Defining Your Faith

[Avatar]

Right, as promised, the diversion from the abortion topic has been (laboriously ) copied and pasted into a new thread for the Close. As sometimes happens when we split something, the first couple of posts may look a little disconnected, but read on, and you’ll quickly get the idea of where we’re going.

Let’s hope the format of this isn’t too annoying or confusing, and that we can get this started up again.

We Catholics are against abortion because it takes a human life. we are also against euthenesia and the death penalty. rather consistant.
and we promote that sex is a wonderful expression of love for a married couple. would you rather have happily married couples or std's, abortions, divorces?

Ummm, no. We Catholics have no official stance on the death penalty. Check your Catechesis.

And this Catholic made up his own mind about abortion and euthanasia.

Totally agreed, Cail. "We" Catholics? I may be, like, the worst Catholic ever, but I'm a Catholic and I'm pro-choice.

www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/fifth.html
2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor. "If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. "Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.' [68]

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.[74] God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.[75]

Okay. So? I take issue with the fact that you indicated that all Catholics are anti-abortion. Most Catholics I know are pro-Choice. Funny, I guess we Catholics are wrong.

dennis,

Okay. So? I take issue with the fact that you indicated that all Catholics are anti-abortion. Most Catholics I know are pro-Choice. Funny, I guess we Catholics are wrong.

There are certain rules that define being a Catholic.
Picking and choosing which ones you like.....

thank you HLT.

Mhoram: why be Catholic if you don't like the rules? what other rules are negotiable?

Funny, I know a lot of Jews who don't always eat kosher. I believe the arguments here about 'Catholics', not the Catholic church. You can state your opinion, you can state the stance of the church, but to claim to speak for the whole group...

Mhoram: why be Catholic if you don't like the rules? what other rules are negotiable?

By that logic you need to move out of the country.

Cail,

THANK you. Very few Catholics, except the crazy ones, follow 100% of the doctrines, laws, and rules. My grandparents are the most devout Catholics I know, born & raised, but I don't think my grandfather believes in papal infallibility, for example. I wonder why. Oh yes, he has a brain.

For the unenlightened, can someone please explain how faith continues to exist when "having a brain" requires that certain dogma not be believed?

(For the record, if I was going to take up a religion, it'd probably be Catholic. I like hearing Latin being spoken, and the churches are really quite amazing.)

Plissken,

For the unenlightened, can someone please explain how faith continues to exist when "having a brain" requires that certain dogma not be believed?

Good question. I honestly don't know: I could say that religion is dying, but I'd look to the American heartland and see the reactionist conservatives who are fighting off that very death. I guess that a lot of it is tradition, or being part of this religion beacuse everyone else is, etc. On the other hand, I believe that faith precludes following dogma. That's another big aspect.

(For the record, if I was going to take up a religion, it'd probably be Catholic. I like hearing Latin being spoken, and the churches are really quite amazing.)

Well, you do know that Latin hasn't been spoken at Catholic services since Vatican II in the '60s, right?

Dogma (at least Catholic flavors) is different from faith. I believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth, of all that is, seen and unseen, and so on. That's my faith. The Dogma is how The Church applies their interpretation of faith to the human condition. Is wearing a condom or eating meat on Fridays akin to killing your neighbor and raping his wife? Absolutely not. All churches, all faiths, and all poeple of faith pick and choose what they take literally, and what they take as allegory. When there's a bunch of like-minded people, they form a sect.

I love the Latin Mass too Pliss. I try to go to one a couple times a year.

I guess that what I'm asking is the same "pick and choose" question that Sarge asked, albeit from the opposite direction: How do you decide where the "dogmatic line" is?

For instance, when asked, I usually say that my religious/spiritual affiliation is "Agnostic, with a few Ideas on the Subject." The longer version of this is that I think that there is a higher power that is a creative force. I'm pretty sure that it is (by our defintion) intelligent, and believing this gives me a certain comfort.

Here's the rub: I'm also pretty sure that this view is the same one held by our ancestors, who tried to define this creative force through their own worldview, just as I'm doing.

A critical reading of Leviticus (or any other religious Book of the Law) gives us a pretty good idea of the way our ancestors saw the world, but relatively little about how God sees the world. And then there's the whole question of translation - Abominations having a whole range of punishments available, from staying outside the camp until the priest says it's okay to come back and so on, while Causing Confusion has only one penalty: Throw rocks at everyone involved until they're dead, dead, dead... - this kind of thing makes me trusting primitive forebearers to tell me what the State of the Universe is a little difficult for me.

So, as we advance as a culture, and we see old Dogmas (Infallibility and Abomination: I do not think these words mean what it is you think them to mean!) drop away, how do you draw the line?

The short answer is, I think about it.

Many religions take issue with birth control. One of the reasons was that the more babies you have, the more folks you end up with practicing the religion.

Now, putting on my thinking cap, and applying a bit (OK, a lot) of my built-in cultural bias, I come to the conclusion that it does no one (including God) any good to have a bunch of unwanted ankle-biters running around. And, the big thing is that it's not specifically prohibited by the Bible.

I don't understand people who say they are Catholic, for example, but they don't believe in two of the most fundamental Catholic rules: No abortion and papal infalibility.
Forget abortion, Papal infalibility is the only thing that sets Catholics apart from any other Christain faith.

To me it's like saying that you're a vegetarian but you still eat meat everyday, and not by accident but by choice.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't have doubts or questions but to state that you're against something that defines the very group you say you're a part of just seems a little odd to me.

Actually, there are numerous things that set Catholics apart from other Christian sects, papal infallibility is but one of them.

But again, I think you're confusing Dogma with faith, which are two very, very different things.

I was raised Catholic, and I still attend mass weekly. But I've come to make my own decisions on big issues based on what I have learned and based on my experiences. I think the Catholic faith has many good morals and lessons that it teaches, but I am not going to let some religious dogma determine how I think.

In fact, more and more over the years, as I have been learning new things about science, it has been harder for me to accept the story that is told by Bible as "the way things happened." I mean, the bible teaches that God created Adam and Eve, but as a student of science I have learned that evolution is probably the best explaination we have on the creation of life. And there are other areas where I have tried to distance myself from the hard teachings of the church so that I can explore ideas openly.

And I definitely would not agree with some things, like the papal infallibility. And I'm not sure where I stand on abortion.

So am I not a Catholic? By that definition, I guess I am not.

But I still attend mass every week. Why? I'm not entirely sure. I think it's because I am currently in a state of life where I like to keep an open mind on the big issues. Maybe it's just because of habit. Or maybe it's just because it's a nice way to relax my brain for an hour every week, and just listen or let my brain wander. Or maybe it's just because it's the religion of my family. Or because I enjoy the good messages that the church teaches, like that whole "stop treating other people like crap" thing.

But I try to take it all with a grain of salt. Sometimes I hear sermons that I completely disagree with. But I keep going anyway to listen.

I think we should be encouraging more people to think for themselves. And not encouraging people to simply accept what a church tells them to think.

Anyway, just wanted to throw in my two cents.-jay

Very well spoken (as usual), jay.

Cail,
THANK you. Very few Catholics, except the crazy ones, follow 100% of the doctrines, laws, and rules.

then why be Catholic if you aren't going to follow the doctrines, laws and rules? what exactly makes you Catholic then? i agree with HLT, a vegetarian doesn't eat meat. eating meat makes you a non-vegetarian. plenty of folks with brains follow the doctrines, laws and rules of the Catholic faith.

We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen."

www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm

Actually, there are numerous things that set Catholics apart from other Christian sects, papal infallibility is but one of them.

Don't the mainstream Mormons have a similar belief about their church leader?

Actually, there are a lot of similarities between Mormonism and Catholicism; both churches have doctrine that say their leader is infailable; both have confession; both do not allow women to become priests; both push people to have as many children as possible.

There are a lot of differences, too, of course.

I just thought I would throw that in there like a little stink bomb and run away.

Actually, there are numerous things that set Catholics apart from other Christian sects, papal infallibility is but one of them.

But again, I think you're confusing Dogma with faith, which are two very, very different things.

But doesn't faith make you a Christian and Dogma make you a Catholic?

What am I missing here?
I'm not just being an jerk on this one.

And Jay, I see what you're saying and that's the attitude of many American Catholics I bet.

But:
"I think we should be encouraging more people to think for themselves. And not encouraging people to simply accept what a church tells them to think."

(The Catholic Church removes priests who think like that.)
That's not what the Church is about.

Faith makes you religious, Christianity, Catholicism, Hinduism, etc. makes it Dogma......

dennis,

Okay. Let me get this straight. You believe that the pope is God's representative on earth, and that all his decisions are therefore unquestionably correct 100% of the time? Because if you believe in all of the Church's dogma, then that is the case. In any event, I don't think that following all of the dogma is really what makes a Catholic a Catholic, and that applies to all sects of all religions. As Cail said, there is faith and there is dogma. You can believe in One Catholic, Holy, Apostolic Church, but that does not preclude the existence and relevancy of other churches and faiths, for example. Me personally, when I'm 18 I'm not going to go to Church or anything anymore, but I consider myself something of a Catholic - I regularly attend masses, I receive Communion, and I believe in the teachings of Christ. What will make me basically renounce Catholicism when I'm older is Church teachings and the Church itself, which I find to be fallacious and corrupt most of the time. But the Church has given me a lot in my life - it's an important part of my family, and it has given me an education for God's sake. I've attended Catholic school for the past decade. That's why for the time being anyway, I consider myself a Catholic.

Dennis, by your definition then you're a lousy Catholic. You've got no problem with birth control, homosexuality, or gay marriage....All things the Church isn't too fond of. If you're not going to walk lock-step, then why be Catholic, right? Oh, and Mother Church sure got it right with that whole "everything revolving around out flat Earth" thing too, didn't they?

I'm Catholic because I'm (first and foremost) a Christian, I agree with the Catholic-specific ways of worshipping (veneration of Saints, Eucharist, etc), and it's an absolutely beautiful Mass.

But as I've said before, I don't like religion in my government, nor do I like government in my religion. I don't want my church defining laws for me, any more than I want the President telling me how to pray.

Yes, well, the leader of the LDS church is called The Prophet, and it isn't a metaphorical title.

Confession isn't quite the same, though. You're really not required to confess to anyone except God unless you did something really bad. Mormons also don't believe in original sin.

I guess what Mormons have in common with Catholics occurs where LDS sees itself as restorationist (vice protestant), and since Catholicism has been around the longest, they're the ones that messed it up the least. I think the biggest similarities are in the sacrament and the priesthood. The biggest differnce is probably the LDS's avoidance of crosses or any similar icons (which isn't to say they don't use any symbols).

Cail: the Church's stance on gay marriage is something i have had conversations about with my priest. i don't deny that i am a work in prgress. birth control is for the prevention of a mortal sin. venial, not cardinal. (and i have had that discussion with my confessor) and my stance on homosexuality does not differ from the Church. i have simply condemned those who hate and call for others to hate, how is that inconsistant with Catholic teaching? I don't recall the movement of the planets ever being ex cathedra.


Mhoram: we don't get to define Catholocism to suit us. what dogma are you against? and i'm not sure if you are mis-stating papal infallibility on purpose.
www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

Sorry Sgt, I agree with Cail, you don't have to agree with everything that a church makes a point of faith about in order to call yourself a member of that particular church.

If Mhoram and Jay call themselves Catholic, then it's because that's the expression of faith that they most like, or feel most comfortable with.

If you can have problems with a fundamental part of the Churches teaching, and still consider yourself Catholic, I don't see any reason other people can't. You're defining Catholicism to suit yourself. Unless you someday hope to be converted to the literal teaching of the church?

i'm defining Catholicism the way the Catholic Church defines it. but I will wait until you can split this.

OK, you're defining Catholicism as the church defines it, but then, if you apply the same reasoning to yourself you're not actually a Catholic, because you're picking and choosing what you agree with.

my defense. I know when I am wrong and strive to change myself. not the Church.

So you think that the Church's position on issues such as homosexuality and the death penalty is right, and you have to change your mind to come into line with that, and until you do, you're not a good Catholic?

depends on who is defining the positions? i could not justify being against abortion but for the death penalty. and i argued that the church shouldn't have to recognize gay marriage. i called for civil unions to protect the rights of gay couples. (you can look it up) i don't condemn gays or believe that any of us are less of sinners. some religious folks seem to think that homosexuality is a worse sin than, say, adultry by Baptist ministers.

turns out the Church is right and i often need to adjust course. i have to remind myself to pray for pedophiles and not advocate gutting them. it's a challenge, because I am human.

but believing in the Trinity, papal infallibility, the Eucharist. these are things that one must believe to be Catholic. (I know, there are more, but i want some cereal)

hope that helps.

But there are only some things in Catholic doctrine that you have to believe in order to be Catholic and the rest are...window dressing?

well there are rules that are iron clad. and some more flexible stuff. when the Pope speaks ex cathedra it becomes law. we have a catechism that i've linked to. and you know the Church has not gone back and changed anything that was part of papal infallibility.

No, but the Church has gone back and reversed decisions of the Pope, made, ipso facto, ex cathedra.

So he was infallible when he was a pope, but it turned out that it wasn't the right choice, so they repealed it, rescinded it, whatever.

Not the greatest argument for infallibility.

Exactly Av.

[Cail]

I think you may have split this too late Av.

[Avatar]

Yeah...tell me about it. And all that effort...ah well, what I really wanted to do was get the thread that it came from freed up...watch that space.

--A

[[Syl]]

Thanks for the work, Av.

[Avatar]

You're more than Welcome Syl, although it was probably more for my benefit than anybody else's.

Now if only the buggers would get posting...the Close has been too quiet lately, I'm missing it.

(Hint hint lurkers...)

--A

[sgt.null]

thanks Av. you may not have noticed, but i hardly go into the Close. i am happy with my Church and dislike hammering anyone on it. because I know how much I dislike being hammered myself. but I shall try. so Av, what is your first question, since we got sidetracked.

[Avatar]

You're a good sport SgtNull.

My stance here was that if the right to call youself Catholic (or anything else) depends on your obediance to, and agreement with, the doctrine of the Church, then nobody who does not wholeheartedly follow their Churches teachings in every respect should be allowed to describe themselves as a member of that church.

However, as Cail so rightly points out, by that logic, nobody who disagrees with their government about anything should have the right to call themselves an American or whatever.

Instead, I submit that it's perfectly possible to disagree with any particular teaching, and still refer to yourself as a Catholic or whatever.

--A

[Xar]

I fully agree with you, Avatar. Besides, it seems to me the discussion has overlooked one detail: Catholicism, or Protestantism, or any other religious group within Christianity (although the discussion would be just as valid for all other religions) is not strictly defined just by temporal rules. That is: even though the stance on abortion, gay marriages, birth control and so on is an official stance for the Church, it is not what differentiates Catholics from Protestants from Orthodox. After all, three hundred years ago these topics were not even dreamt of, and yet the distinction existed. Even papal infallibility fails to explain this: while it could distinguish Catholicism from other Christian faiths, it does not distinguish among the latter.

The real differences among various groups within the same faith are differences of belief. For example, Catholics believe that, although mankind's natural state is sin, through good works and good deeds you may redeem these sins and, upon death, be cleansed and admitted to Heaven. Lutherans believe that mankind's natural state is sin, but you cannot redeem these sins with any sort of good deeds, because all good deeds have sinful motives, even if hidden: therefore, you can only save yourself through grace. Orthodox Christianity also believes that you can do nothing to save yourself, and that it only happens through God's grace, but they also believe that, upon death, if saved by divine grace, you don't "go to Heaven" but rejoin with God, from Whom you were separated due to sin.

So, theological - and not temporal - differences are at the heart of the different groups within a single faith; and it is first and foremost adherence to these theological beliefs that marks you as a member of this or that group.

Papal infallibility, which was mentioned before, can be seen in different ways: from a temporal point of view, any normal person with a brain can understand that, the Pope being human, therefore capable of committing mistakes, temporal infallibility cannot be true; witness what happened during World War II... However, "true" papal infallibility is located within the spiritual realm: since, according to the Gospels, Peter was told by Jesus "whatsoever you bind on Earth I will bind in Heaven", it is believed that whatever spiritual declaration or clarification is done by the Pope is necessarily true. So, if the Pope bestows sainthood on a person, that person actually does indeed become saint in the eyes of God as well, and with God's blessing, because whatever the Pope decides about the spiritual sphere, God would also sanction, due to the promise.

[Avatar]

An excellent post Xar. I had hoped that you would be joining us in this one once I managed to get it to the Close.

(This is also a subtle hint that you should be joining us in the 'Tank as well, by the way. )

You make a very good point about the theological differences, rather than the temporal ones.

I wonder how much thought Christians tend to give to those theological points when thinking about their religions.

To get back to infallibility briefly though, are you suggesting that the Pope is not temporally infallible then? (Since we're using exactly that kind of example) but only theologically infallible?

(And I wonder how far that goes?)

--A

[Xar]

An excellent post Xar. I had hoped that you would be joining us in this one once I managed to get it to the Close.

(This is also a subtle hint that you should be joining us in the 'Tank as well, by the way. )

Oh, I visit the Tank and join the discussions there - but truth be told, most of the America-based discussions are a bit hard to follow, given that I'm not living there and I have little knowledge of the full situation, so I don't want to intrude with comments or ideas that could be inaccurate

You make a very good point about the theological differences, rather than the temporal ones.

I wonder how much thought Christians tend to give to those theological points when thinking about their religions.

To get back to infallibility briefly though, are you suggesting that the Pope is not temporally infallible then? (Since we're using exactly that kind of example) but only theologically infallible?

(And I wonder how far that goes?)

Yes, I'm suggesting that the pope is not temporally infallible; we have had examples of this in the past, and anyway, as far as I know, when releasing the Church's stance on temporal topics, the Pope doesn't order all Catholics to comply with that; he just says, "this is the official position we have". There's a subtle difference there.
As for the theologically infallibility, if you assume that Jesus's promise to Peter was genuine, then it follows that the Pope is theologically infallible, because God honors the promise and sanctions such actions by the Pope. Still, the promise mentioned "binding on Earth", which would suggest that the Pope's theological infallibility only extends to earthbound matters - that is, bestowing sainthood, for example, but not effecting fundamental changes in the layout of the universe. As an example (albeit an absurd one), this would mean that he can make new saints, but he cannot, for example, abolish the existence of the Archangel Michael just by saying the Archangel never existed.

[Avatar]

An excellent post Xar. I had hoped that you would be joining us in this one once I managed to get it to the Close.

(This is also a subtle hint that you should be joining us in the 'Tank as well, by the way. )

Oh, I visit the Tank and join the discussions there - but truth be told, most of the America-based discussions are a bit hard to follow, given that I'm not living there and I have little knowledge of the full situation, so I don't want to intrude with comments or ideas that could be inaccurate

Bah, not only does it not matter at all whether or not your comments are inaccurate, (because we have people who will point out inaccuracies), but an outside opinion is good for the American's taking part. They like to know what we foreigners think of them.

Anyway, I participate in...practically every thread, and I don't live there. And you don't have to live their to comment on events, especially when they deal, at heart, with issues far deeper than mere nation-states. Human rights, political processes and many other issues are universal. Sure, examples are often American, because most members are...American, but that doesn't mean we need to limit it to only what they think about it. Hell, if that were true, I'd never say anything there, and that's obviously not the case. I'm sure you can do better than 13 posts in 3 topics over two years, and I look forward to it.

Yes, I'm suggesting that the pope is not temporally infallible; we have had examples of this in the past, and anyway, as far as I know, when releasing the Church's stance on temporal topics, the Pope doesn't order all Catholics to comply with that; he just says, "this is the official position we have". There's a subtle difference there.

There is indeed. Perhaps too subtle for the laity though. The stance on birth control, for example, is a position that good Catholics are supposed to follow.

If nothing else, the implication that they are ordered to comply is a strong one, and perhaps indistinguishable from the statement of position. However, it is a nice fallback.

As for the theologically infallibility, if you assume that Jesus's promise to Peter was genuine, then it follows that the Pope is theologically infallible, because God honors the promise and sanctions such actions by the Pope. Still, the promise mentioned "binding on Earth", which would suggest that the Pope's theological infallibility only extends to earthbound matters - that is, bestowing sainthood, for example, but not effecting fundamental changes in the layout of the universe. As an example (albeit an absurd one), this would mean that he can make new saints, but he cannot, for example, abolish the existence of the Archangel Michael just by saying the Archangel never existed.

Aah, that's exactly what I was talking about when I wondered how far it would go. Could, I was thinking, the Pope for example abolish purgatory because god had promised to honour his promises. By your definition of the limiting factor placed on that by specifically mentioning "on Earth", the answer must be no.

In essence though, this seems to imply that the Popes infallibility is a very limited sort. Indeed, scarcely what we usually think of when we say infallible.

--A

[Xar]

[quote="Avatar

Yes, I'm suggesting that the pope is not temporally infallible; we have had examples of this in the past, and anyway, as far as I know, when releasing the Church's stance on temporal topics, the Pope doesn't order all Catholics to comply with that; he just says, "this is the official position we have". There's a subtle difference there.

There is indeed. Perhaps too subtle for the laity though. The stance on birth control, for example, is a position that good Catholics are supposed to follow.

If nothing else, the implication that they are ordered to comply is a strong one, and perhaps indistinguishable from the statement of position. However, it is a nice fallback. [/quote]

Yes, there is an implication, but there is no clear-cut command

As for the theologically infallibility, if you assume that Jesus's promise to Peter was genuine, then it follows that the Pope is theologically infallible, because God honors the promise and sanctions such actions by the Pope. Still, the promise mentioned "binding on Earth", which would suggest that the Pope's theological infallibility only extends to earthbound matters - that is, bestowing sainthood, for example, but not effecting fundamental changes in the layout of the universe. As an example (albeit an absurd one), this would mean that he can make new saints, but he cannot, for example, abolish the existence of the Archangel Michael just by saying the Archangel never existed.

Aah, that's exactly what I was talking about when I wondered how far it would go. Could, I was thinking, the Pope for example abolish purgatory because god had promised to honour his promises. By your definition of the limiting factor placed on that by specifically mentioning "on Earth", the answer must be no.

In essence though, this seems to imply that the Popes infallibility is a very limited sort. Indeed, scarcely what we usually think of when we say infallible.

Well, you might also see it another way: the Pope is also supposed to receive divine inspiration and to commune with God for guidance; so, you might also suppose that the Pope's infallibility is not only because of the promise, but also because he receives guidance from God and therefore acts in a manner that is in accord with God's guidance. In such a scenario, the Pope would never abolish purgatory, because he would be supposed to know, through God's guidance, that this wouldn't be, as an euphemism, "a very good idea".

[Avatar]

But isn't this where it starts to fall apart? If the Pope recieves divine guidance for his decree's, then by definition they must be what God wanted him to decree.

So if his temporal "commands" are what god wants, but they turn out to be wrong, or mistaken, or a bad idea, what's the implication there?

I suppose there's no reason that god, if one existed, couldn't change his mind, but that's not exactly the impression that the church, any church, really want's to give. (Messes with the whole omniscience thing. )

Aren't implications from god considered the same thing as commands?

--A

[Xar]

But isn't this where it starts to fall apart? If the Pope recieves divine guidance for his decree's, then by definition they must be what God wanted him to decree.

So if his temporal "commands" are what god wants, but they turn out to be wrong, or mistaken, or a bad idea, what's the implication there?

I suppose there's no reason that god, if one existed, couldn't change his mind, but that's not exactly the impression that the church, any church, really want's to give. (Messes with the whole omniscience thing. )

Aren't implications from god considered the same thing as commands

I would rather say that I would find it strange that God had temporal concerns; I would instead see divine inspiration as an inspiration on spiritual matters - which is then interpreted by the Pope about temporal concerns, when needed. After all, the anti-abortion stance and the advice not to use condoms, for example, both evolved from the simple concept that the Church protects and encourages life; they were extrapolated from this concept, whereas the concept itself could have been divinely inspired.

[Avatar]

Right, except that it seems that the bible doesn't have much to say about protecting life. Indeed, people are killed wholesale all through the bible, usually for the grievious sin of believing in some other deity.

I would certainly agree with you though that it seems very unusual that god has temporal concerns, although I suppose that, in dogma, it relates to that whole "caring for humans" thing.

But I'm not sure I like the thought of the Pope deciding how we should behave temporally, based on his divine spiritual guidance. All it takes is one human prejudice...

--A

[Xar]

Right, except that it seems that the bible doesn't have much to say about protecting life. Indeed, people are killed wholesale all through the bible, usually for the grievious sin of believing in some other deity.

I would certainly agree with you though that it seems very unusual that god has temporal concerns, although I suppose that, in dogma, it relates to that whole "caring for humans" thing.

But I'm not sure I like the thought of the Pope deciding how we should behave temporally, based on his divine spiritual guidance. All it takes is one human prejudice...

Well, Avatar, if you're talking about Christianity you should refer to the Gospels, not just the Bible. And the Gospels are very clear about how important life it and how it should be protected. "Love thy foe", remember?

In any case, the Pope doesn't decide how we should behave temporally: he doesn't issue orders for Catholics to follow under pain of, say, excommunication or eternity in Hell. He issues guidelines the Church wishes to follow - much in the same way as a ruling politician issues guidelines on the way he will rule the country - but the ultimate decision on how to follow these guidelines, or even whether to follow them, is up to the individual. In any case, given that there is no penalty connected with not following these concepts, it follows that they are not mandatory - or rather, that they aren't divine precepts, but temporal precepts issued by a temporal-spiritual authority (the Pope) who extrapolated them from wholly spiritual concepts. Hence, even if you don't agree with the anti-abortion stance, that doesn't make you any less of a Catholic, as long as your faith in the theological concepts of Catholicism (as described above) is strong and as long as you live in a way that agrees with the spiritual precepts of Catholicism.

[Avatar]

In any case, the Pope doesn't decide how we should behave temporally: he doesn't issue orders for Catholics to follow under pain of, say, excommunication or eternity in Hell. He issues guidelines the Church wishes to follow - much in the same way as a ruling politician issues guidelines on the way he will rule the country - but the ultimate decision on how to follow these guidelines, or even whether to follow them, is up to the individual. In any case, given that there is no penalty connected with not following these concepts, it follows that they are not mandatory - or rather, that they aren't divine precepts, but temporal precepts issued by a temporal-spiritual authority (the Pope) who extrapolated them from wholly spiritual concepts. Hence, even if you don't agree with the anti-abortion stance, that doesn't make you any less of a Catholic, as long as your faith in the theological concepts of Catholicism (as described above) is strong and as long as you live in a way that agrees with the spiritual precepts of Catholicism.

I certainly agree that disagreeing with any particular stance of the Church does not make you less of a Catholic, or Lutheran, or whatever.

And I certainly like your interpretation of temporal precepts not being mandatory. But is that the way that they're presented? And is that the way that they are percieved by the general run-of-the-mill believer? As guidelines in other words?

I must say that I've never had the impression from the Church that they think that they're suggesting guidelines. On the contrary, I've always perceived it as excatly the opposite. That you will do something, or will not do something.

I've certainly never thought they were saying, "we think you probably should do this, but if you don't, that's ok too."

(I must hasten to add though that I think it would be a far better approach.)

--A

[Xar]

I certainly agree that disagreeing with any particular stance of the Church does not make you less of a Catholic, or Lutheran, or whatever.

And I certainly like your interpretation of temporal precepts not being mandatory. But is that the way that they're presented? And is that the way that they are percieved by the general run-of-the-mill believer? As guidelines in other words?

I must say that I've never had the impression from the Church that they think that they're suggesting guidelines. On the contrary, I've always perceived it as excatly the opposite. That you will do something, or will not do something.

I've certainly never thought they were saying, "we think you probably should do this, but if you don't, that's ok too."

(I must hasten to add though that I think it would be a far better approach.)

Well, for what it matters, even though I've been born and lived in Rome for 25 years, with all the Vatican media coverage that entails, I can't remember ever hearing these guidelines to be, in truth, mandatory. The clergy, on behalf of the Church, can believe them to be so (although I don't think all do), but they do not actually issue them as orders. Of course, many believers end up following these guidelines because they desire to follow the Church's teachings as closely as possible, or because their local priest tells them they should; but this is a phenomenon that (at least in Italy) is slowly fading. With the possible exception of some regions of southern Italy, most Catholic people now think with their own head, and if they choose to follow these guidelines, they do so because they wish to do so.

[Avatar]

The thing is, good Catholics don't have to be told that they're mandatory. Certainly, from an outsiders perspective as I said, the implication is that they are mandatory, whether or not they're explicitly put that way.

Regardless though, if even some people are applying their own thoughts to them, it can only be a good thing, and the more who do so, the better.

I imagine that the "blind obediance" is more prevalent in ill-educated and poor populations though.

--A

[sgt.null]

yes because of all the good that free thinking has done us.

why can't someone be intelligent and surrender themselves to something greater than themselves?