Benedictus Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Cognitive dissonance is nice way to deal with some things. Have you ever nudged someone with cognitive dissonance. You'll often get one big defensive back lash if it makes them question themselves. Well, a rant or a long sermon about how you're wrong and they're right. You end up wondering who was trying to convince themselves of what by the end of it. :dancer1: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Credo in Deum Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 It should also be noted that one heretical stance -even if you accept 99% of the Church's doctrine- still corrupts the virtue of faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Ryan Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 The Church describes herself as having the ability and authority to teach infallibly. Your understanding of Church is not based on the Church's understanding of herself. Understanding the Church as she understands herself is not idolatry. A much better case can be made that making up one's own understanding of Church is idolatry. For the Church is the Body of Christ. Therefore to imagine a false Church is to make a false Christ. But which time period of the Church? I am merely not convinced that throughout the 2,000 years of Catholicism the Church has always held to the same beliefs as it does now. We had a conciliar period which rejected the idea of ultramontanism. If the council were allowed to decide matters against the Pope, we may have had a more moderate stance on birth-control since the committee of bishops at Vatican II recommended for a moderate position, which Pope Paul VI over-ruled with Humanae Vitae. Infallibility appears to be an invention of the medieval period. Besides, it is not even logical to infallibly decree infallibility, before one infallibly possesses infallibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 When you say "Tradition" you refer to the fact that this belief was held by the Church over most of its history. When I say "speculation" I refer to the fact that this belief originated from theological speculation, i.e. no one has actually testified seeing the Mother of Jesus rise to Heaven, and no scriptural text refers to such an event either. So, it may be "Tradition", but that doesn't change the origin of the belief; it's still pure speculation. That doesn't warrant it becoming dogma. A lot of pious opinions have been held since the beginning of Christianity (such that some angels have names like Gabriel etc.), most will never become dogma. It was not speculation. Tradition is based on oral teaching of the apostles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Asik Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 It was not speculation. Tradition is based on oral teaching of the apostles. And how did the apostles come to believe that Mary was carried to Heaven? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Credo in Deum Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Besides, it is not even logical to infallibly decree infallibility, before one infallibly possesses infallibility. Wut? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Ryan Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Wut? I mean that the reasoning for infallibility is circular. If the decree that proclaims decrees infallible is not already infallible itself, then it is not logical to hold that infallibility is infallible. It is a mouthful, I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selah Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 And how did the apostles come to believe that Mary was carried to Heaven? The Apostles went to her grave and found it empty, with roses resting in her place. It wasn't just a legend. It actually happened. The Mother of God was assumed into heaven, body and soul, three days after dying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perigrina Posted June 23, 2014 Author Share Posted June 23, 2014 Have you ever nudged someone with cognitive dissonance. You'll often get one big defensive back lash if it makes them question themselves. Well, a rant or a long sermon about how you're wrong and they're right. You end up wondering who was trying to convince themselves of what by the end of it. :dancer1: Some people express their defensiveness by a long psychoanalysis of the people they disagree with. I don't think "I'm psychologically healthy and you're damaged" is any better than "I'm right and you're wrong." If anything, the latter is a more honest approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Asik Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 The Apostles went to her grave and found it empty, with roses resting in her place. It wasn't just a legend. It actually happened. The Mother of God was assumed into heaven, body and soul, three days after dying. Really? Could you name a source where this event was recorded? From what I've read, even most theologians involved in the definition of that dogma agreed that there was no historical basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Credo in Deum Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 I mean that the reasoning for infallibility is circular. If the decree that proclaims decrees infallible is not already infallible itself, then it is not logical to hold that infallibility is infallible. It is a mouthful, I know. When the Church defines or sets down doctrines it is not creating something new, but proclaiming what the Church has always held. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 And how did the apostles come to believe that Mary was carried to Heaven? The Apostles went to her grave and found it empty, with roses resting in her place. It wasn't just a legend. It actually happened. The Mother of God was assumed into heaven, body and soul, three days after dying. Also there were many things revealed to the Apostles at Pentecost, some of which they did not write down. Hence the oral tradition. It seems reasonable to me that they may have even known Mary was to be assumed into heaven even before it occurred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selah Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Really? Could you name a source where this event was recorded? From what I've read, even most theologians involved in the definition of that dogma agreed that there was no historical basis. Is there historical basis for the Virgin birth? The Resurrection? I believe, by faith, that the Mother of God, after dying, was assumed into heaven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selah Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Also there were many things revealed to the Apostles at Pentecost, some of which they did not write down. Hence the oral tradition. It seems reasonable to me that they may have even known Mary was to be assumed into heaven even before it occurred. This is another good point. A lot of Christianity's tradition is oral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Is there historical basis for the Virgin birth? The Resurrection? I believe, by faith, that the Mother of God, after dying, was assumed into heaven. We believe that which has been revealed to us by the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now