Catholicism Is False

Your comments in bold, mine in regular print. First, I comment on your arguments then I move on to mine. If the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) contains the slightest logical inconsistency, then Catholicism is false.This would only be the case if the Catechism was considered infallible. However it is not. This is what Archbishop Leveda said quoting former Pope Benedict when he was a cardinal: "As a compendium of Catholic doctrine, moreover, the individual doctrines which are present in the catechism have the weight and authority which they bear in the dogmatic tradition of the church. As Cardinal Ratzinger remarked, "The individual doctrines that the catechism affirms have no other authority than that which they already possess. What is important is the catechism in its totality: It reflects the church's teaching; anyone who rejects it overall separates himself unequivocally from the faith and teaching of the church" ("The Catechism and the Optimism of the Redeemed," 479)." Read what apologist Jimmy Akin has to say:http://jimmyakin.com... Pope John Paul II said, upon approval of the CCC, “I declare [the CCC] to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion.”A sure norm of teaching is something that is useful to teach the Faith. This does not mean that it is a dogmatic statement that can contain no errors. This simply means it is a good explanation and representation of Catholic belief. Catholics consider the Catechism to be infallible insofar as it teaches what was taught by the Ordinary and Extraordinary Magisterium. As a whole it contains infallible truth, and this is what the Pope means, however, not every word choice is to be understood as infallible. Church teaching is considered infallible in its exact formulation (that is, word for word infallible teaching) only when it is an act of the extraordinary magisterium, that means, a formal statement with full authority of the Pope or a Church council. Otherwise, the teachings may still be infallible but not in their exact form, word choice, or style. It does not mean every word is infallible. Besides, even if the Pope had said "the Catechism is infallible" it would not be necessary so unless the Pope had taught this "ex Cathedra" that means using his full authority as Pope. There is no reason that his statement is to be considered infallible. Further, no commentator or theologian in the Church has thought the Pope taught this infallibly. That is illogical. According to the CCC, “Baptism is necessary for salvation.” Yet, a few sentences down, we are allowed “to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.”Theologians have generally distinguished between the necessity of precept and means. Precept- something is necessary by precept if God commands it to all without exeption. Baptism is necessary in this sense according to the Church. See the Catechism or any theologianMeans- This means that without this, it is impossible to get to heaven. Sanctifying grace for instance is absolutely necessary by means. Now, something can be ordinarily necessary by means or absoultely. Absolutely admits no exception, ordinarily admits some exceptions in extraordinary cases. Baptism is to be taken as necessary in the second sense. Read any prominent Catholic theolgian and they will tell you this. http://www.newadvent.org... http://www.cin.org... See question 154 Thus, Catholicism is false.Now, in making this debate, I understand that you are taking the BOP in arguing Catholicism is false, all I have to do is show you are wrong. However, I have more space and thus will argue it is true. Obviously, I have not enough room to make a full argument. I will simply make a few brief points1) God exists-We know God exists from reason alone. A simply argument is this: Contingent things exist. Continent things by their own nature cannot explain their own existence. If everything were contingent, existence would be uninteligable at best and impossible at worst. Since neither of these options is reasonable, there must be a necessary being. -As the cause of the world, the necessary being would have to contain in itself the perfections of its creation to be said to be an actual cause of these things. The perfections of creatures by either be contained in their exact form in the necessary being or as ideas in an intellect. The former is impossible because a necessary being is absoultely simple (non-composite) (that is because to be composite is to exist through parts rather than by its own nature which is by definition not-necessary) that means the latter must be true2) We have an immaterial soul-One material substance cannot have intrinsic meaning, it cannot be "about" another material substance because it cannot contain the essence of another thing in itself without being that thing.-Our intellects can contain the essences of many things and our thoughts can have inherent meaning. Therefore, intellectual activity and the will that follows upon that must be acts of an immaterial component to man3) If God reveals something, we ought to believe it4) There is good evidence that God reveals Himself through Jesus-The best explanation of the events of early Christianity is the ressurection. Otherwise, the early Christians either died for a lie or a delusion. It is ridiculous to die for a lie. As for a delusion, it would have to be a mass delusion. Yet the Romans or the Jews couldve disproved the delusion by presenting the body of Jesus or simply wiping out a small number of the deluded. Yet despite the efforts of hte most powerful government in the world, and the counter-intuitive, hard to accpet claims of the random Jewish carpenter somehow compelled belief and overcame the efforts of the government5) Revelation only makes sense with an interpreting body to continue to teach God's revelation throughout history. Otherwise, we can never know what God actually revealed. As we see, there are many disagreements among protestants. How do we know who is right? What interpretation is correct? How do we apply ancient teachings to todays world? The only answer is an infallible Church. Also, the early Christians clearly believed in the authority of Peter.6) There are good signs today of the truth of Catholicism. Here are examples:http://www.miraclehunter.com...http://shroud.com...http://www.michaeljournal.org...http://www.therealpresence.org...