Proof that Catholicism is true

[ICametoLurk]

 

[MW 590]

With no disrespect intended Jacob in this instance, you don't really seem to know much about Church history and the development of the Papal Office. It might be worth going through from Part 1 explaining how it began and what it turned into.

If you're looking only just to dip in, the sections on language (Humans can't make infalliable decrees because of the limitation of language), examples of where Popes have contradicted each other might be more to the point (e.g: Pope Innocent III, Pope Gregory IX, Sixtus V and Gregory XVI all contradicting each other over when a fetus gets a soul and declaring each others bulls invalid). Books III and IV contain the bulk of this, but II does highlight some less pressing examples too. Trent vs Vatican II is quite interesting, because Vatican II does openly contradict Trent, but Vatican II has been commanded by the Bishops to be held as truth just as Trent was, regardless of which invocations to the Holy Spirit were used at the council or not.

It's a shame the archive doesn't have the more recent edition (I say recent, it was printed back in 1994) becaue Kung did write two more chapters about more recent developments and examples.

Edit: If it matches my print edition, pg.56-64 might be worth reading for you seeing as you seem to not acknowledge the authority of Vatican II.

Do you remember the name of the chapter where that mentions the Popes declarations about fetus's souls? In order to disprove papal infallibility, they would have to be speaking ex cathedra, declaring it to be doctrines concerning faith or morals to be upheld by the entire church. If they were just stating their opinions without declaring it to be upheld by the entire church, then they wouldn't be speaking ex cathedra.

In the meantime, I will read what it says about Vatican II.

 

[Bleachedanoos]

Your point here, as far as I can tell, is that God must exist because nothing can exist without being created. Except God is immune to the need for a prior cause himself because he doesn’t follow the laws which dictate that he must exist. You follow a line of logic until that line of logic becomes problematic, whereupon you abandon it.

Oh boy this goes way over your head doesn't it? Try rereading the thread as this has been explained through numerous analogies.

This is so ass-backwards I don’t even know where to begin. All this proves is that there are consistent laws governing the entire universe.

Yes there is an order to the universe, there is a series of laws that are followed by the universe that make any form of mathematics a possibility. It's not random. It's by design.

Any historical documentation? Anything not couched in vague metaphor? It’s going to take more than “a thing was predicted in one book of the Bible and then another book of the Bible said it happened!” On that basis, we can prove Harry Potter is real.

Yes there is historical evidence a man named Jesus walked on Earth and was killed by Jews. The metaphor is not vague when taken as a whole there are several passages throughout the old testament that reflect the lineage of Jesus the miracles he would perform and his death.
Again read the thread, I already said it is not air tight and it requires a bit of faith.

read

 

[Queen Elizabeth II]

Do you remember the name of the chapter where that mentions the Popes declarations about fetus's souls. In order to disprove papal infallibility, they would have to be speaking ex cathedra, declaring it to be doctrines concerning faith or morals to be upheld by the entire church. If they were just stating their opinions without declaring it to be upheld by the entire church, then they wouldn't be speaking ex cathedra.

Not off the top of my head, but I can get back to you on it once I'm back home. If you'd like an example I can recall from memory Vix pervenit is a bull from 1745 that wasn't initally considered ex cathedra, but was later applied and taught to the whole church by Gregory XVI.

Contrast to to Code of Canon Law of 1918 (you can still find this online) which says the Church can charge and take interest. Or just look at the Institute for the Works of Religion (The Vatican Bank) today.

Ursury was condemned as a sin by a long chain of popes even as late as 1891 in Rerum Novarum, and the most the Church really says on banking today comes from Quadragesimo anno which bans...."Economic violence".

Ursury was a sin worth several pogroms over.....Until it became expedent for the Vatican to become a major player on the stock market.

The Church likes to claim today that Vix Pervenit is not infalliable, but the problem is there's essentially no way of knowing when a Pope is speaking infalliably. If he is, he is....But if he isnt, we don't actually know until a Pope says the opposite.

A pope can't actually be proven to have spoken infalliably, it can only later be proven not through contradiction that he wasn't.

We've got two outcomes.

A) Charging interest will send you to hell literally depending on what century you did it in, as eating meat will send you to hell depending on what part you do it and how the bishop feels about it. Meaning contradictory papal statements to the whole Church are only infalliable while that pope is in power.

B) Ursury was never a sin to begin with and the Popes prior to 1918 were wrong.

 

[Corbin Dallas Multipass]

Brainlet tier. You said she had no knowledge but she was explicitly told by God to not eat from that tree. She and Adam both knew, which is why Adam was reticent in eating from the tree of knowledge. If anything it's a parable where our boy JC is telling us to not trust a roastie.

And... without the knowledge of good and evil, how should they have known that doing what god said is good, and doing what evil satan snake said is evil? They had no knowledge of good and evil. Why did god allow satan to talk to these people who literally did not have the faculties to know better than to do what he said?

A system in which you are guilty automatically is great for controlling people, something we've seen throughout human history. An all knowing benevolent god does not jive with the stories in the bible. The stories really paint him as more of an amoral alien scientist experimenting on humans, with no real ability to predict the future.

Of course, the stories are fake, it's all fake, but even if we take the stories at face value they don't say what they claim to.

 

[Bleachedanoos]

And... without the knowledge of good and evil, how should they have known that doing what god said is good, and doing what evil satan snake said is evil? They had no knowledge of good and evil. Why did god allow satan to talk to these people who literally did not have the faculties to know better than to do what he said?

A system in which you are guilty automatically is great for controlling people, something we've seen throughout human history. An all knowing benevolent god does not jive with the stories in the bible. The stories really paint him as more of an amoral alien scientist experimenting on humans, with no real ability to predict the future.

Of course, the stories are fake, it's all fake, but even if we take the stories at face value they don't say what they claim to.

Extreme brainlet tier.

As I said before you dumb extremely dumb fuck Adam knew it was wrong which was why he hesitated. You don't need a developed moral paradigm in order to discern what is right or wrong, for children they don't get the concept of good or evil but when their parents say don't do x. They know not to do it.

Please volunteer for some brain mass increasing experiments, even if they are dangerous you cant continue being this dumb in life.

 

[Fougaro]

I'm afraid to tell you OP, but I don't think that you'll fit in here well. You see, Kiwifarms is a Jewish forum and an internet sanctuary for the prosecuted sons and daughters of David and the children of Israel. After eons of prosecution, intolerance and hatred in other forums run by the goyim and - Yahweh forgive me for saying this word - normies, our owner Mohamed "Jihadi" Jarbo gave us finally a Jewish internet homeland. This place is e-Zionism come true as foretold by the protocols of our elders.

Not to mention that we all harshly condemn antisemitism, especially the Catholic Church's centuries long mistreatment of the Chosen People✡.

 

[Queen Elizabeth II]

Extreme brainlet tier.

As I said before you dumb extremely dumb fuck Adam knew it was wrong which was why he hesitated. You don't need a developed moral paradigm in order to discern what is right or wrong, for children they don't get the concept of good or evil but when their parents say don't do x. They know not to do it.

Please volunteer for some brain mass increasing experiments, even if they are dangerous you cant continue being this dumb in life.

I bet you watch Rick and Morty.

 

[ProgKing of the North]

I bet you watch Rick and Morty.

He probably stopped watching when women joined the writing staff

 

[Bleachedanoos]

I bet you watch Rick and Morty.

I dont watch anything produced by jews. The reason you're lame weak skinny fat and a homosexual is likely because you consume too much media.

 

[Tragi-Chan]

Oh boy this goes way over your head doesn't it? Try rereading the thread as this has been explained through numerous analogies.

It goes over my head because it makes no sense. If you want to resolve the grand questions of science with a being who is not subject to the laws that govern the universe, then that’s fine, if you have some proof that such a being exists. But you don’t. Your argument is basically “God could do this, so God must exist.” It’s a hypothesis, not a proven solution.

Yes there is an order to the universe, there is a series of laws that are followed by the universe that make any form of mathematics a possibility. It's not random. It's by design.

I’m going to recommend literally any science textbook not written by someone named “Reverend.”

Yes there is historical evidence a man named Jesus walked on Earth and was killed by Jews. The metaphor is not vague when taken as a whole there are several passages throughout the old testament that reflect the lineage of Jesus the miracles he would perform and his death.
Again read the thread, I already said it is not air tight and it requires a bit of faith.

read

Again, this is a leap. I accept that someone named Jesus existed, but that doesn’t prove the events described in the Bible true. Faith is fine, but it’s not proof. I mean, L. Ron Hubbard existed, does that make his claims about Scientology true as well?

Extreme brainlet tier.

As I said before you dumb extremely dumb fuck Adam knew it was wrong which was why he hesitated. You don't need a developed moral paradigm in order to discern what is right or wrong, for children they don't get the concept of good or evil but when their parents say don't do x. They know not to do it.

Please volunteer for some brain mass increasing experiments, even if they are dangerous you cant continue being this dumb in life.

Lol calm down.

 

[Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi]

Islam is the true path. Alhamdulillah.

 

[Bleachedanoos]

It goes over my head because it makes no sense. If you want to resolve the grand questions of science with a being who is not subject to the laws that govern the universe, then that’s fine, if you have some proof that such a being exists. But you don’t. Your argument is basically “God could do this, so God must exist.” It’s a hypothesis, not a proven solution.

I’m going to recommend literally any science textbook not written by someone named “Reverend.”
n.

No, the argument is that it can only be done by a thing that would be ordained God. Again you're putting the cart before the horse, the problem with causality isn't one that could be addressed by God it is merely one that IS addressed by God. It must be so based on the laws of the Universe we live in. The existence of a metaphysical force that could create the universe is simply a fact. What that force is labeled is God. That's not to say its a monotheisitic j*deo christian God. Simply that that is a fact.

I’m going to recommend literally any science textbook not written by someone named “Reverend.”
n.

This is just the kind of dumb shit I would expect from an atheist, LOL ITS CALLED SCIENCE DUDE.
The zealotry associated with these nu-intellectuals who can't define the scientific method but will automatically use appeal to authority to outsource their belief pattern to a guy they find reputable. They themselves have no understanding of the ideas discussed nor do they understand the structure of academia and the inherent bias that comes from funding. To top it all off their precious science doesn't explain the human beings ability to abstractly think a so called ghost in the shell, or the magnitude of order that is present in the universe such that theoretical constructs like black holes could have been predicted before they were discovered.

 

[Tragi-Chan]

No, the argument is that it can only be done by a thing that would be ordained God. Again you're putting the cart before the horse, the problem with causality isn't one that could be addressed by God it is merely one that IS addressed by God. It must be so based on the laws of the Universe we live in. The existence of a metaphysical force that could create the universe is simply a fact. What that force is labeled is God. That's not to say its a monotheisitic j*deo christian God. Simply that that is a fact.

So yes, God in this sense is a hypothesis.

This is just the kind of dumb shit I would expect from an atheist, LOL ITS CALLED SCIENCE DUDE.
The zealotry associated with these nu-intellectuals who can't define the scientific method but will automatically use appeal to authority to outsource their belief pattern to a guy they find reputable.

Unlike people who base their scientific position on the Bible.

They themselves have no understanding of the ideas discussed nor do they understand the structure of academia and the inherent bias that comes from funding. To top it all off their precious science doesn't explain the human beings ability to abstractly think a so called ghost in the shell, or the magnitude of order that is present in the universe such that theoretical constructs like black holes could have been predicted before they were discovered.

Lol calm down.

 

[Corbin Dallas Multipass]

Extreme brainlet tier.

As I said before you dumb extremely dumb fuck Adam knew it was wrong which was why he hesitated. You don't need a developed moral paradigm in order to discern what is right or wrong, for children they don't get the concept of good or evil but when their parents say don't do x. They know not to do it.

Please volunteer for some brain mass increasing experiments, even if they are dangerous you cant continue being this dumb in life.

You reused the same insult, stupid.

Children were born with original sin, AKA the knowledge of good and evil, you absolute retard, while Adam and Eve weren't even born. So your experience as a child is irrelevant. Why wouldn't Adam and Eve take the talking magic snake as a parental figure as much as god?

Now up your shitposting game turdnugget, and if you use the word "tier" again you're going to prove you need a lolcow thread.

 

[AF 802]

I dont watch anything produced by jews. The reason you're lame weak skinny fat and a homosexual is likely because you consume too much media.

I seriously hope to God you're shitposting and don't actually believe this. Avoiding Jewish produced media is impossible, my friend, they're everywhere.

 

[MW 590]

Not off the top of my head, but I can get back to you on it once I'm back home. If you'd like an example I can recall from memory Vix pervenit is a bull from 1745 that wasn't initally considered ex cathedra, but was later applied and taught to the whole church by Gregory XVI.

Contrast to to Code of Canon Law of 1918 (you can still find this online) which says the Church can charge and take interest. Or just look at the Institute for the Works of Religion (The Vatican Bank) today.

Ursury was condemned as a sin by a long chain of popes even as late as 1891 in Rerum Novarum, and the most the Church really says on banking today comes from Quadragesimo anno which bans...."Economic violence".

Ursury was a sin worth several pogroms over.....Until it became expedent for the Vatican to become a major player on the stock market.

The Church likes to claim today that Vix Pervenit is not infalliable, but the problem is there's essentially no way of knowing when a Pope is speaking infalliably. If he is, he is....But if he isnt, we don't actually know until a Pope says the opposite.

A pope can't actually be proven to have spoken infalliably, it can only later be proven not through contradiction that he wasn't.

We've got two outcomes.

A) Charging interest will send you to hell literally depending on what century you did it in, as eating meat will send you to hell depending on what part you do it and how the bishop feels about it. Meaning contradictory papal statements to the whole Church are only infallible while that pope is in power.

B) Ursury was never a sin to begin with and the Popes prior to 1918 were wrong.

I did research on it and found a website that says this. https://www.hprweb.com/2015/01/religious-freedom-slavery-and-usury/

However, since the document itself was penned just to the Church in one country, it seems to fall short of the requirements for infallibility as laid down by Vatican I.

In order for a Pope's statement to be ex cathedra, it has to be given to the entire church.

I went to page 56 and I don't think the editions match because it was talking about the church's teachings on contraception, not about Vatican II. What was the name of the chapter?

However, Vatican II was a pastoral council not a dogmatic council so it did not define any doctrines infallibly like the Council of Trent and Vatican I. https://forums.catholic.com/t/is-vatican-ii-infallible/319025

 

[Queen Elizabeth II]

I did research on it and found a website that says this. https://www.hprweb.com/2015/01/religious-freedom-slavery-and-usury/

However, since the document itself was penned just to the Church in one country, it seems to fall short of the requirements for infallibility as laid down by Vatican I.

In order for a Pope's statement to be ex cathedra, it has to be given to the entire church.

Initially yes, but it was widened by Gregory to the whole world. The same way many other bulls have been earlier in history. I've since noticed this is even cited on Wikipedias article on the subject, so I know you've seen this and are just choosing to ignore it because it doesn't align with your own belief. It was enforced on the whole church under a later pontificate and further built upon by Leo XIII.

Reorum only echoed the article once again. The Church did not like Capitalism or Republicanism until it realised it was the best deal it was going to get with the fall of the final absolute monarchies.

I went to page 56 and I don't think the editions match because it was talking about the church's teachings on contraception, not about Vatican II. What was the name of the chapter?

However, Vatican II was a pastoral council not a dogmatic council so it did not define any doctrines infallibly like the Council of Trent and Vatican I. https://forums.catholic.com/t/is-vatican-ii-infallible/319025

Every Pope during and since Vatican II has commanded Catholics on pain of schism (i.e: Eternal damnation as punishment for it) to accept its teachings, this is why the SPPX were cast out and have been excommunicated for so long.

Vatican II has been declared by every single one of them as Valid. The only way it could be proved invalid was if a future Pope said so....The very same way Francis could declare Trent invalid if he ever so wished to.

There's no way to prove if a council or a decree is valid until a pope says it isn't. As of now, it's valid. It's one aspect of why Infalliability is nonsensical. Not only because there are multiple examples of Popes contradicting each other while teaching to the whole church, but because you just have to assume this time a Pope is right without any way of knowing until the next guy says otherwise.

 

[Slap47]

I dont watch anything produced by jews. The reason you're lame weak skinny fat and a homosexual is likely because you consume too much media.

Christianity is a sect of Judaism

 

[Rat Lord]

After reading this entire thread I've come to the conclusion that I'd rather go back to worshipping cats and ancient furries. At least cats physically show me they care or not