Most reliable method of preserving doctrine?

[Montalban]

That's right.

The RCC has a "grand unity" of ONE: itself alone with itself alone, agreement only, solely, uniquely, with the ONE it itself sees in the mirror: itself. And even that is ONLY formally, officially, institutionally, on dogmas - and only on those that it itself currently regards as good to agree upon it. It agrees with NO other.

The WORSE that can be said of any other denomination that might be mentioned is that it's like the RCC in this regard.

And? How would that of itself be an error?

Do you think that during the early church people rebuked the Apostles for having a go at Simon Magus?

They should have been saying, I suppose, "Simon Magus is also Christian, just because he's not in unity with our one church doesn't mean his form of Chrisitanity is any less valid"

 

[Montalban]

Most reliable method of preserving any teaching, is to tell your friends, and then have
them tell theirs and on and on as such.
Everyone knows that, that's why we dont bother with silly things like records.

Heard of Chinese Whispers?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

That's right.

The RCC has a "grand unity" of ONE: itself alone with itself alone, agreement only, solely, uniquely, with the ONE it itself sees in the mirror: itself. And even that is ONLY formally, officially, institutionally, on dogmas - and only on those that it itself currently regards as good to agree upon it. It agrees with NO other.

The WORSE that can be said of any other denomination that might be mentioned is that it's like the RCC in this regard.

And? How would that of itself be an error?

Nope.

Does that of itself mean the RCC is correct? Or ANY other denomination, which like the RCC, only agrees with itself (in that very limited way)?




.

 

[sunlover1]

Heard of Chinese Whispers?

We called it telephone when I was a kid.
Guess we've all played the game under one name or another.

 

[Montalban]

Nope.

Does that of itself mean the RCC is correct? Or ANY other denomination, which like the RCC, only agrees with itself (in that very limited way)?

It doesn't. I was responding to your rejection of the RCC based on their claiming that they're solely the correct church.

You've now conceeded that your retort doesn't actually show their position to be incorrect

 

[Montalban]

We called it telephone when I was a kid.
Guess we've all played the game under one name or another.

It shows your 'method' to be faulty. Chinese whispers would not guarantee a continution of truth

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

It doesn't. I was responding to your rejection of the RCC based on their claiming that they're solely the correct church.

Obviously, that's not what I said. I reject the idea that the RCC is correct because it agrees with none but itself, this idea that because the RCC is in unity with just self - ergo it is correct (perhaps the single most popular Catholic - and it seems Orthodox - apologetic out there), and the corresponding condemnation that another denomination is wrong because it's just like the RCC (or EO) in this regard.

As I said, a denomination is not right OR WRONG simply because it agrees with none but itself - it's a silly apologetic AND rebuke (just amazingly popular among Catholics).



It is MY position that it is a BETTER means of preseving positions to write them down in objective, knowable, unalterable words- than in self pointing to the opinions of self as viewed by self (denominational "Tradition"). But we disagree on that.




.

 

[Montalban]

Obviously, that's not what I said. I reject the idea that the RCC is correct because it agrees with none but itself,
.

That is precisely the point

Let's go over this again.

You originally said you reject the RCC because they made this claim.

I said that the claim doesn't mean that they were wrong.

You said it doesn't mean that they're right either.

I agree. One can't reject them or accept them based on this claim, thus refuting your original rejection of their claim.

Now you repeat that very claim!

The metod you use is faulty.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

That is precisely the point

Let's go over this again.

You originally said you reject the RCC because they made this claim.

I said that the claim doesn't mean that they were wrong.

You said it doesn't mean that they're right either.

I agree. One can't reject them or accept them based on this claim, thus refuting your original rejection of their claim.

Now you repeat that very claim!

The metod you use is faulty.

He's using the truth by "arbitration" method.
A mob of Reformers is more correct than a smaller mob of Jesuits, because you can say the Jesuits are one, unified, so this becomes "SELF," all caps for emphasis on how SELFish they are, so now it is one, not two or three, and therefore there is no witness.

In CJ's upside-down world, the classroom outvotes the teacher.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

That is precisely the point

Let's go over this again.

You originally said you reject the RCC because they made this claim.

Let's go over this again...

I never posted anywhere that I reject the RCC....

I said that the claim doesn't mean that they were wrong.

Correct, which is obviously moot. Self agreeing with self alone means that self agrees with self alone. It doesn't make self RIGHT or WRONG - which was (and is) my entire point - obviously. Thus, my objection to the (very popular) apologetic: "The RCC is right because it agrees with none but itself - and any other denomination is wrong because it agrees with none but itself." THAT'S what I responded to - that (very common) apologetic.

The metod you use is faulty.

Can be, but I still think that WRITING IT DOWN in objective, knowable, unalterable words is better than each self simply pointing to the current view of what self alone thinks (denominational "Tradition").

When I leased my apartment here, I was given a WRITTEN document - and told to read it (which I did) - the document was WRITTEN - in black and white, objective, knowable, unalterable words which (if mutually signed) is binding equally on both sides. I did sign it, so did a representative of the owner (actually, a corporation). It even included a clause that states, "This agreement supersedes any oral agreements or understandings by any parties." While obviously not exempt from the possibility of fault, I think this is BETTER (the issue of this thread - not absolute perfection) than everyone from all the renters to the gardeners to the gal in the office to the pool boy all just going by what each self currently thinks/feels as it conforms to what each think/feels. It's BETTER - I never said it is incapable of fault.






.

 

[cygnusx1]

Most reliable method of preserving doctrine?



... this method works .

threaten men with hell and damnation if they hold any opinion without the consent of a hierarchy , persecute the life out of dissenters , sow doubt and fear .......... instill rewards for compliance ... distance oneself from those "heretical" (any who differ) , always insist the only truth is in the followed group , and cling to the idea God has been extra kind and vigilent to "our group" by presrving only us from error ...... seeing as "we" have such a long tradition others must be distrusted , rejected and pitied ...


it is a sure way to preserve ''doctrine'' .


(sound doctrine is another matter)

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Most reliable method of preserving doctrine?



... this method works .

threaten men with hell and damnation if they hold any opinion without the consent of a hierarchy , persecute the life out of dissenters , sow doubt and fear .......... instill rewards for compliance ... distance oneself from those "heretical" (any who differ) , always insist the only truth is in the followed group , and cling to the idea God has been extra kind and vigilent to "our group" by presrving only us from error ...... seeing as "we" have such a long tradition others must be distrusted , rejected and pitied ...


it is a sure way to preserve ''doctrine'' .


(sound doctrine is another matter)

MY study of various "cults" taught ME that quiet, docilic SUBMISSION to a given teacher that so insists on that rather than accountability is a particularly flawed (and dangerous) way to do this. Read The Catholic Catechism #87. Read "On the Authority of the Church" by LDS Apostle and Prophet Bruce McConkie, for examples.





.

 

[Montalban]

Let's go over this again...

I never posted anywhere that I reject the RCC....

You reject their position based on a rule you both want to defend and reject

 

[Montalban]

He's using the truth by "arbitration" method.
A mob of Reformers is more correct than a smaller mob of Jesuits, because you can say the Jesuits are one, unified, so this becomes "SELF," all caps for emphasis on how SELFish they are, so now it is one, not two or three, and therefore there is no witness.

In CJ's upside-down world, the classroom outvotes the teacher.

It's a strange thing. The only 'point' I see is where I was addressed for saying "You reject the RCC" as opposed to "You reject their position".

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Let's go over this again...

I never posted anywhere that I reject the RCC....





Correct, which is obviously moot. Self agreeing with self alone means that self agrees with self alone. It doesn't make self RIGHT or WRONG - which was (and is) my entire point - obviously. Thus, my objection to the (very popular) apologetic: "The RCC is right because it agrees with none but itself - and any other denomination is wrong because it agrees with none but itself." THAT'S what I responded to - that (very common) apologetic.




.

You reject their position based on a rule you both want to defend and reject

You keep changing things; first you said I reject the RCC, now you say I reject some (unstated) "position" of Catholics. It's impossible to keep up with all the switches you make....



I disagree with a FEW things the RCC dogmatically teaches (JUST AS YOU DO). If this thread was about that, we could discuss it without violating rules.



MY point was to dismiss a very popular apologetic of Catholics (and it seems of Orthodox); I was responding specifically, solely, only, uniquely to THAT. The apologetic that the RCC denomination is infallibly correct because it has a "unity" with one: Self, self alone with self alone, and that any given other denomination must be categorically wrong if it is just like the RCC: in full agreement only with self, having a unity of one: self alone with self alone. THAT is what I reject - that apologetic; as I clearly stated. IF you agree with me that this very popular apologetic is meaningless - then I'm guessing you'd just agree with me instead of debating the point with me.




I think that WRITING IT DOWN in objective, knowable, unalterable words is better than each self simply pointing to the current view of what self alone thinks (denominational "Tradition").

When I leased my apartment here, I was given a WRITTEN document - and told to read it (which I did) - the document was WRITTEN - in black and white, objective, knowable, unalterable words which (if mutually signed) is binding equally on both sides. I did sign it, so did a representative of the owner (actually, a corporation). It even included a clause that states, "This agreement supersedes any oral agreements or understandings by any parties." While obviously not exempt from the possibility of fault, I think this is BETTER (the issue of this thread - not absolute perfection) than everyone from all the renters to the gardeners to the gal in the office to the pool boy all just going by what each self currently thinks/feels as it conforms to what each think/feels. It's BETTER - I never said it is incapable of fault.

Obviously, we disagree.








.

 

[Montalban]

You keep changing things; first you said I reject the RCC, now you say I reject some (unstated) "position" of Catholics. It's impossible to keep up with all the switches you make.....

Your rejection of their position, as you have noted does not prove anything.

You're of course more than welcome to keep rejecting it and believing also that it does prove something at the same time it doesn't

 

[Montalban]

So -- when the Assyrians did not prevail against the gates of Jerusalem -- then Jerusalem was infallible? Or was Jerusalem relying on her God?

Are the Assyrians in your analogy alike hell?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

You keep changing things; first you said I reject the RCC, now you say I reject some (unstated) "position" of Catholics. It's impossible to keep up with all the switches you make....



I disagree with a FEW things the RCC dogmatically teaches (JUST AS YOU DO). If this thread was about that, we could discuss it without violating rules.



MY point was to dismiss a very popular apologetic of Catholics (and it seems of Orthodox); I was responding specifically, solely, only, uniquely to THAT. The apologetic that the RCC denomination is infallibly correct because it has a "unity" with one: Self, self alone with self alone, and that any given other denomination must be categorically wrong if it is just like the RCC: in full agreement only with self, having a unity of one: self alone with self alone. THAT is what I reject - that apologetic; as I clearly stated. IF you agree with me that this very popular apologetic is meaningless - then I'm guessing you'd just agree with me instead of debating the point with me.




I think that WRITING IT DOWN in objective, knowable, unalterable words is better than each self simply pointing to the current view of what self alone thinks (denominational "Tradition").

When I leased my apartment here, I was given a WRITTEN document - and told to read it (which I did) - the document was WRITTEN - in black and white, objective, knowable, unalterable words which (if mutually signed) is binding equally on both sides. I did sign it, so did a representative of the owner (actually, a corporation). It even included a clause that states, "This agreement supersedes any oral agreements or understandings by any parties." While obviously not exempt from the possibility of fault, I think this is BETTER (the issue of this thread - not absolute perfection) than everyone from all the renters to the gardeners to the gal in the office to the pool boy all just going by what each self currently thinks/feels as it conforms to what each think/feels. It's BETTER - I never said it is incapable of fault.

Obviously, we disagree.


.

Your rejection of their position, as you have noted does not prove anything.

You're of course more than welcome to keep rejecting it and believing also that it does prove something at the same time it doesn't

1. Your response has nothing whatsoever to do with anything I posted to you; impossible to have a discussion this way....

2. WHAT position? What is this mysterious "position" you are now speaking of? Yes - I do disagree with a FEW dogmas in the RCC - JUST AS YOU DO. None of which is an issue (or permitted issue) in this thread.

3. IF you disagreed with the apologetic as I do, you would have simply indicated that you agree; instead, you have gone on and on with points I in no sense can make heads or tails of - it seems to have NOTHING to do with ANYTHING I posted (and keeps changing).

READ what I posted. Read the words. If you want to respond to what is posted - please do. IF not, please don't. Fair enough?






.

 

[heymikey80]

1. Your response has nothing whatsoever to do with anything I posted to you; impossible to have a discussion this way....

Seconded.

 

[Montalban]

This is getting odd. I'm now being asked 'what position' on something someone's said that they reject.

It's like watching someone in a leaking boat drill a hole into the hull to let the water run out, they just sink faster.