<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Bitter Pill</title>
	<atom:link href="http://newskeptics.com/?feed=rss2&#038;p=291" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://newskeptics.com/?p=291</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress site</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 23 Mar 2014 02:15:23 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.38</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Devin Rose</title>
		<link>http://newskeptics.com/?p=291#comment-51</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Devin Rose]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 09 Sep 2012 19:45:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://newskeptics.com/?p=291#comment-51</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Paul, God bless you with your physical healing and getting more healthy. It is not easy, to be sure, and there are many conflicting nutrition paradigms.

Regarding faith, I always come back to the fundamental position that, if God wanted us to know Him, He must have revealed Himself in a way that we could know Him and then made it possible for that truth to be transmitted to people throughout centuries. Protestants say that He did this through Christ and then the Bible alone. Catholics and Orthodox say He did this through Christ and then through the Church with the Scriptures and sacred Tradition. 

Sure, the Catholics and Orthodox differ about the primacy of the bishop of Rome, and the non-exhaustive historical evidence can be plausibly interpreted either way, if all we had was the historical data to go on. I think the evidence leans strongly toward papal primacy, universal jurisdiction (properly understood), and infallibility. In fact if infallibility were false I would expect to see glaring, obvious, indisputable examples of pope&#039;s teaching falsehoods and errors and reversals of dogma. Instead we have just a handful of popes and situations brought up as even potentially showing infallibility is false. If the Catholic Church were not guided by God, by now the Church would look Protestant and be reversing teachings on contraception, abortion, same-sex issues, etc. etc. Yet that hasn&#039;t happened. The Church has marched into the modern world taking hits right on the chin and still fighting and not reversing any dogma.

Orthodoxy is more nebulous in the degree of authority behind doctrines. They haven&#039;t held an ecumenical council since they schismed. They say its because there have been no new serious heresies to be dealt with. Not very plausible. But the Catholic explanation that the pope&#039;s approval is the necessary criterion for a council to be ecumenical is much more plausible. In fact, it exactly explains why the Orthodox haven&#039;t held one: they schismed from the pope and now lack that principle of unity that can confirm a council as ecumenical.

In any case, God has revealed Himself and is with us in the Holy Spirit, in Christ in the Eucharist, dwelling within us. In faith we believe this whether Catholic or Orthodox (and to a lesser degree, for Protestants).

God bless!
Devin]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Paul, God bless you with your physical healing and getting more healthy. It is not easy, to be sure, and there are many conflicting nutrition paradigms.</p>
<p>Regarding faith, I always come back to the fundamental position that, if God wanted us to know Him, He must have revealed Himself in a way that we could know Him and then made it possible for that truth to be transmitted to people throughout centuries. Protestants say that He did this through Christ and then the Bible alone. Catholics and Orthodox say He did this through Christ and then through the Church with the Scriptures and sacred Tradition. </p>
<p>Sure, the Catholics and Orthodox differ about the primacy of the bishop of Rome, and the non-exhaustive historical evidence can be plausibly interpreted either way, if all we had was the historical data to go on. I think the evidence leans strongly toward papal primacy, universal jurisdiction (properly understood), and infallibility. In fact if infallibility were false I would expect to see glaring, obvious, indisputable examples of pope&#8217;s teaching falsehoods and errors and reversals of dogma. Instead we have just a handful of popes and situations brought up as even potentially showing infallibility is false. If the Catholic Church were not guided by God, by now the Church would look Protestant and be reversing teachings on contraception, abortion, same-sex issues, etc. etc. Yet that hasn&#8217;t happened. The Church has marched into the modern world taking hits right on the chin and still fighting and not reversing any dogma.</p>
<p>Orthodoxy is more nebulous in the degree of authority behind doctrines. They haven&#8217;t held an ecumenical council since they schismed. They say its because there have been no new serious heresies to be dealt with. Not very plausible. But the Catholic explanation that the pope&#8217;s approval is the necessary criterion for a council to be ecumenical is much more plausible. In fact, it exactly explains why the Orthodox haven&#8217;t held one: they schismed from the pope and now lack that principle of unity that can confirm a council as ecumenical.</p>
<p>In any case, God has revealed Himself and is with us in the Holy Spirit, in Christ in the Eucharist, dwelling within us. In faith we believe this whether Catholic or Orthodox (and to a lesser degree, for Protestants).</p>
<p>God bless!<br />
Devin</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
