Katholic Kiwi Kathedral (Catholicism General) - It's a place for Catholic Kiwis to discuss Catholicism and inquirers to inquire.

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

Who is the best Catholic apologist alive today?

  • Bishop Robert Barron

    Votes: 69 39.2%

  • Fr. Mike Schmitz

    Votes: 76 43.2%

  • Trent Horn

    Votes: 42 23.9%

  • Jimmy Akin

    Votes: 18 10.2%

  • Joe Heschmeyer

    Votes: 10 5.7%

  • Matt Fradd

    Votes: 10 5.7%

  • Scott Hahn

    Votes: 19 10.8%

  • Brayden Cook - TheCatechumen

    Votes: 3 1.7%

  • Taylor Marshall

    Votes: 5 2.8%

  • Christian Fagner

    Votes: 9 5.1%

  • James White

    Votes: 13 7.4%
  • Total voters
    176
Yeah this guy is a fucking retard.
GqcdY7ZWIAE3Psb.webp GqcdZBXXUAAD05W.webp GqcidKXXUAAjD1z.webp
GqcdY9vWMAELUhz.webp
I cant wait to hear MORE cope from you zealous idiots. HAVE FUN, you only have to wait 15 more years to roll the (stacked) dice again
 
California Newt said:
Insults are all you have. There's no way to defend Roman Catholicism unless you're already in the crab-trap.


They could start by recognizing that Papal Infallibility is obviously not true, considering that Honorius was anathematized by an Ecumenical Council for Monothelitism. They could also explain how Pope Leo III erecting the Nicene Creed without the filioque on silver tablets outside the crypt of St. Peter's Basilica with the inscription "For love and defense of the Orthodox Faith" wasn't "Ex Cathedra".

They could also admit that Vatican 1 was an obvious political response to the political changes and revolutions of the 19th century (consolidating what power they still had), just as Vatican II coincided with the Vatican's realignment with Western powers after WWII (which is why post Vatican II Catholicism is just a giant NGO crab-walking into oblivion).


If you're aware, they were aware.


If you welcome debate, then you can respond to this post and the few I've linked to regarding Nostra Aetate.
Click to expand...
What bad-faith, tired jabs. Infallibility doesn’t apply to Honorius’ private letters. His comments on Monothelitism were criticized for negligence, not heresy. The council of Constantinople anathematized Honorius posthumously for failing to suppress heresy, not for teaching it. This does not contradict infallibility. The Church’s consistent teaching against Monothelitism since then proves this.

Leo's filioque omission was to avoid scandal, not a denial of theological truth, i.e., it was diplomatic, not dogmatic, and does not meet the criteria for an ex cathedra statement. It lacks universal scope, doctrinal definition, and binding intent, and was not definitive/irrevocable.

You chose very weak "gotchas", I've heard much better.
 
Never thought it'd be an American church. Pretty cool!

I already know there'd be some black-pilling about some of the counter-signaling.

At this point I'm convinced America and Vatican are talking passed each other on immigration.

It's absolutely the Christian ethic that Christ-like love is universal and welcomes the stranger. It's Catholic teaching that mercy is to be provided to the downtrodden seeking a better way of life. The problem is that this is long-term thinking, and America is dealing with problems that require very short-term solutions, and badly.

The Vatican can preach about the common good for all as much as it likes, but that's difficult to achieve when people are drugged, raped, and/or killed. The Holy See comes off tone deaf when Conservatives run on this and their contribution is "think of the migrants!"

Neither are wrong, but they're not looking at the same thing. Because they aren't in sync, they come off inherently antagonistic toward one another and create friction where it isn't productive.

At the end of the day I'm optimistic. I hope our new Pope also gets caught on hot mics disparaging gays.
 
Local Farmer said:
View attachment 7273795
NON EXPEDIT!

BY PAPAL DECREE OF I, BISHOP LOCAL FARMER, HEREBY DECLARE ANATHEMA TO ANYONE RESPONDING TO FRENCH DIP, SHOULD FRENCH DIP SPEAK OUT OF LINE AGAIN WE WILL PHOTOSHOP HIS HANDS ON TO MORE AND MORE LUDICROUS PLACES

​
Seriously Guys, he’s not going to listen or care, there is no thread moderator so of course we’re going to get retards like him. Just downvote and ignore them going forward.
Click to expand...
Tapping the sign
 
Nothing Is Written said:
That's a bold charge. Steel man your own argument, as you've stated in my quote, or I won't bother engaging with you.
Click to expand...
Sure. I'll link back to the Nostra Aetate discussion for more context.

Every Pope since Vatican II has operated in-line with Nostra Aetate, which affirms that Muslims worship the God of Abraham. It also affirms that other pagan religions also worship God, although with imperfections and misunderstandings. The joint prayer with Muslims (in mosques), Buddhists, and other religions, as well as the frequent assertions that these traditions have "precious spiritual treasures", publicly and consistently demonstrates this orientation.

Their position is closer to Perennialism. Abraham didn't worship the God of the Philosophers; he worshipped the Trinity—and not in a superficial and ambiguous way that's tacked onto the unmoved mover of Aristotle and Maimonides. He worshipped the Trinity of St. Basil the Great, St. John of Damascus, and St. Gregory of Nyssa: the same Trinity as St. Photius the Great, who's paradoxically venerated—along with St. Gregory Palamas—in Uniate churches.

HOMO FOR LIFE RETURNS said:
At least its not Anglican. That's fucking satanic at this point.
Click to expand...
You make a point; you make a point.

Squid Diddler said:
What bad-faith, tired jabs. Infallibility doesn’t apply to Honorius’ private letters. His comments on Monothelitism were criticized for negligence, not heresy. The council of Constantinople anathematized Honorius posthumously for failing to suppress heresy, not for teaching it. This does not contradict infallibility. The Church’s consistent teaching against Monothelitism since then proves this.
Click to expand...
He's explicitly condemned as a heretic, and his condemnation as such was approved by Pope Leo II. Even if you wanted to somehow wriggle out of this being an infallibility issue (he's also explicitly condemned for disseminating the heresy among the faithful, whether the letters are private or not), the bigger problem is that he's a heretic condemned by an ecumenical council. The Pope is also supposed to be indefectible. Whether you teach or not, you can't be condemned as a Heretic and be the Pope.

1746733020313.webp


Squid Diddler said:
Leo's filioque omission was to avoid scandal, not a denial of theological truth, i.e., it was diplomatic, not dogmatic, and does not meet the criteria for an ex cathedra statement. It lacks universal scope, doctrinal definition, and binding intent, and was not definitive/irrevocable.
Click to expand...
On what basis do you say that it lacks all three of those, or that he didn't intend it as dogmatic? Is it just because that interpretation allows you to preserve your paradigm, or do you have some kind of evidence that a guy putting a doctrinal definition (the creed) on big silver tablets for "defense of the Orthodox faith" wasn't intending that to be universal, binding, and definitive?
 
Last edited:
Squid Diddler said:
Monothelitism
Click to expand...
I'm not catholic so I had to look this one up. I read a bunch of materials that explained the competing doctrines as jesus having one will vs. a human will subordinate to a second divine will. but none of the sources say why this mattered - is this a purely doctrinal abstract argument like arianism or did those monothelitism entail different ethical or political positions than dyothelitism?
 
California Newt said:
I'll link back to the Nostra Aetate discussion for more context.

Every Pope since Vatican II has operated in-line with Nostra Aetate, which affirms that Muslims worship the God of Abraham. It also affirms that other pagan religions also worship God, although with imperfections and misunderstandings. The joint prayer with Muslims (in mosques), Buddhists, and other religions, as well as the frequent assertions that these traditions have "precious spiritual treasures", publicly and consistently demonstrates this orientation.
Click to expand...

It's hermeneutical interfaith practice, consistent with what the early fathers engaged in since the genesis of the early church.

Now, without linking stuff, lay out what I quoted from what you said, and try your very best to push that the Holy Spirit is complicit in apostasy by electing the Popes you claim are whatever you claim they are.

Tell us all what you know that the Holy Trinity doesn't, because if you're right, we should probably inform the Vatican State of your findings.
 
Nothing Is Written said:
Now, without linking stuff, lay out what I quoted from what you said, and try your very best to push that the Holy Spirit is complicit in apostasy by electing the Popes you claim are whatever you claim they are.
Click to expand...
The Holy Spirit has never "elected" a pope in the college-of-cardinals sense that you mean. The papacy only developed in the way that it did because Rome lost the Holy Spirit nearly a thousand years ago.

Nothing Is Written said:
It's hermeneutical interfaith practice, consistent with what the early fathers engaged in since the genesis of the early church.
Click to expand...
No fathers would have claimed that Muslims worship the one God. You have to be joking. St. John of Damascus called them "Mutilators of God":

Moreover, they call us Hetaeriasts, or Associators, because, they say, we introduce an associate with God by declaring Christ to the Son of God and God. We say to them in rejoinder: ‘The Prophets and the Scriptures have delivered this to us, and you, as you persistently maintain, accept the Prophets. So, if we wrongly declare Christ to be the Son of God, it is they who taught this and handed it on to us.’ But some of them say that it is by misinterpretation that we have represented the Prophets as saying such things, while others say that the Hebrews hated us and deceived us by writing in the name of the Prophets so that we might be lost. And again we say to them: ‘As long as you say that Christ is the Word of God and Spirit, why do you accuse us of being Hetaeriasts? For the word, and the spirit, is inseparable from that in which it naturally has existence. Therefore, if the Word of God is in God, then it is obvious that He is God. If, however, He is outside of God, then, according to you, God is without word and without spirit. Consequently, by avoiding the introduction of an associate with God you have mutilated Him. It would be far better for you to say that He has an associate than to mutilate Him, as if you were dealing with a stone or a piece of wood or some other inanimate object. Thus, you speak untruly when you call us Hetaeriasts; we retort by calling you Mutilators of God.’

-from The Fount of Knowledge, part II
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom