Infallibility of the Faith
#1
In this post http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...sg33973174 Melkite says he no longer accepts that the Faith is infallible.  Rather than totally derailing that thread I thought I'd ask for some clarification/discussion in a separate thread.  So, Melkite, anyone......? 
Reply
#2
What I mean is, there are tenets of the Catholic faith that I can no longer accept in good conscience.  I reject papal infalliblity.  The pope declared geocentrism to be the infallible teaching of the Church and, at the very least, I am convinced that this has been verifiably disproven, even if many trads reject that level of strength.  This would prove papal infallibility to be incorrect.  I think the doctrine of predestination, even understood from a Catholic perspective, is abhorrent and calls the justice and mercy of God into question.  I likewise reject that a loving God could literally have produced a world-wide flood, required circumcision, asked Abraham to sacrifice his son, require the genocide of the Canaanites, etc., regardless of how trads may try to use sophistry to defend the blatant contradiction between these stories and a God that can love, much less be love.  While I am willing to admit the theory of evolution is not rock-solid, I recognize that there is enough evidence to at least suggest that death has existed long before the first man, and is a natural part of life, thereby disproving original sin.  Given the historical accuracy of biblical archaeology, I now recognize the hebrew bible to be nothing more than a politically-based, man-made collection of continuously revised propaganda of an imperialistic, barbaric, war-god worshipping pagan society who found that monotheism better advanced their imperialistic agenda.  I absolutely believe there is a loving, merciful, caring God and I find deism to be the only logical explanation right now of what I know.  While I believe that Catholicism has done a tremendous job of trying to eliminate the bellicose parts of Semitic culture in a European religious environment, and the intent of love of God and belief in the love of God is commendable, Catholicism can't get past the contradiction without rejecting Catholicism itself.
Reply
#3
So, basically you're not a Christian anymore.
Reply
#4
(06-22-2014, 10:51 AM)Renatus Frater Wrote: So, basically you're not a Christian anymore.

I have a hard time saying it, but yeah, probably not.  Is there a way I can still be a Christian and believe that Christ's death was not to pay for the debt of a sin I didn't commit?  If I return to certainty that Christ is divine, I suppose I'd have to become Orthodox, since they don't believe in original sin and reject substitutionary atonement.  But they probably don't reject it to the extent necessary to reconcile it to what I believe now.
Reply
#5
(06-22-2014, 11:01 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(06-22-2014, 10:51 AM)Renatus Frater Wrote: So, basically you're not a Christian anymore.

I have a hard time saying it, but yeah, probably not.  Is there a way I can still be a Christian and believe that Christ's death was not to pay for the debt of a sin I didn't commit?  If I return to certainty that Christ is divine, I suppose I'd have to become Orthodox, since they don't believe in original sin and reject substitutionary atonement.  But they probably don't reject it to the extent necessary to reconcile it to what I believe now.

I'm sorry about that.
I actually used to believe those things regarding the Old Testament (and also some non-orthodox stuff about the NT). My first serious contact with Christianity was by watching those courses on the Old and New Testament offered by Yale at their site – so, I've come a long way.
Reply
#6
(06-22-2014, 10:41 AM)Melkite Wrote: What I mean is, there are tenets of the Catholic faith that I can no longer accept in good conscience.  I reject papal infalliblity.

Since papal infallibility is a de fide dogma of the Church, you should know that in rejecting it knowingly you profess formal heresy.

That's quite serious, and yet you give the following example (which gives me some glimmer of hope):

(06-22-2014, 10:41 AM)Melkite Wrote: The pope declared geocentrism to be the infallible teaching of the Church and, at the very least, I am convinced that this has been verifiably disproven, even if many trads reject that level of strength.  This would prove papal infallibility to be incorrect.

And why a glimmer of hope, because you're completely wrong here. If you're rejecting Papal Infallibility on such grounds, then perhaps you'll reconsider knowing your grounds are false.

And why are your grounds false: first, no Pope ever declared infallibly that geocentrism is the infallible teaching of the Church. Papal authority has never been used to assert geocentrism as dogmatic. Studying the Galileo affair, the best that could be said is that the Holy Office (not invoking infallible Papal approval or authority) condemned Galileo for asserting the Copernican model as true without proof, and thus asserting that the literal sense of scripture was wrong again, without proof.

The first place Papal authority and geocentrism are linked is in 1820, when the Holy Office replying to Giuseppi Settele's request for permission to publish a pro-Copernican work, replied that the Pope himself saw no difficulty with Catholic authors discussing and promoting the Copernican model (Cf. "The Magisterium Rules", geocentrismdebunked.org)

So firstly, the facts don't fit your view. The Pope never infallibly decreed geocentrism as dogma, so your rejection of Papal Infallibility is not supported by this.

Further by the very definition of Papal Infallibility in Pastor Aeternus, we know that Infallibility is extremely limited. Cosmological models, simply, don't fall under the protection of infallibility, only things which are really or virtually revealed, that is only things which concern faith and morals and are directly revealed by God, or are indirectly revealed -- i.e. the product of reasoning from propositions which were directly revealed by God.

I hope you will reconsider your statement, seeing as your notion of Infallibility is not the Catholic one, and your reason for rejecting it is, flatly, wrong.

(06-22-2014, 10:41 AM)Melkite Wrote: I think the doctrine of predestination, even understood from a Catholic perspective, is abhorrent and calls the justice and mercy of God into question.  I likewise reject that a loving God could literally have produced a world-wide flood, required circumcision, asked Abraham to sacrifice his son, require the genocide of the Canaanites, etc., regardless of how trads may try to use sophistry to defend the blatant contradiction between these stories and a God that can love, much less be love.  While I am willing to admit the theory of evolution is not rock-solid, I recognize that there is enough evidence to at least suggest that death has existed long before the first man, and is a natural part of life, thereby disproving original sin.  Given the historical accuracy of biblical archaeology, I now recognize the hebrew bible to be nothing more than a politically-based, man-made collection of continuously revised propaganda of an imperialistic, barbaric, war-god worshipping pagan society who found that monotheism better advanced their imperialistic agenda.  I absolutely believe there is a loving, merciful, caring God and I find deism to be the only logical explanation right now of what I know.  While I believe that Catholicism has done a tremendous job of trying to eliminate the bellicose parts of Semitic culture in a European religious environment, and the intent of love of God and belief in the love of God is commendable, Catholicism can't get past the contradiction without rejecting Catholicism itself.

Deism, quite simply, isn't any solution.

Are you really trying to say that a "loving, merciful, caring God" created everything, and now left it all to rot on its own. Is this "loving, merciful God" so apathetic as to be unconcern with us? Do you also reject that by the nature of such a creative God, He would have to constantly maintain our existence, and thus must in fact be intimately concerned with us?

If you want to deal with the other problems, you're going to have to be quite specific, because there's really no point in arguing back and forth on generalizations of scripture.

Should you want to discuss this in a more private fashion, I will have some time during the next week and could take up a more private conversation on these if you wanted.
Reply
#7
I always pictured God as not being subject to the rules He gives us.

He can tell us in scripture or in tradition that genocide is wrong, but He as the law giver is not subject to it... or subject in terms of how we would understand...
Reply
#8
(06-22-2014, 08:50 PM)medievalman86 Wrote: I always pictured God as not being subject to the rules He gives us.

He can tell us in scripture or in tradition that genocide is wrong, but He as the law giver is not subject to it... or subject in terms of how we would understand...

This is the stumbling block to the secular atheists, especially those who claim that God is immoral because he doesn't "practice what he preaches".
Reply
#9
(06-22-2014, 08:50 PM)medievalman86 Wrote: I always pictured God as not being subject to the rules He gives us.

He can tell us in scripture or in tradition that genocide is wrong, but He as the law giver is not subject to it... or subject in terms of how we would understand...

I don't think it's ever been a question of whether God is subject to his own rules or not.  How can a loving and merciful God ask for genocide, anymore than he can ask for a four-sided triangle?  He can ask for genocide, but not if he is merciful.  The two are a logical contradiction.
Reply
#10


I don't think it's ever been a question of whether God is subject to his own rules or not.  How can a loving and merciful God ask for genocide, anymore than he can ask for a four-sided triangle?  He can ask for genocide, but not if he is merciful.  The two are a logical contradiction.
[/quote]

I think something we are forgetting to remember here is that God is not only All Loving, All knowing, and all merciful, but he is also all Just. Perfect Love, Perfect mercy, perfect knowledge, perfect justice.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)