Catholicism Is False

Your comments once again in bold. Wow, I did not know that the CCC wasn't considered infallible. You misunderstand what a Catechism is and the degrees of infallibility. A catechism is a guide to teach the faith. As such, it contains truths considered infallible. (E.g. Jesus is God). John Paul II declared it to be a sure norm of truth because it teaches these infallible truths. However, in itself it is not infallible in every word or phrase. As the links/quotes I provided explain, as a whole it is a valuable resource, teaches the faith accurately, etc. because it is an act of what is known as the "Ordinary Magisterium." However, it is not mean to define any dogmas and as such it is not infallible in every word choice or sentence even though the doctrines they present as a whole are infallible (not really because they are in the Catechism, more because they have been continuously taught by the Ordinary Magisterium including by the Catechism OR taught in an "extraordinary manner"...you need some background knowledge on the Magisterium to understand this point, so if you would like I can elaborate or provide a link. A good place to start is to check out the Catechism or an older one like the Baltimore Catechism. Also Catholic Answers is a good resource). That's pretty stupid on the Church's part, I have to say. They are promoting a book loaded with speculation and stuff that may not even be true,Well see my above. That's not an accurate representation of what the Catechism is. It certainly contains doctrines but itself is not an act of the extraordinary magisterium, therefore, we need not take every sentence to be absolute, final, and literal. without even distinguishing which parts are de fide dogma (infallible) and which could be simply not true.That's not entirely true either. For instance, the part you sight above about infants dying without baptism it explicitly states " to hope" which means possibly true but speculative. Also, read the references in Denzinger and other places that the Catechism sites. This should help clarify which is infallible and which is not. Ridiculous. Nevertheless, I will continue this debate from a different angle. However, a Catholic may concede that the Catechism was a bad idea and that it is "pretty stupid" because infallibility does not apply to the prudentail matters of Church leadership. These doctrines are taken from Ludwig Ott's "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma." Therefore, I suggest you get a copy and read the explanations he provides before making these sweeping assertions. However, I will save you some work since I have a copy and either quote or paraphrase for you. 183: Grace cannot be merited by natural works on page 236: "That the first grace cannot be merited is obvious from this that there is an intrinsic lack of a proportion between nature and grace...and because of the impossibility of meriting the grace which is essential to supernatural merit." 212: Grace can be increased by good works.page 262 discusses this issue. It is discussing the inequality of something called "sanctifying grace" which is an accident of the soul which makes us pleasing to God. Catholic theology teaches that once we are in the state of grace, that is, we have sanctifying grace, we can then merit. However, this is because of the grace in our soul. If you look above, the "intrinsic impossibility" dissapears because once grace is on the soul, the proportion no longer is between grace and nature, as man now has grace and therefore with grace he can earn more. The above is speaking of "natural works" which are good works which proceed from man's nature alone. However, once he has grace on his soul, he no longer acts by natural works but his works have supernatural value. Therefore, there is no contradiction between 183 and "Secondary graces can be merited by supernatural works" because these presupose an unmerited grace. This answer should suffice to show that your other arguments below are faulty. They make the same mistake 215: By his good works the justified man really acquires a claim to supernatural reward from God. 216: A just man merits for himself through each good work an increase of sanctifying grace [...] The first line contradicts the other 3. Line 183 we can't earn grace, while the other 3 basically say we can. 43: God is infinitely just. 44: God is infinitely merciful. 191: God[...] predestines certain men [...] to eternal rejection. This leaves out the important "on account of their forseen sins" which the original Ott has where you have [...] on page 245. This is important. Now, we could argue all day about the justice of hell but that's really another debate. There are questions over how a just God could send someone to eternal torment, however that is a THEOLOGICAL ISSUE/QUESTION NOT a SELF-CONTRADICTION in Catholicism.Further, Ott also clarifies "Heretical...predestination to the eternal punishment of hell, that is, without consideration of futre demerits. This was rejected as false..." Ott also quotes St. Augustine "God is good, God is just. He can save a person without good works, because he is good, but He cannot condemn anyone without evil works because He is just." Now this raises important theological questions on grace, however, these are discussed in the Catholic Encyclopedia article on predestination and in Ott's book on pages 242-250. Also, you did not answer any of my arguments, so they seem to stand as of now.