Vatican defrocks US Cardinal for sexual misconduct....

[Hibernian]

What makes papal infallibility heresy? Or the Immaculate Conception? Or the Assumption?

How would you define "heresy"?

Of course it is clear that you believe that the Pope is infallible only because you believe the Pope, you can talk about why I understand those doctrines to be heresies, but can you tell me why the immaculate conception of Mary is true doctrine,?

The burden of proof does not lie with me because I don't have to prove what I don't believe

 

[Hibernian]

What makes papal infallibility heresy? Or the Immaculate Conception? Or the Assumption?

How would you define "heresy"?

What are you really asking me to prove?The pope is not infallible because Mary was not immaculately conceived.

The reason why I ask you that is because you can't have one without the other. Because the only reason why Roman Catholics believe that Mary is the immaculate conception is because they believe that the Pope is infallible. We all know where the fake doctrine of the immaculate conception came from.

So I suggest to you that the only reason why Mary is immaculate is because the Pope is infallible. I can't think of any other reason.

 

[jonathan_hili]

You have to answer the same question when you call the Protestants heretics.

Heresy is the conscious, deliberate and continued contradiction (denial or contrary position), especially in public teaching, to a doctrine (especially dogmas) of a religious tradition.

Since I'm Catholic (that's my religious tradition) Protestantism generally denies or contradicts a number of dogmas of the faith. That makes the general position heretical; however, I wouldn't say all or most Protestants are culpably heretical because they were raised in that tradition.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Of course it is clear that you believe that the Pope is infallible only because you believe the Pope, you can talk about why I understand those doctrines to be heresies, but can you tell me why the immaculate conception of Mary is true doctrine,?

The burden of proof does not lie with me because I don't have to prove what I don't believe

That's fine. I'm not trying to convince that the Immaculate Conception is a true doctrine.

As I said previously, arguing these kinds of things on a forum like this doesn't get very far. I'd rather spent time clarifying Catholic positions, unless you really want an argument on this issue.

 

[jonathan_hili]

What are you really asking me to prove?The pope is not infallible because Mary was not immaculately conceived.

You said you could prove they are false, which I find highly doubtful.

The reason why I ask you that is because you can't have one without the other. Because the only reason why Roman Catholics believe that Mary is the immaculate conception is because they believe that the Pope is infallible. We all know where the fake doctrine of the immaculate conception came from.

That's not exactly right. Mary could still be immaculately conceived but papal infallibility false.

So I suggest to you that the only reason why Mary is immaculate is because the Pope is infallible. I can't think of any other reason.

The Orthodox Church has a similar view of Mary (that she was without sin) but they don't accept papal infallibility. I'd rather look to mariology for reasons why the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was understood and defined.

 

[Hibernian]

Heresy is the conscious, deliberate and continued contradiction (denial or contrary position), especially in public teaching, to a doctrine (especially dogmas) of a religious tradition.

Since I'm Catholic (that's my religious tradition) Protestantism generally denies or contradicts a number of dogmas of the faith. That makes the general position heretical; however, I wouldn't say all or most Protestants are culpably heretical because they were raised in that tradition.

In other words, you're saying that are a heretic is a person who contradicts the doctrine of your church.

But that is only a claim that your church told you, but it is not proof that your church is not heretical.

You are back to circular reasoning, because saying a heretic is someone who denies the immaculate conception is because in reality I'm contradicting your church. But that's not the reason why I deny the immaculate conception.

I was never supposed to believe in the immaculate conception, so why should I be a heretic for something I'm not supposed to believe in?

When it all boils down you're not defending the immaculate conception. You're defending the pope who declared it, so in reality you are defending papal infallibility.

 

[Hibernian]

That's fine. I'm not trying to convince that the Immaculate Conception is a true doctrine.

As I said previously, arguing these kinds of things on a forum like this doesn't get very far. I'd rather spent time clarifying Catholic positions, unless you really want an argument on this issue.

What I'm saying to you is that your church is heretical because it believes in the doctrine of the immaculate conception and that is a Heresy.

 

[Hibernian]

That's fine. I'm not trying to convince that the Immaculate Conception is a true doctrine.

As I said previously, arguing these kinds of things on a forum like this doesn't get very far. I'd rather spent time clarifying Catholic positions, unless you really want an argument on this issue.

But you are perfectly entitled to clarify a heresy if you wish. Perhaps by Clarifying it you might see how grossly heretical it really is.

 

[Hibernian]

That's fine. I'm not trying to convince that the Immaculate Conception is a true doctrine.

As I said previously, arguing these kinds of things on a forum like this doesn't get very far. I'd rather spent time clarifying Catholic positions, unless you really want an argument on this issue.

The real problem is that you are satisfied with the Pope's own evidence for himself.

 

[balshan]

I agree. However, I'm not trying to prove my point, just explain it.

I know well enough that this kind of forum isn't really conducive to discussing biblical evidence. Furthermore, I'm sure any evidence I produce can be counter-evidenced or just fudged away. However, I'd basically argue on these kind of lines:
a) Jesus established a Church. - from scripture
b) Jesus' Church had authority structures, with certain offices of leadership. - from scripture and history
c) Jesus would have intended his Church (and hence the authority structures) to continue historically. - from reason
d) The Catholic Church can evidence its authority structures back to the first century. - from history
e) The Catholic Church can evidence a continuity of most dogma back to the first/early second centuries. - from scripture and history
f) The only other possible Churches that can sustain such an argument might be the Orthodox and Coptic Churches. - from scripture, history and reason
g) So, it is quite reasonable that the Catholic Church is the one started by Christ.

If only you provided biblical evidence but you don't do it. The RCC is not the church Jesus established. Its fruits prove it is not His church.

 

[balshan]

Heresy is the conscious, deliberate and continued contradiction (denial or contrary position), especially in public teaching, to a doctrine (especially dogmas) of a religious tradition.

Since I'm Catholic (that's my religious tradition) Protestantism generally denies or contradicts a number of dogmas of the faith. That makes the general position heretical; however, I wouldn't say all or most Protestants are culpably heretical because they were raised in that tradition.

They are false dogmas of faith therefore they are a heresy.

 

[Hibernian]

If only you provided biblical evidence but you don't do it. The RCC is not the church Jesus established. Its fruits prove it is not His church.

I cannot prove something is in the bible if it's not there because what's not there cannot be produced . You have to tell me where the Bible says that the Roman Catholic Church is the true church. That's the passage or verse I'm looking for.

That's not to say that Jesus didn't establish a church.

 

[balshan]

I cannot prove something is in the bible if it's not there because what's not there cannot be produced . You have to tell me where the Bible says that the Roman Catholic Church is the true church. That's the passage or verse I'm looking for.

That's not to say that Jesus didn't establish a church.

exactly their claims cannot be proved

 

[Hibernian]

I agree. However, I'm not trying to prove my point, just explain it.

I know well enough that this kind of forum isn't really conducive to discussing biblical evidence. Furthermore, I'm sure any evidence I produce can be counter-evidenced or just fudged away. However, I'd basically argue on these kind of lines:
a) Jesus established a Church. - from scripture
b) Jesus' Church had authority structures, with certain offices of leadership. - from scripture and history
c) Jesus would have intended his Church (and hence the authority structures) to continue historically. - from reason
d) The Catholic Church can evidence its authority structures back to the first century. - from history
e) The Catholic Church can evidence a continuity of most dogma back to the first/early second centuries. - from scripture and history
f) The only other possible Churches that can sustain such an argument might be the Orthodox and Coptic Churches. - from scripture, history and reason
g) So, it is quite reasonable that the Catholic Church is the one started by Christ.

If we are referring to the church of Jesus Christ then I want it from the mouth of Jesus, not from the mouth of the Pope or his church. That is a reasonable request.

But of course you must take into consideration the fact that people can follow Jesus and they don't need the pope, and when that happens it's between Jesus and the Disciple, and it has nothing to do with the Pope. The fact that you can't accept that means that you really believe in the pope and not in Jesus. So I will follow Jesus and I will not follow the Pope and I lose nothing. If there is any problem with that, I suggest you talk to Jesus not to the pope.

 

[jonathan_hili]

In other words, you're saying that are a heretic is a person who contradicts the doctrine of your church.

No, I'm saying a heretic is a person who consciously and deliberately (and publicly) contradicts the doctrine of any religious tradition. A Catholic heretic is a Catholic who contradicts the Catholic Church, a Lutheran heretic the Lutheran Church, a Muslim heretic the teachings of Islam, etc.

But that is only a claim that your church told you, but it is not proof that your church is not heretical.

I know. The Catholic Church isn't heretical.

You are back to circular reasoning, because saying a heretic is someone who denies the immaculate conception is because in reality I'm contradicting your church. But that's not the reason why I deny the immaculate conception.

I'm saying it's heretical from a Catholic perspective. Obviously, it wouldn't be heretical to a Protestant.

I was never supposed to believe in the immaculate conception, so why should I be a heretic for something I'm not supposed to believe in?

Exactly. As I said, Protestants aren't culpable for heresy because they were raised outside the Catholic faith.

When it all boils down you're not defending the immaculate conception. You're defending the pope who declared it, so in reality you are defending papal infallibility.

I'm not defending either point, just explaining them.

 

[jonathan_hili]

What I'm saying to you is that your church is heretical because it believes in the doctrine of the immaculate conception and that is a Heresy.

It's a heresy from a Protestant perspective but (a) since I'm not a Protestant, I can hardly be a Protestant heretic (anymore than a Muslim could be a Buddhist heretic!) and (b) as a Catholic, I couldn't really care less what Protestants think is heretical.

 

[jonathan_hili]

But you are perfectly entitled to clarify a heresy if you wish. Perhaps by Clarifying it you might see how grossly heretical it really is.

I just did. See post #203.

 

[jonathan_hili]

If only you provided biblical evidence but you don't do it. The RCC is not the church Jesus established. Its fruits prove it is not His church.

Biblical evidence can be provided for points (a), (b), (e) and (f), if you'd like to go through each one.

 

[jonathan_hili]

They are false dogmas of faith therefore they are a heresy.

They are not false dogmas from a Catholic perspective.

 

[jonathan_hili]

If we are referring to the church of Jesus Christ then I want it from the mouth of Jesus, not from the mouth of the Pope or his church. That is a reasonable request.

But of course you must take into consideration the fact that people can follow Jesus and they don't need the pope, and when that happens it's between Jesus and the Disciple, and it has nothing to do with the Pope. The fact that you can't accept that means that you really believe in the pope and not in Jesus. So I will follow Jesus and I will not follow the Pope and I lose nothing. If there is any problem with that, I suggest you talk to Jesus not to the pope.

So, did the early Church, say at the Council of Jerusalem, follow Jesus or the apostles (like James and Peter)?