@MikePagano87 I know for a fact that this man was not a knowledgeable Catholic when he became a Protestant. Knowledgeable Catholics apostatize all the time, but never to conservative Protestantism.
English
Xavier Toto
696 posts
I was a Catholic for 20 years, when I became protestant it wasn't because I thought Catholicism "Went wrong and stayed wrong for 1,500 years" but rather, through study, I learned that over the course of time the Church departed from the Apostolic faith and was corrupted by power
Garrett Ham@garrettham_esq
Protestantism's deepest assumption is that Christianity went wrong almost immediately and stayed wrong for 1,500 years. That's not a small claim. It's the entire premise of the movement.
English
@MidnightPhilosX @Moderatemuch Fear, in itself, is none of those things. If it were, then you should have no qualms with capital punishment, since those sentenced to it should not fear it at all.
English
@Xavier__Toto @Moderatemuch Tell that to countless folks who struggle with anxiety, PTSD, abuse trauma, etc. Fear is poisonous, suffocating, destructive, and should never be the basis of faith.
English
I realize that fancy legalistic terms are in vogue when discussing this stuff, but how about we put it in simple terms: the death penalty is impractical and often unjust because of systemic issues in developed countries. Also, why cut someone's time short, when... /1
Peter Kwasniewski@DrKwasniewski
The death penalty question is back in the air, ever since Leo XIV doubled down on the error of his predecessor. No, the death penalty is NOT "inadmissible." It is NOT "per se contrary to human dignity and the Gospel." It is admissible. It is permissible. It is sometimes warranted. It is sometimes even necessary for the preservation of the common good. All this is clear from Scripture, Tradition, and the solemn, perennial Magisterium of the Church. The *only* issue that can be debated is whether it is prudentially right in this or that situation or context. For a quick overview of why this is the only coherent position a Catholic can take, see the lecture linked here, given in 2019, and the shorter article from 2023. Of course, the literature is vast; Ed Feser's work is particularly commendable for its careful attention to both argument and authority. "What Good Is a Changing Catechism" rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2019/06/what-g… "The Horns of the Death Penalty Dilemma" onepeterfive.com/horns-death-pe…
English
@Abathurchan I believe you are a genuinely stupid or evil person. If anyone else chimes in, I will explain what Cardinal Manning is saying. I believe it's obvious on its face that you are obtusely misreading him, and that it is impossible -- literally impossible -- to reason with you.
English
@Xavier__Toto The word "informed" is doing an incredible amount of work. Your arguments are just variations of "The people with X positive qualities, "informed", "reasonable", etc, would agree with me, and people with Y negative qualities, "foolish", "stupid", etc, would disagree with me."
English
And this is why also Evangelicals are at the forefront of very basic apologetics like the historical evidence for the reliability of the Bible and Christianity. They can't just handwave it away by begging the question and saying "Just trust MY specific Church/Tradition bro".
Paul Nedelisky@PaulNedelisky
Evangelicals tend to have more deeply held theological beliefs than just about any other Christian sect, because they can't offload epistemic responsibility to a magisterium. It's just "Me and my Bible," every time.
English
@Abathurchan No informed Protestant would take issue with what Manning says here. Read it again. Slowly. Ask an AI app to help you.
English
@Xavier__Toto You have merely *asserted* this. But then again, you think just making statements in the ether "settles" things, so we're at an impasse.
English
@Abathurchan We've already established that your reading comprehension skills stink.
English
@Xavier__Toto Whether there is "the" traditional apologetic for Romanism, it is at the very least the claim of Cardinal Manning that history is subordinate to the presentist pronouncements of the living church.
x.com/i/status/20498…
符荣汉🧭@Abathurchan
@frogposter1 it would be Cardinal Manning claim that the Catholic Faith is simply what the living Church says *today* and that history is subordinate to presentist Magisterial pronouncements.
Illinois, USA 🇺🇸 English
@MidnightPhilosX @Moderatemuch There is no "science" or "data" which suggests that fear is destructive to the soul. You made that up.
English
@Moderatemuch @Xavier__Toto Based on mental health science, data, and experience. Fear is destructive to the soul. The superior understanding of "fear" in the Bible is "awe." We should marvel at the wonders of the created cosmos and that should inform how we live. Let's not return to medieval oppression.
English
@Abathurchan I guess the "Ask Grok" feature isn't available anymore without a paid subscription. Never mind. Here's my shot at how Aquinas would reply to you. I think he'd be nicer than I am toward disingenuous heretic assholes.
English
@Xavier__Toto God hasn't settled the damned. There is still a final day of judgement and his second coming when God finally settles them, etc. That's why we walk by faith and not by sight, etc.
If you're just going to keep name calling, then I've no further interest in this conversation.
English
This is a reductio ad absurdum of all the "Protestants can't agree therefore they are wrong" style arguments.
5 Solas@5Solas2
It's crazy that all the churches who claim to be the one true church and have apostolic succession can't agree on what the canon is.
English
@Abathurchan @grok: Explain to this Fundamentalist moron what Aquinas means and how Aquinas would respond to the moron's caricature of his argument.
English
@Xavier__Toto Meh, again, posturing against character instead of the issue. In any case, to discuss this will require a whole different discussion about the difference between low and high context linguistic conventions, etc.
English
The oddest thing about Aquinas's argument for miracles is that he believed that asceticism was the "greatest miracle", a mere human practice common in Buddhism is a greatest miracle to him. Sounds proto-modernist "the greatest miracle is that we be good/moral" or something.
Kevin Fernandez@sincead33
"[Christ] established his authority through miracles, and through that authority, he earned faith." On the Profit of Believing, n. 32 (PL 42, 88). "God enables man to work miracles for two reasons. First and principally, in confirmation of the doctrine that a man teaches. For since those things which are of faith surpass human reason, they cannot be proved by human arguments, but need to be proved by the argument of Divine power: so that when a man does works that God alone can do, we may believe that what he says is from God: just as when a man is the bearer of letters sealed with the king's ring, it is to be believed that what they contain expresses the king's will." ST III, q. 43, a. 1, resp.
English
@Abathurchan I suppose by that logic God Himself never settled anything, since He doesn't prevent even the damned from opposing Him. Which of course ignores the sense in which we refer to the settlement of a controversy. Moron.
English
@Xavier__Toto You can call me as many mean names as you like. But your ability to "settle" this matter unfortunately again is tied to your ability to actually get me to stop discussing. And guess what? You just issuing statements can't settle it and I'm just going keep discussing these.
English
@Abathurchan (2) It doesn't require telepathy, just intellectual charity. Normal people understand this. Fundamentalists pretend not to.
English
@Abathurchan (1) Yeah, we read texts, but people do not usually always speak according to the bare denotative meaning of their words. Context matters. Aquinas is, in fact, making a sound argument, but one has to read him in context and grasp the *sense* of what he is saying.
English
@Abathurchan "I only have one understanding of 'settle.'" Which means you're either stupid or have a poor command of the English language -- or you're disingenuous. Either way, not anyone who has any business engaging in serious discussion of these sorts of things.
English
@Xavier__Toto And you're pretending to telepathy or clairvoyance to claim to know what I know.
I repeat: I only have one understanding of "settle" and I just stated it and explained it at length. You can either give your understanding or say I'm lying, in which case I've no interest in this.
English
@AL_J82 What does it mean to be "inside the pope," exactly? American Evangelicals are weird. No wonder they worship Donald Trump.
English
10 unbiblical teachings of Roman Catholics:
1. Mary is necessary for salvation
2. No salvation outside of the pope
3. Intercession of the saints
4. Good works merit salvation
5. Peter was the first pope
6. Communion turns into the physical body and blood of Christ
7. Mary was bodily assumed into heaven
8. Mary was sinless
9. The Magisterium is infallible
10. Muslims and Christians worship the same God
There, I fixed it.
CATHOLIC MAXIMUS@EcciusMaximus
10 unbiblical teachings of Evangelicals: 1. Female Preachers. 2. Baptism is symbolic 3. Sola Fide now saves you 4. Ditching apostolic tradition 5. Polygamy justified by Scripture 6. Tithing is necessary for Salvation 7. Reformed harlots purer than Virgins 8. Debauchery is a religious experience 9. The Bible is necessary (thief on the cross) 10. Jesus was kidding about the Last Supper Bonus: With Sola Scriptura you are = to the Apostles
English
@Abathurchan You're being obtuse and disingenuous. Pretending not to know what I mean. You know damned well I'm not referring to a physical inability of people -- anyone -- to dispute what they want. Play dumb if you want.
English
@Xavier__Toto Anything can be re-litigated in Rome, whether it is communion for the divorced and remarried or the death penalty, etc. Again, the ability of Rome to "settle" anything was tied to its ability to burn its adversaries.
x.com/Abathurchan/st…
符荣汉🧭@Abathurchan
Everyone accepts one of the effects of the Reformation is to break the monopoly power of the Pope to instruct kings to burn his religious adversaries. A lot of the criticism of the effects of the Reformation, institutional church disunity, is downstream from this reality.
English
@paisiosdavis @ShamelessPopery (4) (traditionally, but not intrinsically necessaily, signified by the formula "let him be anathema"), not the obiter dicta that follows or precedes such pronouncements. I don't think the fathers were incorrect in their intended meaning, but if they were, so be it.
English
@paisiosdavis @ShamelessPopery (3) Finally, even if your interpretation of these conciliar texts was correct, they would simply be wrong, as a matter of sheer historical fact. It's well-established, in Catholicism at least, that conciliar infallibility extends to the definitive dogmatic pronouncements
English
I admittedly haven't followed all of the latest round of this fight, but it seems like Catholics and Protestants are arguing about whether there's a valid argument from silence to be drawn from the fact that St. Ignatius doesn't mention a bishop in Rome in his letter. Arguments from silence CAN be valid, but they're often not. In this case, let's spell out the argument from Ignatian silence to see just how strong or weak it is.
1. Ignatius writes 6 letters to people and churches that he knows personally, all in Asia Minor, where he's recently been. In each of these, he greets or references their three-tiered hierarchy, and reminds the laity to obey their bishop, presbyters, and deacons.
2. Over the course of these letters, he makes clear that to be a Church it is necessary to have this three-tiered hierarchy.
3. In his letter to Rome, he's greeting a church he doesn't know personally, and rather than giving them parting instructions, he is writing them a deeply-personal letter about his own upcoming martyrdom.
4. In the letter, he not only greets them as a Church, but the presiding Church.
5. Nevertheless, he doesn't greet any of these strangers by name - there's no reference to their bishop or presbyters or deacons.
6. He DOES however, refer to the monepiscopacy twice, in refering to himself as the sole bishop of Syria.
From this, we're meant to conclude that... the Romans had presbyters and deacons, but not a bishop?
English
@Abathurchan It is extremely low-IQ of you to suggest that ecclesial authority is simply and arbitrarily "presupposed" by the Catholic, like its a logically self-evident axiom. I can't speak to every idiot on Twitter, but that has never been the traditional Catholic mode of argument.
English
@Xavier__Toto Rome cannot "settle" a controversy against the Eastern Orthodox by simply presupposing its own supreme authority against the Orthodoxy. If it were able to militarily and by force have all orthodox compelled to accept its authority, it would "settle" it, but it never could.
English