Atheists, tell me, a Roman Catholic: why should I become an atheist?

[Aoi Magi]

....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.

help me understand how to determine a statement to be infallible

[Pat Mustard]

What about ectopic pregnancies?

No abortion.

Fatal foetal abnormalities?

No abortion.

The mother has a cancer that demands immediate chemo?

No chemo as the church says any treatment which causes a termination is an abortion. The only way round this is if the termination was unforseen (i.e. no medical reason why the foetus would terminate normally).

And this from a church which only brought in the no abortions rule 150 years ago.

[Ignorant]

help me understand how to determine a statement to be infallible

Sure thing. Here's what Vatican II said:

"And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, 

1. as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith, 
   
2. by a definitive act 
   

he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals."
-Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, Ch. III, n. 25 (numbering mine)

So it must be clear in the dogmatic statement that the Pope is 1) speaking from the authority of his office, and 2) is acting definitively (i.e. an irriformabile way)

---

Here is an example:

"By the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own: "We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful"
-Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, 1854

[Pat Mustard]

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.

help me understand how to determine a statement to be infallible

If its a) in the bible, b) uttered by the pope or c) uttered by a church council that the pope says is correct. And don't worry if you find contradictory infallible statements, we can make 2+2 equal anything we want, Winston.

[Catholic_Lady]

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'?

No one can know for sure, but we believe since the baby is an innocent child he is with God. As for the moms who have abortions, I'm sure it depends on a lot and is taken on a case by case basis, just like with everyone/everything else.

[Aoi Magi]

What happens to them in the 'afterlife'?

No one can know for sure, but we believe since the baby is an innocent child he is with God. As for the moms who have abortions, I'm sure it depends on a lot and is taken on a case by case basis, just like with everyone/everything else.

You are SURE? or you HOPE?

But if all those babies are in heaven, god must purchase a lot of pampers

[johan]

[quote pid='1461452' dateline='1480722306']

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.
[/quote]

So you're saying the church believes the bible or at least parts of it, to be wrong.

[Cyberman]

You seem pretty sure for someone who says we can't know for sure.

[AceBoogie]

I love how every thread derails after like 10-15 pages. It's interesting to watch.

[Jesster]

I love how every thread derails after like 10-15 pages. It's interesting to watch.

Yeah, I'm far more interested in the questions Balaco is asking and how he's using his answers. I hope he keeps coming back.