Infallibility of the Faith
#11
"Melkite" Wrote:I likewise reject that a loving God could literally have produced a world-wide flood
You don't have to believe in a world-wide flood (meaning that the entire Earth was covered with water). I don't believe in it. Bishops of the SSPX don't believe in it. So yeah.
Unless you also reject world-wide flood meaning that all places where humans lived were covered with water - this you cannot deny and be Catholic.
"Melkite" Wrote:death has existed long before the first man, and is a natural part of life, thereby disproving original sin
Doesn't it refer to human death only and not death of animals?
Reply
#12
(06-23-2014, 08:04 AM)Copeland Wrote: 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.

If a person murders another and is convicted in court, what is a just punishment?  Death?  20 years?  Whatever the punishment, it is either just (which means that no mercy has been shown) or, if it is less than what justice would warrant, it is merciful, making the punishment not truly just.  It is a logical impossibility to be both all-just and all-merciful.  Justice is the lack of mercy.  Mercy is the refusal of justice.  You can not be fully merciful and fully unmerciful (just) at the same time.
Reply
#13
(06-23-2014, 08:10 AM)PolishTrad Wrote:
"Melkite" Wrote:I likewise reject that a loving God could literally have produced a world-wide flood
You don't have to believe in a world-wide flood (meaning that the entire Earth was covered with water). I don't believe in it. Bishops of the SSPX don't believe in it. So yeah.
Unless you also reject world-wide flood meaning that all places where humans lived were covered with water - this you cannot deny and be Catholic.
"Melkite" Wrote:death has existed long before the first man, and is a natural part of life, thereby disproving original sin
Doesn't it refer to human death only and not death of animals?

Physically, it would be possible if it was only where humans lived at the time.  However, it would have been completely contrary to God's nature (or, perfectly acceptable, but God is then a monster not worthy of our worship). 

Death is a punishment for sin.  Animals cannot sin.  It would make not logical sense to say that we die because sin entered the world, but animals die naturally because God designed it that way.  There is no evidence to support the idea that either sin has the power to physically change our nature, or that our physical nature has ever been of a different essence than those of animals.
Reply
#14
  You can not be fully merciful and fully unmerciful (just) at the same time.
[/quote]

You are quite right. We cannot be fully merciful and fully just at the same time, but I do not think I am ready to tell MY CREATOR that this an impossible task for him. God is so far beyond our human understanding of principle and reason it is unfathomable. We do not get to understand everything if we did then we ourselves would then be God.
Reply
#15
Melkite - Natural death is a product of time which is a product of the fall of man or mans disobedience to God. It is spiritual death or eternal death which is a direct product of sin.
Reply
#16
I have understood that the Incarnation solves the problem of the apparent dichotomy between mercy and justice.  Justice owed to God is satisfied by man,  but since it is also God doing this on man's behalf, it is also merciful.
Reply
#17
(06-22-2014, 06:39 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: 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):

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.

I hope you are right that I misunderstand infallibility, but I'm not yet convinced.  Papal infallibility is problematic for me in that the popes didn't seem to be too aware of it prior its definition at Vatican 1.  It also is troubling for me that if papal infallibility is a dogma of such importance that our eternal salvation can be stapled to it, why can't the Church come up with an official list of doctrines that were declared with Papal Infallibility so we can know which things rejection will bring about the loss of our souls?  Prior to 1870, there is no concensus on which papal declarations were actually infallible.

If you look at the criteria for infallibility, Pope Urban's condemnation of Galileo seems to fit with that definition. "...We say, pronounce, sentence and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgement of the Holy Office vehemently suspect of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine – which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures – that the Sun is the centre of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the centre of the world;..."

We now say that matters of science are not dealing with faith and morals.  But, apparently, Pope Urban did not agree with that assessment?  He made it clear that Galileo was being condemned of heresy because what he was teaching was contrary to the faith.  Even though the condemnation was directed at Galileo alone, he made it clear that the substance of what Galileo was teaching was heretical, such that by inference anyone else holding those views would be guilty of heresy as well.  So even though it has to do with science, because the Pope charged it with heresy, he was teaching that it was a necessary aspect of the faith to believe that the world does not move and the sun circles it.  I don't see how this does not meet the criteria for infallibility.

Beyond that, even if I am wrong on this instance, infallibility is still problematic to me.  A while ago, I began to consider how nuts the doctrines of Mormonism were and question how intelligent people are able to surrender credence to them.  It's really easy to ponder the crazy of a religion from the outside.  So I started to wonder, what do I believe as a Catholic that, if I were not, I would consider a crazy belief and see as proof that Catholicism was false?  Papal infallibility is one of them.  From the outside, it clearly looks like a political grab at controlling the people.  What better way to keep the sheep in line.  And Catholicism isn't even the only religion that teaches it.  Shia Islam also believes that the supreme ayatollah has infallibility of teaching the faith.  Catholics would look at that and reject it because, obviously, Islam is a false religion.  Well, says who?  The Shia don't think it is.  If they can be so sure of something that is so wrong, how can Catholics know that what they are sure of is not equally wrong?  What proof is there to support Catholic infallibility over Islamic infallibility?  It all boils down to a few verses in Matthew that can only be vaguely interpreted on the stretchiest of stretches to be referring to papal infallibility.  If that is the strongest evidence for papal infallibility, it has to be rejected.

Quote: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.

I'll pm you about the other issues.  For deism, I don't understand it the same as you do.  Although I used to.  When I say deism, I don't mean God created the universe and walked away.  God is the ground of all being.  If his attention looked away from us for a moment, we would cease to exist.  I believe that wholeheartedly.  So I do believe that he is loving and merciful, and I do believe that he is concerned with us, but I don't believe he alters the flow of the universe for us.  He doesn't intervene to stop evil.  He doesn't heal amputations.  He doesn't (as of yet) resurrect from the dead, or even prevent death.  Multiple studies have shown zero efficacy to supplicatory prayer. I think just observing life, for whatever reason, shows that God wants the universe to unfold as it would.  If he is constantly interfering with miracles, then it's not the brilliant creation of his that its supposed to be.  It would mean he created a faulty universe in the beginning that he constantly has to tweak because of the bugs in the program he apparently wasn't omniscient enough to prevent in the beginning.  So death is natural, it's the way things are supposed to be.  Our death is natural, it's not the punishment of a forefather's sin.  God's choice to not interfere is loving, because it guarantees absolute free will, without which love of him is impossible.  This explains pointless suffering, why babies die, and everything that calls into question how a loving God could let that happen when he is powerful enough to stop it.  If he intervened, even once, he would destroy our free will.  So apparently, our free will is of the utmost good, relative to us, in this universe.  This is another reason why I completely reject predestination.  The evidence of life demands absolute free will.  We cannot be judged for our sins without a will that is not absolutely free.  We cannot love God without an absolutely free will.   We cannot repent of our sins without an absolutely free will.
Reply
#18
(06-23-2014, 10:20 AM)Copeland Wrote: You are quite right. We cannot be fully merciful and fully just at the same time, but I do not think I am ready to tell MY CREATOR that this an impossible task for him. God is so far beyond our human understanding of principle and reason it is unfathomable. We do not get to understand everything if we did then we ourselves would then be God.

Really?  You feel perfectly comfortable telling your creator that he can't make a 4-sided triangle, right?  That he can't make a rock so heavy he can't lift it?  We're talking about logical impossibilities here.  Catholic teaching is that God cannot do what is logically impossible, you should have no problem with this.
Reply
#19
(06-23-2014, 10:41 AM)SaintSebastian Wrote: I have understood that the Incarnation solves the problem of the apparent dichotomy between mercy and justice.  Justice owed to God is satisfied by man,  but since it is also God doing this on man's behalf, it is also merciful.

God desires mercy, not sacrifice.  It doesn't make much sense to say God would rather have us repent of our sins than to offer a burnt calf, and then also require his son to sacrifice himself as the only expiation for our sins.  Either he doesn't want sacrifice, or he does.  If he does, then we better get burning the calves again, because Christ wasn't enough.  If he doesn't, then Christ's death was unnecessary as a sacrifice.
Reply
#20
I am not comfortable telling my God that he can or cannot do anything considering he is the very reason I am able to take my next breath. 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)