Catholic Hypothetical

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

If the Pope and/or the Catholic Church makes doctrine that the bible says nothing about (you know, like the condom thing and the whole rest of the things the church does. I’m not sure how it works but you get the idea) and you feel that it is wrong in your heart, and deep in your soul, I mean like really deep, do you accept it as a part of God or do you reject it and think the church has got it wrong?

 

[John812]

Some things the catholic church puts forward are good, building on the foundation of Jesus Christ. Other things the catholic church puts forward adds to the foundation that Jesus made.

1 Corinthians 3:11

For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.


God Bless!

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

uh, okay.

 

[Zaac]

If the Pope and/or the Catholic Church makes doctrine that the bible says nothing about (you know, like the condom thing and the whole rest of the things the church does. I’m not sure how it works but you get the idea) and you feel that it is wrong in your heart, and deep in your soul, I mean like really deep, do you accept it as a part of God or do you reject it and think the church has got it wrong?

I've got to run back to a meeting but don't ya'll let this become a Catholic bashing thread.

But let me put forth before I go that the CAtholic Church and every other Church needs to stop putting forth doctrine as though it is the Word of God.

God spoke on what He intended to speak on. And outside of using His Word as doctrine, there needs to be no new doctrine created.

If God's Word, from start to finish cannot attest for it, then it shouldn't be Christian doctrine.

What is the Biblical basis for prohibiting the use of condoms by married adults?

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

I've got to run back to a meeting but don't ya'll let this become a Catholic bashing thread.

But let me put forth before I go that the CAtholic Church and every other Church needs to stop putting forth doctrine as though it is the Word of God.

God spoke on what He intended to speak on. And outside of using His Word as doctrine, there needs to be no new doctrine created.

If God's Word, from start to finish cannot attest for it, then it shouldn't be Christian doctrine.

What is the Biblical basis for prohibiting the use of condoms by married adults?

I'm not turning this into a Catholic bashing thread, nor do I think the Catholic church should or shouldn't stop doing anything. I just really want to know what a Catholic would do in this situation.

 

[Gerry Hunter]

If the Pope and/or the Catholic Church makes doctrine that the bible says nothing about (you know, like the condom thing and the whole rest of the things the church does. I’m not sure how it works but you get the idea) and you feel that it is wrong in your heart, and deep in your soul, I mean like really deep, do you accept it as a part of God or do you reject it and think the church has got it wrong?

That question is deeper than it appears .

It must be understood that the Church has received the Deposit of the Faith from her founder. She may neither add to it, or take away from it, and has the responsibility to guard it and the duty and authority to examine it and teach based on its content. In teaching (which is what the term "Magisterium" denotes, teaching authority), she is protected from teaching error in faith and morals by God the Holy Spirit.

Now I am well aware that many readers dispute the above, but before you all jump down my throat, I'm just giving the Catholic context in which to answer the question.

When the Church teaches on faith and morals, Catholic who do not follow the teaching separate themselves from full communion with the church.

The "of God" phrase is a bit loaded in this discussion environment, but the Catholic context is that the Church, in her teaching, is exercising authority given to her by Christ her founder. What particular phrase one attaches to that flows from that.

The Church is a respecter of conscience, but she recognizes that conscience, to function properly, must be properly formed, and she expects her members to form their consciences by the teachings of the Church.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

That question is deeper than it appears .

It must be understood that the Church has received the Deposit of the Faith from her founder. She may neither add to it, or take away from it, and has the responsibility to guard it and the duty and authority to examine it and teach based on its content. In teaching (which is what the term "Magisterium" denotes, teaching authority), she is protected from teaching error in faith and morals by God the Holy Spirit.

Now I am well aware that many readers dispute the above, but before you all jump down my throat, I'm just giving the Catholic context in which to answer the question.

When the Church teaches on faith and morals, Catholic who do not follow the teaching separate themselves from full communion with the church.

The "of God" phrase is a bit loaded in this discussion environment, but the Catholic context is that the Church, in her teaching, is exercising authority given to her by Christ her founder. What particular phrase one attaches to that flows from that.

The Church is a respecter of conscience, but she recognizes that conscience, to function properly, must be properly formed, and she expects her members to form their consciences by the teachings of the Church.

Blessings,

Gerry

Okay, so are you saying that you would turn off your conscious and beliefs and agree with the Church?

 

[Zaac]

That question is deeper than it appears .

It must be understood that the Church has received the Deposit of the Faith from her founder. She may neither add to it, or take away from it, and has the responsibility to guard it and the duty and authority to examine it and teach based on its content. In teaching (which is what the term "Magisterium" denotes, teaching authority), she is protected from teaching error in faith and morals by God the Holy Spirit.

Now, we know this to be untrue based upon the many doctrine that are unaligned with God's Word.

Now I am well aware that many readers dispute the above, but before you all jump down my throat, I'm just giving the Catholic context in which to answer the question.

Understood. But God didn't rest absolute truth in the catholic church. He rested it in Jesus Christ. And to think that man would never teach in error is to raise man to the level of God, and man is not God.

We do a whole lot of teaching in error. As I said, just look at all the doctrine that does not align itself with God's Word. We might think the stuff is a good idea, but God's Word doesn't need us to stretech it. If people would take what He says and allow Him to apply it to their individual lives, there would be no need for the Catholoc Church to be creating its own doctrine.

When the Church teaches on faith and morals, Catholic who do not follow the teaching separate themselves from full communion with the church.

Does the church teach on God's Word?

 

[Gerry Hunter]

Now Zaac, you know the only answers you are going to get from a Catholic are:

1) It is NOT untrue.

2) The Catholic Church espouses no docrtine at variance with the content of the Deposit of the Faith.

3) Not only does the Church teach God's word, she is the authoritative interpreter of Holy Scripture.

So, now you have the answers you knew you would get, and the only answers a Catholic gives.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Zaac]

Now Zaac, you know the only answers you are going to get from a Catholic are:

1) It is NOT untrue.

2) The Catholic Church espouses no docrtine at variance with the content of the Deposit of the Faith.

3) Not only does the Church teach God's word, she is the authoritative interpreter of Holy Scripture.

So, now you have the answers you knew you would get, and the only answers a Catholic gives.

Blessings,

Gerry

Of course I know that Gerry. But either the Catholic Church has messed up some doctrine or Jesus Christ is a liar. I side with Jesus Christ not being a liar.

 

[]RiSeN[]

Of course I know that Gerry. But either the Catholic Church has messed up some doctrine or Jesus Christ is a liar. I side with Jesus Christ not being a liar.

LOL,

 

[Gerry Hunter]

Of course I know that Gerry. But either the Catholic Church has messed up some doctrine or Jesus Christ is a liar. I side with Jesus Christ not being a liar.

That, of course, is a classic example of the logical fallicy of the false dilemma. There is, you realize, the choice (among others) that things went rather off track among certain people in the 1500's, and many people today are on that track?

I once had a tax planner tell me, when I needed information, that I could either work with what I had, or he could make some cosmetic changes. I suggested there was a third option: give me the information I requested -- and that was the path that led to me approving his tax benefits. So I'm afraid I'm pretty practised at spotting false dilemmas.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[]RiSeN[]

That, of course, is a classic example of the logical fallicy of the false dilemma. There is, you realize, the choice (among others) that things went rather off track among certain people in the 1500's, and many people today are on that track?

I once had a tax planner tell me, when I needed information, that I could either work with what I had, or he could make some cosmetic changes. I suggested there was a third option: give me the information I requested -- and that was the path that led to me approving his tax benefits. So I'm afraid I'm pretty practised at spotting false dilemmas.

Blessings,

Gerry

Do you follow the teachings of the 'Immortal soul', or the 'Trinity' or the afterlife including a 'Hell'? If so you following teachings from as far back as ancient babylonia, not just a fork in the road a few hundred years back.

 

[Gerry Hunter]

Do you follow the teachings of the 'Immortal soul', or the 'Trinity' or the afterlife including a 'Hell'? If so you following teachings from as far back as ancient babylonia, not just a fork in the road a few hundred years back.

Yet ANOTHER logical fallicy. Similarity does not imply common origin.

As C.S. Lewis pointed out, only an athiest is compelled to argue that all religions are completely wrong.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Zaac]

That, of course, is a classic example of the logical fallicy of the false dilemma. There is, you realize, the choice (among others) that things went rather off track among certain people in the 1500's, and many people today are on that track?

There is of course, in the circles in which I run, a bumping to the side of philosophical two-stepping in lieu of God's Word. There ain't no fallacy of any false dilemmas. The thing that went wrong is that the Catholic Church penned its own doctrine and somehow now equates it to God's Word. That's how folks got off track.

Thinking that the church could make any doctrine and it just had to be truth because they are the church is how folks got off track.

We're not dealing with rocket science here. If God says one thing , and the catholics and the baptists, and the methodists, and the presbyterians or the orthodoxs or anybody else says something else, then they are ALL wrong and what God says is STILL right.

I once had a tax planner tell me, when I needed information, that I could either work with what I had, or he could make some cosmetic changes. I suggested there was a third option: give me the information I requested -- and that was the path that led to me approving his tax benefits. So I'm afraid I'm pretty practised at spotting false dilemmas.

What you seem to be practiced at is thinking that declaring something as a false dilemma dismisses the undeniable fact that the Catholic Church has and continues to espouse doctrine that does not align with God's Word.


And frankly, it's not just a dilemma of the catholic church. Lately, everybody seems to be getting in on it. And I continue to wonder why men continue to think that they can mandate something that runs contrary to God's Word?
Blessings,

 

[Zaac]

That, of course, is a classic example of the logical fallicy of the false dilemma. There is, you realize, the choice (among others) that things went rather off track among certain people in the 1500's, and many people today are on that track?

I once had a tax planner tell me, when I needed information, that I could either work with what I had, or he could make some cosmetic changes. I suggested there was a third option: give me the information I requested -- and that was the path that led to me approving his tax benefits. So I'm afraid I'm pretty practised at spotting false dilemmas.

Blessings,

Gerry

Catholic doctrine or any man made doctrine says one thing and God's Word says something else. How do you get logical fallacy of a false dilemma out of that?

25Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, 26and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will. 2 Timothy 2:25-26

 

[Gerry Hunter]

Catholic doctrine or any man made doctrine says one thing and God's Word says something else. How do you get logical fallacy of a false dilemma out of that?

25Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, 26and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will. 2 Timothy 2:25-26

You realize, of course, that in the verse you quoted, the instructions are from St. Paul, the Apostle, to St. Timothy, one of the first Bishops of the Church, on how to conduct himself in his Episcopal office? Interesting choice.

You have yet to establish that a conflict exists between Catholic doctrine and God's Word. So we have yet another logical fallacy - assuming the truth of the conclusion in the argument made to establish it, commonly called "begging the question."

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[]RiSeN[]

Do you follow the teachings of the 'Immortal soul', or the 'Trinity' or the afterlife including a 'Hell'? If so you following teachings from as far back as ancient babylonia, not just a fork in the road a few hundred years back.

Im sorry, i know i got a response, but i still didnt get an answer. Could you answer the above question?

 

[Gerry Hunter]

I do not follow teaching from ancient babylon. I believe the teachings of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. The similarity is as may be, and ancient babylon is not the source of the teachings of the Church.

Maybe someone in babylon came to similar conclusions through some process, but that is neither here nor there, and does not provide any evidence whatsoever that the Church used these conclusions as the basis of anything it teaches.

And yes, the Church teaches the immortality of the soul, an afterlife that includes a hell, and the Blessed Trinity, that being three persons in one God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[]RiSeN[]

I do not follow teaching from ancient babylon. I believe the teachings of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. The similarity is as may be, and ancient babylon is not the source of the teachings of the Church.

How much cross-examination have you conducted on the teachings and history of your church?(pun intended)

Maybe someone in babylon came to similar conclusions through some process, but that is neither here nor there, and does not provide any evidence whatsoever that the Church used these conclusions as the basis of anything it teaches.

I said as far as ancient babylon. I love how your claiming coinsidence on the similarities, and your vagueness is quite mesmerizing, your lack of saying anything meaningfull is almost intoxicating.

And yes, the Church teaches the immortality of the soul, an afterlife that includes a hell, and the Blessed Trinity, that being three persons in one God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Blessings,

Gerry

You really should look into the origin of those teachings.