Catholic Confusion ,or, Who are the Faithful

[Briguy]

Ron, are you referring to this:
""I know, you a take a preset belief and then work backwards into Scripture to find a verse that you think supports your belief. (You get to pick the verse) then you compare it to other verses (that you again pick).""

You know what is funny is that I use that same idea about Catholics. Remember my banana peal and watermelon example? For me to deny that I sometimes have a belief that I look to scripture to prove would be a lie, of course I do that. The thing is though all of my beliefs originate from scripture so I don't see it as that big of a problem. To me I feel like I am looking for additional proof for my beliefs not just any proof.

In contrast your beliefs are set for you and so when you have a Catholic belief or teaching you want to prove by scripture, you have to search for a proof verse as well. And since the beliefs may have come from tradition or the Magisterium, you may really have to stretch scripture to make it fit what you want it to say.

Any honest believer will admit that all Christians look for "proof" verses. We just all do and if it causes us to dig deep into the "word" then it is a good thing

In Christ,
Brian

 

[Bible-belted]

"No, it will merely serve to demonstrate that you can not find one example, that's all. No concession on my part at all. You assume victory far too readily."

I have already provided the examples. The Rad trads, sedevacantists, and feeneyites, and all that. And I don't assume victory. I have it. You implicitly acknowledged my premise. Granted you did so because you misunderstood my argument, but you clearly were wiling to accept my premise.

Evangelicals do indeed agree on the things you claim we disagree on. Here you betray your ignorance badly.

RCs for their aprt disagree about the nature of spiritual gifts, election, salvation, the papacy, the nature and number of dogmas, the magisterium.. I could go on.

You are simply in no better a position than evangelicals.

"As is your usual style, you keep saying the same thing over and over without offering evidence. A single example would be a start."

Again, already done. it is indicative of your desperation that you will not even acknowledge that evidence has been provided.

"No concession. Just your rash assumptions."

You just keep thinking that. I don't, as I have said, expect you to admit anything. But then that only helps me since it ruins your credibility to refuse to admit the facts. That's your choice.

Having solidly made my case (your protests to the contrary notwithstanding), I go back to lurking. Have a good morning.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by trying2understand:

Brian, not in areas of doctrine. The Church is very clear in areas of beliefs that "must be held". If someone wishes to disagree with those doctrines, they place themselves outside of unity. It is as simple as that.

What happens when the Pope dies. The college of Cardinals elects a new one, right? Why are there so many divergent views in "cardinals-in-waiting," to use the expression. Those that the media have put forth as likely candidates to succeed the present pope: some are liberal, and some are conservative. Your own cardinals differ in doctrine! Example:

"Of the 122 electors in the College of Cardinals, 106 were appointed by John Paul II, a strong-willed -- some say autocratic -- arch-conservative with whom Martini has openly disagreed about such things as the ordination of women." (CNN NEWS)

I would say that disagreement among the cardinals themselves about ordination of women is disagreement in doctrine. This shows disunity, not unity. It is but one example.
DHK