Top products from r/DebateACatholic

True, Paul laid down certain minimum requirements for Timothy to keep in mind when he as a prerequisite to ordaining anyone a Bishop or Elder (Presbyter/Priest). But what, once someone's been ordained?

The authority of a bishop in his diocese is an authority from God, not from men. Or else no one ordained by the Apostles or by their successors could have exercised legitimate authority.

>there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.

Real authority isn't necessarily dependent on right-living, but on the will of God.

>Pay all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

The honor and respect due to legitimate authority is due to their office, and not their character (their morals). If it was, then David was wrong to respect Saul as King even after David had been anointed, even though Saul wasn't right with God.

If it was true that authority obtains only when our leaders do good, than what authority did the many Kings of Israel have, "who did evil in the sight of the LORD"?

Now, you say that some Popes and Bishops were evil before they were anointed? But was their anointing still from God? Was the anointing of Jehu from God? He didn't turn from the false ways of the former Kings of Israel even though he had been anointed by Elisha to be King to be used by God.

Or what of the Prophets?

What of the "man of God" from Judah, described in 1 Kings 13?

The point is that authority is not derived from any merit--nor is it absolved by any demerit--on the part of the one who has had his authority granted by God.

>You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above.

The authority of the Bishop is given by God through the laying on of hands. This authority is passed from man to man by him who said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."

>Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.

He said this to the eleven. The same eleven who had the authority to appoint Judas' successor. And these twelve shared the authority which had been given to them by our LORD with those they appointed their successors. And this includes (unfortunately) many men who by their deeds proved unworthy of their calling.

But none of this abrogates the authority of the Church which Christ founded, or of the men who have succeeded those who Christ appointed his representatives on Earth.

The authority of the currently reigning Pope is the same as the authority given to St. Peter when Jesus tasked him to:

>Feed my lambs...Tend my sheep...Feed my sheep.

Some of the Church's shepherds have proven they were hirelings, who "sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees; and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. He flees because he is a hireling and cares nothing for the sheep."

You say:

>You left Protestantism because clearly this line of thinking doesnt make sense to you. You saw Scripture as lacking and saw the need to add tradition.

You have it exactly backwards. Rather, I became convicted that the Catholic Church is Who she claims to be. Only afterward did I come to understand the development of doctrine.

The Church's elaborate Mariology was, in fact, one of the biggest--if not the biggest--difficulty I had when coming into the Church. I asked my priest to spend an entire session of our RCIA course on the Church's Mariology.

I bought two books to help me understand the basis for the development of the Church's doctrines about Mary. One from a Catholic perspective, the other from an Evangelical Protestant perspective.

I don't know the name of the Catholic book I read. That one didn't help very much, anyway. But the book that helped (even if it didn't convince me) was this one:

Mary for Evangelicals: Toward an Understanding of the Mother of Our Lord

So, what convinced me that Church's doctrines about Mary were correct?

Merely the fact that I had come to know and believe that the Church is Who She claims to be. And if that's true, than whatever she teaches as doctrine must be true. Just as you've come to know and believe the Bible and therefore accept what it says concerning our salvation as true.

The bottom line, though, is that I believe the Bible because I believe the Church who gave it to us and from whose authority it necessarily derives its own authority.

I believe the Church is our Mother and, as St. Cyprian wrote:

>He [cannot] have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother.

And as St. Ignatius wrote:

>See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.

Have you read Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire? You should really check it out, the 1st century history you're talking about is the victim of significant revisionism by Christian historians. Here's a more modern source if you're interested.

>You’re making a lot of very big generalizations here. There were many concurrent systems of authority in Jerusalem at the time. To say “Look, I know that every source says the trial proceeded thusly, and that actually makes historically, but it fails my narrative so it didn’t happen” doesn’t make sense.

>Jesus could have been a tax collector rather than a carpenter. “Every source disagrees.” They disagree? Then they’re wrong.

>Right? If you’re going to blatantly contradict every account, there has to be a good reason. I’m not even entirely sure contradicting the traditional account here is even relevant to your case; it’s just there to be there.

Every account says Muhammad was God's final prophet. Every account says Joseph Smith found the book of Mormon inscribed on golden plates somewhere near Palmyra NY. Every account says the Buddha calmed a raging elephant merely by meditating. I'm saying the source material is not reliable history, it's not an account of facts but the amalgamated legends of a couple related cults.

> If only we had the Apostolic Fathers, who wrote within a few decades from the beginning of Christianity, who clearly disagree. Hmmmm...

The only reason you call them "apostolic fathers" and not "heretics" is because they were the political winners at the time. What I'm saying is that both "apostolic fathers" and "heretics" are the same in my eyes, they're all Christians. I have no reason to believe otherwise, unless I take your priests at their word...and we all know what I think of the value of their word.

> Tradition ordains we hold synods and councils when there’s massive disagreement. These are done regularly, from only a few decades after Christ’s death until the present day. It’s not a new thing and doesn’t disprove the Christian position that sometimes councils disagree with you.

I'm saying that your "truth" is the result of politics, not reason, not science, and certainly doesn't appear to be any kind of divine revelation. The councils disagree not only with me but with each other! Who is right, and how can anyone know?

> That is an entirely different discussion. This has no relevance. Peter was wrong about meat. Popes can be wrong. This is not the gotcha you think it is. The Pope should be listened to. Some Catholics don’t. If he’s formally rebuked, as Paul did Peter, that’s a different matter.

It's not a "gotcha," I'm merely pointing out that a person can rise through the ranks of the church and become appointed to the papacy while officially proclaiming doctrines that run contrary to prior papal and conciliar and even scriptural teachings.

If pope Francis himself posted some of his official encyclical statements on r/Catholicism under an anonymous pseudonym he would be called out for promoting heresy LOL. If your own pope can't get a grasp on your own teachings, how can you expect outsiders to think your priests are teaching anything valuable or even coherent?

> Listing all truths is kind of hard. If you can list all true statements about a topic, that’s pretty suggestive that either more work needs to be done on the topic, or the topic doesn’t really correspond to reality that well. You can’t list all the mathematical truths or all the scientific truths. And yet, you don’t shame either of those disciplines. Or maybe you do? IDK.

My wife has a PhD in mathematics. My best friend is a biologist. Of course one cannot list all possible mathematical and scientific truths, because our understanding of reality and truth are always changing based on new reasoning and new observations. But...you guys say "the fullness of truth" was handed on to your priests from God himself...so...where is it? Write all of this truth down so we can examine it. Clearly, the catechisms are trustworthy since they can apparently contain error, so go ahead, produce a book with all of the "truths" of Catholicism and then we can have a real debate. Until that time, it's all dodges and interpretations and hermeneutics and hand wringing.

> Can the blind know the shape of the moon by observation? No. Fact. They have to be told that by a person who can see, or have it otherwise communicated to them by an authority.

Epistemology is one of my favorite subjects and we can definitely discuss that, but maybe not right now in this particular thread.

The question of authority definitely IS relevant, however. OK, let me frame this differently. WHY do you listen to priests, if not "just 'cuz?"

> But more personally, I'm happy, well adjusted, and non conflicted about being an atheist.

• "Well-adjusted" is a baby-boomer word^1 that I find no meaning in.
  
• "Non-conflicted" doesn't mean you're not ignoring or misinterpreting an inner conflict.
  
• Happiness is superficial and doesn't last. It's often based on emotions, or at least a lack of negative emotions, which change like the wind. And it's usually dependent on external factors, such that losing everything but your life usually causes you to lose your happiness.
  
  On the other hand, we have peace with God, inner joy, lack of conflict on our inner conscience, and all the other benefits that come with being Catholic.
  
  I was just reading about this like 10 minute ago actually in The Sinner's Guide. I have this paperback here at home, but it's online too -- I was reading Chapter 19, but really the whole book is amazing. Check out Chapters 24-28 which are specific to answering objections to why we shouldn't convert or should defer it, which is very related to your question.
  
  ^1 I will accept the counter-argument that "baby-boomer" is a baby-boomer word that also has no meaning, but it does not invalidate my claim.

Good answer, u/awoody87

u/newcommon , I just wanted to jump in and mention that Ed Feser's book is a great starting point for learning more about Aquinas and the existence of God: https://www.amazon.com/Last-Superstition-Refutation-New-Atheism/dp/1587314517/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220302362&sr=1-1

Regarding your other questions, please look up "compatibilism." This is the idea that there is no inherent contradiction between human beings having free will and God having complete sovereignty. It's a bit much to get into here, but plenty has been written on it.

If you have any further questions please don't hesitate to either ask more or PM me directly.

1. Aquinas wasn't speaking about a first mover in a temporal sense. He was speaking in a hierarchical sense. In fact Aquinas's arguments do not presuppose that the universe had a beginning time, because he did not believe that it could be proven philosophically that the universe had a finite past. His arguments will work even if the universe is past eternal. In a hierarchical or essentially ordered series the causal power of one member is derived at all times from an earlier member. For example, a hockey stick causes the puck to move not of its own power but it transmits the causal power from the hockey players arm. Another good example of such a series is the drivetrain of a bicycle. The wheel is driven by the gearbox, which is driven by the chain, which is driven by another gears set, and so on. Each member of the chain must be present at all times to generate motive force. This is the kind of series Aquinas was looking at. So his argument does not allow something like the big bang to fit as first or prime mover. Rather the source of all change from potentiality to actuality must be constantly present. If you want to look for a really solid presentation of the argument from change, which also presents strong objections and answers to the objections read Ed Feser's Five Proofs for the Existance of God.
   
   
2. Other have provided good answers to this question, but I'd like to add that evil does not have being in and of itself. St. Augustine defined evil as the absence of a good that ought to be present. The argument goes that since evil is parasitic on being, and not a being per se God did not create it, and is not responsible for it.
   
   
3. For some great discussions on the problem of evil and other associated questions about Catholic theology I'd suggest listening to the Pints with Aquinas podcast. In fact, they just recently put out an episode on morality which may be informative for you. Especially in response to Q3.
   
   
4. I'm not certain how to answer this question. I think that this question presupposes evil as an actual thing rather than an absence or willful blocking of a good (which as stated above is how its defined in Catholic metaphysics/theology). This article does an admirable job of discussing this views consequences.
   
   I'd like to suggest that you read through Tolkien's creation story of Middle Earth in the Silmarillion. Tolkein presents a wonderful illustration of how evil comes about, and how it is dealth with in a Catholic/Christian light. While not addressing your questions directly it does provide a wonderful perspective on the best way to think about this question.
   
   

Before forming opinions on this matter, if a person believes it to be truly important, they must discern the actual issues at hand, namely what the Catholic traditions and disciplines concerning both priestly marriage and priestly continence are. To do this, there is no better resource than this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Apostolic-Origins-Priestly-Celibacy-Christian/dp/0898709512

Why in the world would you depend on a Google search? Aren't you supposed -judging by your post history and reading- to have books lying around?

Okay, this is my last reply. That's because potency and act divide being in such a way that whatever is, is either pure act, or of necessity it is composed of potency and act as primary and intrinsic principle. If you say God has some sort of absence in its nature, then it is to say that he is not pure act, which means that he is a composed being of potentiality and actuality. This means that something else put together God and actualize God's potentiality "everything whose act of existing is other than its nature [must] have its act of existing from another" (De ente et Essentia, 4).

If you want a beginner guide, you can fetch yourself a copy of Aquinas by Edward Feser, you really need to brush your Metaphysics first.

Good luck.

Least helpful comment ever, but I'm in the process of becoming Catholic and am "in the Catholic mindset" so to speak. This topic came up in our RCIA class, and I was recommended a book to read. I'm not super far in, but it is discussing exactly the point you bring up. So in case you want to look into it, the book is Darwin's Black Box. So far, the premise is that Darwin got some things right, and some things wrong. The basic idea is that everyone assumed the mechanics of evolution were in this big "black box" where stuff happened. Well, now that science and technology have improved, we've been able to "crack open" the black box and see the inner workings (parts of a cell, microbiology, etc...) and those things now contradict what Darwin predicted. It's a really interesting book, and I think you'd enjoy it.

So, sorry it's not an answer to your question, but at least it's a place to start!

I would suggest a three volume set;

Faith of the Early Fathers

Though most of the writings of guys like Irenaeus, Tertullian, Athanasius, Augustine, etc., when they do speak about the Church as a unity or the Pope specifically, are a pretty good start. Or just how disunity of belief was treated among the early Church, which doctrines were given argument and which weren't (such as purgatory), etc.

1. This biggest issue and one that basically refutes your entire point is that the doctrine of infallibly does not apply to every thing a Pope says and writes. It must be declared as such, and as I recall only the doctrine itself and the Immaculate Conception were infallible statements.
   
   
2. By no means is this entirely settled, nor is the doctrine, which is a theological and metaphysical one subject to any scientific advancement or discovery. For instance, there could have been physically human beings not imbued with rationality living at the same time as rational human beings, of which it is quite possible we are all descended from.
   
   
3. There are plenty of other ways monogenism, original sin, and evolution are perfectly compatible and understood, such as those proposed by sci-fi author Michael Flynn.
   
   
4. Evolution and Catholic theology can be understood well through Thomistic synthesis.
   
   
5. It’s reasonable to believe human beings, being entirely different from any other creature on Earth had a source outside of evolution involved in our formal and final cause. This is a philosophical and metaphysical position, but a very reasonable one, considering how different we are, our moral reasoning, advanced nature, and so on.
   
   
6. Catholics can completely reject evolution by natural selection as the cause of human beings. I don’t, personally. But there have been great books written on it and why evolution of human beings should be rejected.
   
   
7. I hold that polygenism of human origins and original sin are perfectly compatible. It is perhaps a minority view of theologians but as I’ve stated, the quoted encyclical is not infallible, I agree the science points in that direction, the Cathecism discusses the fall and genesis as “primordial events” that are best understood theologically, not scientifically, and that Adam and Eve are two of many of our earlier parents. Which is to say, from my view even if you think my points 1-6 are crap, I am still positive you’re wrong and far from being “game over”, this thread can be retired to the plebe-tier, better-luck-next-time, atheist apologetic files.

Just curious, Do you consider Jews and anti-Nazis as rats?

I recommend this book:
Church of Spies: The Pope's Secret War Against Hitler https://www.amazon.com/dp/0465094112/ref=cm_sw_r_em_apa_8G76BbE0DWQ3J