: Edwardo Piet



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)