Ask a Catholic

[FatAndFaithless]

What do you think of the Vatican's historical and continued use of the Ellis defense to prevent known victims of sexual assault from seeking reparations from the church?

[Simon Moon]

Why would anyone want to be catholic?

Because it is true. 

How do you now this?

From an outsider point of view, how can I test your claim against other Christian sects, or other religions?

In other words, lets say I am an alien visiting Earth. How should I go about discerning your claims against those of the majority of humans that have other supernatural claims? 

[Randy Carson]

My turn, yet?

So.. catholic, ex-protestant... I'm guessing, US born and raised, huh?

What's it like being a catholic in the US?
No old timey churches like we have here in Portugal:

Hiding all that wonderful architecture:

Yes, I am a convert from Protestantism...American-made all the way.

As for what it's like, I have nothing to compare it to.

Here is the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, DC...only slightly smaller than the Church at Fatima:

---

Vatican II: a good thing or not?  Why?

Vatican II was a good thing in that the Church took a fresh look at how it faced the modern world and viewed its relationships with non-Catholic Christians, Jews and Mulsims. 

The negative was that many people in the Church took the opportunity to implement their own agendas and the pendulum swung far to the liberal left. Happily, this has been correcting itself...especially since the pontificate of John Paul II.

---

Vatican II: a good thing or not?  Why?

That is a good question.

Wasn't the mass read in Latin before Vatican 2?

Yes. And it still is on occasion, but most masses today are in the native languages of the people.

English, Spanish and Vietnamese masses are common in the US now...among others.

---

What do you think of the Vatican's historical and continued use of the Ellis defense to prevent known victims of sexual assault from seeking reparations from the church?

See my previous posts in this thread on this subject.

---

Because it is true. 

How do you now this?

From an outsider point of view, how can I test your claim against other Christian sects, or other religions?

In other words, lets say I am an alien visiting Earth. How should I go about discerning your claims against those of the majority of humans that have other supernatural claims? 

Excellent question. 

The Necessity of Being Catholic (Condensed)

by James Akin
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/l...ecnum=3447
 
1) To be saved it is necessary to be a Christian.
2) To be a Christian it is necessary to be a member of Christ's Church.
3) To be a member of Christ's Church it is necessary to be a member of the Catholic Church.
4) To be a member of the Catholic Church it is necessary to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
5) Therefore, it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
 
In this argument, the necessities are all normative necessities and the kind of membership being discussed is formal membership. The argument has a logically valid form (in fact, it expresses a variation on what is known as the "hypothetical syllogism" argument form), meaning that the truth of its conclusion depends only on the truth of the premises it contains.
 
When a Protestant objects to the above argument, it will be to the third proposition -- that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded. Both sides agree on the other three points. While it is beyond the scope of this article to give a full proof of the third proposition (this is one of the major tasks of Catholic apologetics), we can offer a limited proof.
 
Both Protestants and Catholics agree that Christ founded some Church and that this Church will remain forever (Matt. 16:18). The question is whether this Church is a visible communion that can be identified or whether is it a purely spiritual communion made up of all the saved. If it is a visible communion, the Catholic Church is the only plausible candidate, since only this Church extends back far enough (the Eastern Orthodox communion did not finally break with Rome until the 1450s, a mere sixty years before the Protestant Reformation). We can thus give a limited argument for the third proposition by showing the Church Christ founded is a visible communion.
 
This is proven in Matthew 16:17-19, the passage in which Christ promised the gates of hell would never prevail against his Church (meaning that it would always exist). Several factors in the text show he was talking about a visible communion.
 
First, Jesus made Peter head of this Church (Matt. 16:18), yet Jesus was certainly not making Peter the head of an invisible Church. It is Christ's own prerogative to be head of the invisible communion of Christians stretching from heaven to earth (Eph. 5:23). Therefore, he must have made Peter the head of a visible, earthly church. (We will not argue here that Jesus made Peter the head; even if one disagrees, the remaining arguments prove our case.)
 
Second, Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:19), which are for use in Church government (compare Isa. 22:22 -- the only Old Testament parallel to this verse). But one cannot govern an invisible communion of believers, only a visible one.
 
Third, Jesus gave Peter the power of binding and loosing (Matt. 16:19), which Matthew 18:17-18 indicates is used in Church discipline. But one cannot exercise Church discipline over an invisible body. Indeed, Matt. 18:17-18 refers it to public excommunication, in which an individual is treated by the church as "a gentile or a tax collector" (that is, as an unbeliever).
 
Fourth, Jesus explicitly stated that Peter would exercise the power of binding and loosing on earth. This shows his authority is an earthly one, over an earthly Church.
 
Fifth, Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18), meaning that it would never perish. But it would be ridiculous to promise that an invisible Church would not pass out of existence since some of the Church's members are in heaven and Christ's heavenly Church cannot pass away by its very nature. Only a visible, earthly communion needs a promise that it will never perish.
 
Thus, there are abundant reasons to conclude that the Church Jesus was discussing in Matthew 16:17-19 was a visible communion of believers, and, since only the Catholic Church goes back that far, only it can be the one Christ founded.
 

[Iroscato]

Doesn't really touch on the fact that the Bible is a load of made-up bollocks, does it?

[Simon Moon]

How do you now this?

From an outsider point of view, how can I test your claim against other Christian sects, or other religions?

In other words, lets say I am an alien visiting Earth. How should I go about discerning your claims against those of the majority of humans that have other supernatural claims? 

Excellent question. 

The Necessity of Being Catholic (Condensed)

by James Akin
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/l...ecnum=3447
 
1) To be saved it is necessary to be a Christian.
2) To be a Christian it is necessary to be a member of Christ's Church.
3) To be a member of Christ's Church it is necessary to be a member of the Catholic Church.
4) To be a member of the Catholic Church it is necessary to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
5) Therefore, it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
 
In this argument, the necessities are all normative necessities and the kind of membership being discussed is formal membership. The argument has a logically valid form (in fact, it expresses a variation on what is known as the "hypothetical syllogism" argument form), meaning that the truth of its conclusion depends only on the truth of the premises it contains.
 
When a Protestant objects to the above argument, it will be to the third proposition -- that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded. Both sides agree on the other three points. While it is beyond the scope of this article to give a full proof of the third proposition (this is one of the major tasks of Catholic apologetics), we can offer a limited proof.
 
Both Protestants and Catholics agree that Christ founded some Church and that this Church will remain forever (Matt. 16:18). The question is whether this Church is a visible communion that can be identified or whether is it a purely spiritual communion made up of all the saved. If it is a visible communion, the Catholic Church is the only plausible candidate, since only this Church extends back far enough (the Eastern Orthodox communion did not finally break with Rome until the 1450s, a mere sixty years before the Protestant Reformation). We can thus give a limited argument for the third proposition by showing the Church Christ founded is a visible communion.
 
This is proven in Matthew 16:17-19, the passage in which Christ promised the gates of hell would never prevail against his Church (meaning that it would always exist). Several factors in the text show he was talking about a visible communion.
 
First, Jesus made Peter head of this Church (Matt. 16:18), yet Jesus was certainly not making Peter the head of an invisible Church. It is Christ's own prerogative to be head of the invisible communion of Christians stretching from heaven to earth (Eph. 5:23). Therefore, he must have made Peter the head of a visible, earthly church. (We will not argue here that Jesus made Peter the head; even if one disagrees, the remaining arguments prove our case.)
 
Second, Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:19), which are for use in Church government (compare Isa. 22:22 -- the only Old Testament parallel to this verse). But one cannot govern an invisible communion of believers, only a visible one.
 
Third, Jesus gave Peter the power of binding and loosing (Matt. 16:19), which Matthew 18:17-18 indicates is used in Church discipline. But one cannot exercise Church discipline over an invisible body. Indeed, Matt. 18:17-18 refers it to public excommunication, in which an individual is treated by the church as "a gentile or a tax collector" (that is, as an unbeliever).
 
Fourth, Jesus explicitly stated that Peter would exercise the power of binding and loosing on earth. This shows his authority is an earthly one, over an earthly Church.
 
Fifth, Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18), meaning that it would never perish. But it would be ridiculous to promise that an invisible Church would not pass out of existence since some of the Church's members are in heaven and Christ's heavenly Church cannot pass away by its very nature. Only a visible, earthly communion needs a promise that it will never perish.
 
Thus, there are abundant reasons to conclude that the Church Jesus was discussing in Matthew 16:17-19 was a visible communion of believers, and, since only the Catholic Church goes back that far, only it can be the one Christ founded.
 

Circular reasoning is circular.



There seem to be quite a few hurdles that you have to clear before any of this presuppositional crap is convincing. 


For example:

1. prove there is a god
2. prove it is a personal god that intervenes in human affairs
3. prove that it is the god depicted in the Bible, and not one of the other gods
4. prove that it is the Catholic version

Remember my hypothetical. I am an alien that is completely unfamiliar with any Earth gods. You can't just start out with " To be saved it is necessary to be a Christian."

[pocaracas]

My turn, yet?

So.. catholic, ex-protestant... I'm guessing, US born and raised, huh?

What's it like being a catholic in the US?
No old timey churches like we have here in Portugal:

Hiding all that wonderful architecture:

Yes, I am a convert from Protestantism...American-made all the way.

As for what it's like, I have nothing to compare it to.

Here is the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, DC...only slightly smaller than the Church at Fatima:

Pretty building... let's see if I can summon on of Fatima:

It's pretty much the same size as the Vatican!


It seems you missed all my remaining points... Care to go back and see what you missed?

[Angrboda]

How do you now this?

From an outsider point of view, how can I test your claim against other Christian sects, or other religions?

In other words, lets say I am an alien visiting Earth. How should I go about discerning your claims against those of the majority of humans that have other supernatural claims? 

Excellent question. 

The Necessity of Being Catholic (Condensed)

by James Akin
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/l...ecnum=3447
 
1) To be saved it is necessary to be a Christian.
2) To be a Christian it is necessary to be a member of Christ's Church.
3) To be a member of Christ's Church it is necessary to be a member of the Catholic Church.
4) To be a member of the Catholic Church it is necessary to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
5) Therefore, it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
 
In this argument, the necessities are all normative necessities and the kind of membership being discussed is formal membership. The argument has a logically valid form (in fact, it expresses a variation on what is known as the "hypothetical syllogism" argument form), meaning that the truth of its conclusion depends only on the truth of the premises it contains.

Premise 1 is an example of the existential fallacy, unless you can demonstrate that there is such a thing as "being saved."

[abaris]

Early church "fathers" would dispute your opinion.

And newer ones even carefully embrace evolution. They're not as brazen in their stupidity and ignorance as the evangelicals.

[Simon Moon]

In this argument, the necessities are all normative necessities and the kind of membership being discussed is formal membership. The argument has a logically valid form (in fact, it expresses a variation on what is known as the "hypothetical syllogism" argument form), meaning that the truth of its conclusion depends only on the truth of the premises it contains.
 

So what?

I can come up with an endless list of logically valid syllogisms that do not prove their conclusions, because they are not sound. 


For an syllogism to prove its conclusion it has to be both valid and sound.

[Angrboda]

What would change your mind about Christ, God and the Catholic church? What would it take for you not to believe?