the rcc isn't infallible

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

the conciliar documents are contradictory;trent and vatican 2...how can an infaillable church with infaillable teachings teach first one thing and later the somewhat the opposite of it...?

you just simply trust in this institution and take everything that they tell you as a truth,they gave theirselves the authority to teach and say whatever they want and you believe everything that they teach and that they will teach is infaillable because god protects the institution,while history has shown enough i think,if god really protects this institution like you claim he does,then he wouldn't allow it go corrupt in the middle ages...and please don't come and tell me that it were only 'a couple of evil men' and deny historical facts

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.Com), March 09, 2005

Answers

Response to the rcc isn't infaillable

moderators,

this thread does not contain one reference to any historical event or church document with which to substantiate the posts ridiculous claims. further it represents a violation of forum rules as it is an insubstantial slander against the church. i ask, therefore, that it be deleted and SDQA asked to either provide logical topics of discussion which can be backed by scholarly evidence or otherwise perform in keeping with the rules of this forum.

God Bless,

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), March 09, 2005.


Response to the rcc isn't infaillable

sdqa does not really look at the Church within the complex framework of the historical situations it survived i.e. the fall of Rome, the Dark Ages, the division of the Holy Roman Empire, political alliances, plagues, wars, etc.

He sees only an abridged version that goes something like this.

Jesus didn't start the Catholic Church, it sort of nominated itself and over time it became so corrupt that in the Middle-Ages it decided to have inquisitions in order to kill as many non-Catholics as possible. Then it absolved itself of any resposibility because it's evil and corrupt. Thats the history of the Church as it comes to us to this day.

No offence sdqa, but your understanding of history is a little too simplistic. Granted, it was me who summed it up, (perhaps unfairly) but thats how it "sounds."

Read some of the answers to your questions in other threads. A lot of what your post suggests has been addressed. If you wade through some of the answers given you might find, (if you're open) that some are reasonable,---perhaps even useful, unless you are looking only for "dirt" on the Church.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), March 09, 2005.


Response to the rcc isn't infaillable

Paul,

Why do you deny these historical facts. How could such a church condone the atricious acts behind the tyrany of leaders and conquerors. Take the example of Spain and their conquest over what is now Mexico. After Hernan Cortes killed, robbed, raped, took away a civilization's beliefs & culture, he had the nerve of influencing the catholic religion upon the Aztecs by force. How could the Catholic Church follow his tyrany. Cortez ordered various Aztec temples and in such cases would destroy the Aztec pyramids yet keep the base to build their so called churches on top. How could the Catholic church allow this, yet follow it. If it did, then it promoted evil. It calls itself the original Church derived from God and the apostles? How could the papacies allow this....It was clear and evident that influential power and greed was behind the corrupt and evil conquests of their countries.

I only ask, how could the Catholic Church let this happen?

T

-- T (uknowitstrue@donotdenyit.com), March 09, 2005.


Response to the rcc isn't infaillable

if you'll recall, T, cortez was an officer in the employ of spain (not the church) so it would be better to ask how could SPAIN let that happen.

your question is like asking "how could ever american alive in the 1940's let the holocaust happen?" its a ridiculous question, really. further, the catholic influence on the natives of the region was not nearly so forced as people portray. in fact, the spanish missionaries were MUCH less violent than their american protestant counterparts.

at any rate, the question of governance vs church responsibility has always been a moot point, the vatican does not employ military officers in the field but rather relies on the good will of the worlds nations. if you insist on blaming all of history on the catholic church, so be it. but this is not the place for that as it is against forum rules. if you are honest, however, you will quickly see that your reasoning simply doesnt make sense.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), March 09, 2005.


Response to the rcc isn't infaillable

T, would you prefer that Cortes et alia let the Aztecs continue their religion requiring massive HUMAN SACRIFICE in their temples? And why are they “so-called” churches? Which church buildings are “real” churches in your opinion?

sdqa, all men are corrupt to some extent. Every institution in the world starts off in, or eventually falls into the hands of very corrupt men. And then soon the institution dies and is no more, after a few centuries at most. But the Catholic Church, despite being governed by many (not "a couple") of evil men over the centuuries, has not died, but has continued going from strength to strength for 2000 years, and shows no sign it is about to disappear. Far, far longer than any man-made institution. Can't you see there is something going on here? Any institution which has survived all those corrupt leaders surely must have some supernatural protection.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), March 09, 2005.



Response to the rcc isn't infaillable

During that time. The Church had lost the power it once had and was only getting a tip of the hat. It was being used only for political reasons when it suited governmental purpose.

Governmental powers throughout Europe had slowly detached themselves from the Church beginning in the time of Charlemeign.

Cortez was "following orders" from Spain, not the Church. If he disobeyed it would have been Spain, not the Church that would have executed him. The Church could not have stopped the mess in South America. Many Catholic priests were appalled and spread the news about what was happening there, and lost their lives for doing just that.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), March 09, 2005.


Response to the rcc isn't infaillable

>"the conciliar documents are contradictory;trent and vatican 2...how can an infaillable church with infaillable teachings teach first one thing and later the somewhat the opposite of it...?"

A: Good point! One which schismatics fail to grasp. The obvious answer is - it can't! Because the dogmatic statements of the Church are infallible, dogmatic statements promulgated by Trent could not possibly contradict dogmatic statements promulgated by Vatican II, that is if Vatican II had actually promulgated any dogmatic statements, which it didn't. However, personal interpretations of Church teachings can obviously contradict other personal interpretations; and worse, personal interpretations of Church teachings can contradict the actual meaning of such teachings, as defined and interpreted by the one authorized and valid interpreter - the Church. Note that this one authorized interpreter does not identify any conflict between the teaching of Trent and the fuller teaching of today. The only ones who claim any such conflict are those who remove themselves from the authority of the Church as interpreter of its own doctrine. Just as Protestants find innumerable contradictions in the Word of God itself. Apart from the authority of the Church to which Christ promised the fullness of truth, the truth cannot be found.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 09, 2005.


Response to the rcc isn't infaillable

"A: Good point! One which schismatics fail to grasp. The obvious answer is - it can't! Because the dogmatic statements of the Church are infallible, dogmatic statements promulgated by Trent could not possibly contradict dogmatic statements promulgated by Vatican II, that is if Vatican II had actually promulgated any dogmatic statements, which it didn't. However, personal interpretations of Church teachings can obviously contradict other personal interpretations; and worse, personal interpretations of Church teachings can contradict the actual meaning of such teachings, as defined and interpreted by the one authorized and valid interpreter - the Church. Note that this one authorized interpreter does not identify any conflict between the teaching of Trent and the fuller teaching of today. The only ones who claim any such conflict are those who remove themselves from the authority of the Church as interpreter of its own doctrine. Just as Protestants find innumerable contradictions in the Word of God itself. Apart from the authority of the Church to which Christ promised the fullness of truth, the truth cannot be found. "

[the doctrines of trent say that any unbaptised person goes to hell,vatican 2 speaks of invincible ignorance...]-sdqa

[how can an infaillable instution,protected by god go SO corrupt and so evil? if god really protects it,he wouldn't allow it go so corrupt and so evil and it were not a couple of of evil men,the ENTIRE church stood behind the contra-reformation]-sdqa

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.Com), March 10, 2005.


May I ask our good Catholics why you give a platform to this person; in full knowledge that he will obstruct every word you say? If sdqa were ever going to be receptive, he would long since have shown some sign.

This is a thread that should have been deleted immediately. I saw it start up, and abstained from answering the little demon. But you fellows take the bait and let him string you along. Hard to believe!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 10, 2005.


If you throw a hundred pounds of mud, a few ounces may stick. Same with truth.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 10, 2005.


Paul,

If your mud is watered down, then surely it will never stick. Just like the lies and untruth.

In regards, to the previous comment of Cortez. Yes, Spain had sent him, not the Church, but Cortez had the belief of the Catholic Church in him. Is this what the Church promoted back then. When Spain found out what he was doing, they sent for him and arrested him. Soon however, he paid his way out and returned to finish what he had started. When he took over the civilization, in the name of the Church he instructed to build Churches and so on. I'm sure the Catholic Church was aware of what he had done, yet despite that, the Catholic Church went on and placed their presence. A proven point, how could the Church establish itself following the actions of a ruthless conqueror. And yet under authorative ruling, the Indians had no choice but to convert to the religion. They were forced in this way. The Church is as responsible as Hernan Cortez...Where is God's teachings here. In regards to the Halocaust, it's my understanding that the Catholic People ignored what the Nazis were doing to the Jews and did not help them. This is confirmed by the Pope himself when he apoligized to the Jews decades ago. Yet, the Jews still are resentful for what Catholic Church did ~ Nothing! They offered no help or protection. Are these the teachings of God to ignore when people are in need of help.

T

-- T (uknowitstrue@donotdenyit.com), March 10, 2005.


Why even reply to these poison-pen posts? Let em die on the vine.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 10, 2005.

Eugene,

Agreed.

His intent is clearly not to ask honest questions in the hope of honest answers. His intent is to come in here and somehow shake the faith of devout Catholics by ridiculing the Church.

Tim

-- Tim K. (tk4386@juno.com), March 10, 2005.


T

If you do unbiased research, you will find the Church did much to save Jews during the halocaust. You can't only go by the writing in books like "Hitler's Pope" to get the full story. Its about selling books. "Evil Pius" is more romantic and everyone loves a good yarn about bad guys.

That subject has been exausted with thread after thread here. It's been backed up by Jews who actually lived through the period and remembered (as the New York Times put it) the "lonely voice" of the Catholic church--- warning of the evils of Nazism.

Churchs, monastaries, and convents payed ransoms, and threw their doors open to protect as many Jewish people as possible. They even provided Jewish teaching when possible. Check out what Golda Meir had to say about the Church's stance during those times. She, among others was there.

"Hitler's Pope" and those like it sell books. "Pius'Dillema" (my hypothetical title) wouldn't sell a free pamphlet, no hype. History has been rewritten. Survivors tell a different story, but alas there aren't many left.

By the way, I believed just what your post suggested till I did some unbiased research after dumping my slightly anti-Church slant. I will admit that I was surprised---Its out there, you just have to look. However, I'm somewhat convinced that very few will accept any research that flies in the face of their preconceptions. I believed what you do at one time, and was ashamed to be Catholic. I too have a tendency to believe everything I read.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), March 10, 2005.


Nonetheless, doesn't the Pope's apology convict the church of not helping the Jews during that time. I can't argue that there probably was some Catholics that offered help, however, what about the rest...which was covered by the Pope's apology.

How could the rest that did not help be allowed to be in the church. These were hypocrits then? I tend to be told that many members of the catholic church are hypocrits? What's everyone's take on this.

And this is what I've heard, just so you understand what I'm referring to. Many Catholics claim to be Catholics when they don't even go to Church. It seems that they only go when a baptism, a first communion or other sacrament is performed. By invitation, or they go to church just for celebration that will be performed afterward. I.e. to attend the party thereafter.

To Eugene, these are views and expressions. Isn't that what this forum is for. If you have nothing better to say, then don't say anything. I'm not attacking you....I'm plainly giving my views.

T

-- T (uknowitstrue@donotdenyit.com), March 14, 2005.



When you give views that are in many parts defamatory, they're contested by those who know the truth.

If this were a police state, and you expressed a view which the state didn't accept, the state would imprison you or worst.

Here we don't suppress, we correct your errors. If you don't care for the truth, don't give us your errors. (Nothing BETTER to say? I think it's better; and that's what a forum is for. To tell you what's better.)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 14, 2005.


When sqda or T only post here for one purpose, and it's to bash the Church and her faithful, telling outright lies mostly, their posts should not even be given an answer.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 14, 2005.

There are only two ways to keep then from "being given an answer" -- delete the posts or ban the posters. I vote for #2.

-- (St@gnes.org), March 14, 2005.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ