Church before state.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Grand_Moff_Gav
The question is:

Should Roman Catholic's follow the Pope before the Head of State of their country?

In my opinion, your not a true Catholic if you don't accept that the Pontiff is the successor to Saint Peter and therefore Jesus' appointed representative on Earth.

Thusly, I would put the decrees of the Holy Father before that of the House of Commons or the Queen. Is this unreasonable?

xmarksthespot
Isn't this somewhat a variant of your previous question about whether ecclesiastic law should trump common law? erm

In any case the answer is no, imo. But I'm a Hell-bound amoral atheist/agnostic.

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Isn't this somewhat a variant of your previous question about whether ecclesiastic law should trump common law? erm

In any case the answer is no, imo. But I'm a Hell-bound amoral atheist/agnostic.

I hoped the Confession one would only really stay on the topic of rights of confession...

However, DK raised some points so I thought that maybe we should look at the relationship between Catholics and Rome.

I mean, people thought JFK shouldn't be president because he was a Catholic and they suspected he would take orders from the Pope.

Transfinitum
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
The question is:

Should Roman Catholic's follow the Pope before the Head of State of their country?

In my opinion, your not a true Catholic if you don't accept that the Pontiff is the successor to Saint Peter and therefore Jesus' appointed representative on Earth.

Thusly, I would put the decrees of the Holy Father before that of the House of Commons or the Queen. Is this unreasonable?
In all theological and religious matters (including political actions from the Church; e.g a call to arms) I would follow the pope and magesterium without question. But on national matters and nation-specific topics, it has been Church practice to allow nations to make their own decisions in that regard. So unless there is a specific decree from the Vatican on a nation-specific issue, a Catholic should follow the head of state (unless there is sin, of course).

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by Transfinitum
In all theological and religious matters (including political actions from the Church; e.g a call to arms) I would follow the pope and magesterium without question. But on national matters and nation-specific topics, it has been Church practice to allow nations to make their own decisions in that regard. So unless there is a specific decree from the Vatican on a nation-specific issue, a Catholic should follow the head of state (unless there is sin, of course).

The question asked if the should put the Vatican's decrees before the States...in all matters.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
The question is:

Should Roman Catholic's follow the Pope before the Head of State of their country?

In my opinion, your not a true Catholic if you don't accept that the Pontiff is the successor to Saint Peter and therefore Jesus' appointed representative on Earth.

Thusly, I would put the decrees of the Holy Father before that of the House of Commons or the Queen. Is this unreasonable?

Assuming they do believe that only through following the orders of their chosen master (the pope) they can receive eternal salvation, I'd advise them to indeed follow his rules over state law. Though, I'd also tell them that they should consider the possibility that their belief is crap and that breaking the law does tend to have unenjoyable consequences.

Transfinitum
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
The question asked if the should put the Vatican's decrees before the States...in all matters.
Well in such case, yes. One's eternal salvation is more important than his temporary comfort in a nation. Look at the early Church in Rome; laymen as well as clergy were persecuted because they followed the Pope's orders over those of Nero. As a result, the pagans became interested in why so many Christians did not fear death, and Rome converted in the next several hundred years.

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by Bardock42
Assuming they do believe that only through following the orders of their chosen master (the pope) they can receive eternal salvation, I'd advise them to indeed follow his rules over state law. Though, I'd also tell them that they should consider the possibility that their belief is crap and that breaking the law does tend to have unenjoyable consequences.

However, thats about weighing up the possibilities.

Question: Follow the Pope before the State?

Outcome 1: The Pope is not Christ's representative and thus your punishment in jail for breaking the law is not going to be compensated. You may loose your liberty or life and all for nothing.

Outcome 2: The Pope is Christ's representative and thus your punishment in jail for breaking the law will be compensated. You may loose your liberty or life but you will receive tenfold in heaven.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
However, thats about weighing up the possibilities.

Question: Follow the Pope before the State?

Outcome 1: The Pope is not Christ's representative and thus your punishment in jail for breaking the law is not going to be compensated. You may loose your liberty or life and all for nothing.

Outcome 2: The Pope is Christ's representative and thus your punishment in jail for breaking the law will be compensated. You may loose your liberty or life but you will receive tenfold in heaven. Yep. Weighing the risks. Though including the likelyhood. To me, the likelyhood that the pope is right is about 0. 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000001%. I take those odds. You probably don't think so. But as I said. if I'd believe it 5% or even 90% I'd take his orders over the states.

Well, since I happen to be anarchist, I don't believe in merit of state laws anyways. It's all just a big calculation though, isn't it?

xmarksthespot
I thought it was supposed to be outcome 3: The Pope may be Christ's representative but - while you still adamantly believe in Christ, and thus should be saved by his crucifixion - you're aware of human fallacy in interpretation, have free will and the ability of independent decision making, and thus would not break laws that are presumably put in place for the general well-being of the commonwealth.

Transfinitum
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I thought it was supposed to be outcome 3: The Pope may be Christ's representative but - while you still adamantly believe in Christ, and thus should be saved by his crucifixion - you're aware of human fallacy in interpretation, have free will and the ability of independent decision making, and thus would not break laws that are presumably put in place for the general well-being of the commonwealth.
If you adamantly believe in Christ, you accept the Holy Scriptures. And the Scriptures tell you that Christ elected an infallible representative on earth to "build his church on". Matthew 16:18:

Peter's name literally translates to "Rock" and so we can see that God granted authority to Peter to lead his church, and because God can have no error, His church cannot as well. Then when Peter went out ordaining bishops and priests, the line of authority held, all the way to the present.

xmarksthespot
I don't particularly care about the etymology of Peter literally meaning rock anymore than I care about the etymology of Apple literally meaning apple in determining the infallibility of a mythological figure's earthbound surrogate or whether Gwyneth Paltrow's spawn will be the anti-christ, respectively.

Transfinitum
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I don't particularly care about the etymology of Peter literally meaning rock anymore than I care about the etymology of Apple literally meaning apple in determining the infallibility of a mythological figure's earthbound surrogate or whether Gwyneth Paltrow's spawn will be the anti-christ, respectively.
Well the important point to note here is that God Himself created the Catholic Church, and by definition God can have no error. Because of this, the pope (when using the doctrine of infallibility) has direct confirmation from God incarnate that what he is saying must be true.

xmarksthespot
The Pope is just a man as fallible as any other man elected by a group of men as fallible as any other men, head of a church that has shown its fallibility numerous times.

Devil King
The average citizen can do what ever trips his trigger. Once elected to state or federal office, to do otherwise would likely be against their oath of office.

As for Kennedy, it was said of him, and it was wrong.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Transfinitum
Well the important point to note here is that God Himself created the Catholic Church, and by definition God can have no error. Because of this, the pope (when using the doctrine of infallibility) has direct confirmation from God incarnate that what he is saying must be true.

He might have created it to test the intelligence and faith of people in their individual morals, as a sort of "if you believe in this, you should be put in hell". Really, there's NOTHING to suggest that the catholic church and the pope in particular have any authority over anyone.

leonheartmm
its unreasonable due to a number of things.

1. the pope is just a falliable man, nuthing more, who is made more falliable with his part to play in protecting dogma

2. catholocism isnt representative of truth

3. neither the pope, nor catholocism advocates laws which are fair to all faiths and beleifs

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by leonheartmm
1. the pope is just a falliable man, nuthing more, who is made more falliable with his part to play in protecting dogma

Yup.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
2. catholocism isnt representative of truth

It could be stick out tongue

Originally posted by leonheartmm
3. neither the pope, nor catholocism advocates laws which are fair to all faiths and beleifs

B- but no one does that.

leonheartmm
^2- naaaaah smile

3- yes, secularistic IDEOLOGIES do. {differentiate ideologies from implementation and perhaps see that the criteria that most relegiouns use for FAIR is always majorly biased in their favour and steps on the rights of others}

Devil King
Originally posted by leonheartmm
its unreasonable due to a number of things.

1. the pope is just a falliable man, nuthing more, who is made more falliable with his part to play in protecting dogma

2. catholocism isnt representative of truth

3. neither the pope, nor catholocism advocates laws which are fair to all faiths and beleifs

The problem with your post is that you present certain factoids as though they have not been heard, considered and internalized by the very people you're arguing against. Common sense does not enter the equation when common sense was abandoned in favor of their own illogial conclusions or sycophantic certainties, to begin with...

leonheartmm
^yes but there is always the chance that reason will appeal to those who have found inconcistancies and things wrong with their blends of dogmatism. still, i am merely expressing my take on it.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by leonheartmm
3- yes, secularistic IDEOLOGIES do. {differentiate ideologies from implementation and perhaps see that the criteria that most relegiouns use for FAIR is always majorly biased in their favour and steps on the rights of others}

No they don't. Laws passed based on secular ideology (or any other) will always block or limit some part of someone's faith. Hell, even Libertarians would take a stance against a faith that requires human sacrifice or vicious holy wars in order to attain salvation.

leonheartmm
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No they don't. Laws passed based on secular ideology (or any other) will always block or limit some part of someone's faith. Hell, even Libertarians would take a stance against a faith that requires human sacrifice or vicious holy wars in order to attain salvation.

yes, but only the part of relegious faith which steps on the rights of others and the society, which is a FAIR thing to do. the thing with beleiving in a relegion is that you cant really claim that any part of relegion is UNFAIR, and this leads to people claiming that anything that even hinders their practices{irrespective of what those practices may be} is unfair or biased. it isnt. its the practices which are unfair to begin with.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by leonheartmm
yes, but only the part of relegious faith which steps on the rights of others and the society, which is a FAIR thing to do. the thing with beleiving in a relegion is that you cant really claim that any part of relegion is UNFAIR, and this leads to people claiming that anything that even hinders their practices{irrespective of what those practices may be} is unfair or biased. it isnt. its the practices which are unfair to begin with.

Forcing ones morals on others is not "fair" no matter how you try to rationalize it. Limiting one group while allowing another to flourish is very much unfair.

Devil King
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Forcing ones morals on others is not "fair" no matter how you try to rationalize it. Limiting one group while allowing another to flourish is very much unfair.

Like homosexuals, right?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Devil King
Like homosexuals, right?

That would be one example. Marriage laws in most US states are unfair to them. Very good.

Would you like a cookie?

Devil King
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That would be one example. Marriage laws in most US states are unfair to them. Very good.

Would you like a cookie?

No thank you; just the same rights as everyon else in this country.

leonheartmm
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Forcing ones morals on others is not "fair" no matter how you try to rationalize it. Limiting one group while allowing another to flourish is very much unfair.

i dont agree at all. if my morals say "i am ruler of the world and all men are below me and my rightful slaves" then is it UNFAIR for others to hinder me in my pursuits of this ideal? NO! the IDEAL of mine is whats unfair in my oppinion, the laws are there to serve every1 equally and this doesnt go in perfectly with relegions who always want special benefeits/tax exempts/ability to preach and openly oppose etc/and yet dont want there to be any kind of LEGAL opposition to their actions because they think that the relegion is always JUST,

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by leonheartmm
i dont agree at all. if my morals say "i am ruler of the world and all men are below me and my rightful slaves" then is it UNFAIR for others to hinder me in my pursuits of this ideal? NO! the IDEAL of mine is whats unfair in my oppinion, the laws are there to serve every1 equally and this doesnt go in perfectly with relegions who always want special benefeits/tax exempts/ability to preach and openly oppose etc/and yet dont want there to be any kind of LEGAL opposition to their actions because they think that the relegion is always JUST,

Just about everyone thinks their way is just. Simply because you like yours doesn't mean it has any sort of generality or fairness.

leonheartmm
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Just about everyone thinks their way is just. Simply because you like yours doesn't mean it has any sort of generality or fairness.

it has nothing to do with liking, it has to do with impartial equality. please look at the example i gave.

Tim Rout
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
The question is:

Should Roman Catholic's follow the Pope before the Head of State of their country? As a Protestant, I realize my perspective on Papal authority and infallibility will be somewhat different from that of the average RC, but I suspect the biblical principle remains the same. Christians should be loyal to God first, and their nation second. While some Catholics might equate loyalty to the Pope with loyalty to God, I suspect Benedict himself would specify God as his prime allegiance, and I see no logical reason why any RC couldn't follow suite.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
In my opinion, you're not a true Catholic if you don't accept that the Pontiff is the successor to Saint Peter and therefore Jesus' appointed representative on Earth. I agree. All true Roman Catholics are required (by the Church) to acknowledge Papal authority and succession, or they aren't Catholic. Thus my rejection of Papal authority is contingent to my Protestant convictions.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Thusly, I would put the decrees of the Holy Father before that of the House of Commons or the Queen. Is this unreasonable? Again, even from a Catholic perspective, the Pope's authority is not his own. One might therefore choose to say, "I would put the decrees of God before that of the House of Commons or the Queen". After all, within the confines of RC theology, Papal infallibility is not universal and not all "decrees" are rendered ex cathedra.

Devil King
So would you place your Protestant beliefs before your country? How hard was it to understand the question?

Deja~vu
A little historical knowledge if it has not been stated. I didn't read back.
The reason of this separation of "Church and State," is because there were a huge amount of Baptists that wanted to make a national religion. It was voted down. Of course there are some protestant groups that twist these views. I know because I used to be a part of that group and received all the propaganda.

It has always been the same though out history. It has always been some religion in conflict with the State/Kingdom/Science and so on. The same can be said between the Christian religion and science...Remember the Christian church threw Galileo into jail and Columbus was also worried because he stated that the world was not flat. Columbus, if he had not left was concerned that he might be persecuted.

Devil King
I think you mean the catholic church. you know, the "great whore".

Kapton JAC
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
The question is:

Should Roman Catholic's follow the Pope before the Head of State of their country?

In my opinion, your not a true Catholic if you don't accept that the Pontiff is the successor to Saint Peter and therefore Jesus' appointed representative on Earth.

Thusly, I would put the decrees of the Holy Father before that of the House of Commons or the Queen. Is this unreasonable?

Were I a catholic, I would, because I would believe that what comes from the Pope comes from God, but since I am not I don't. However, if the Heads of State come up with a law that goes against my belief as a Christian (Which I base off what I believe to be the word of God) I will not follow it, and perhaps even fight sgainst it.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
i dont agree at all. if my morals say "i am ruler of the world and all men are below me and my rightful slaves" then is it UNFAIR for others to hinder me in my pursuits of this ideal? NO! the IDEAL of mine is whats unfair in my oppinion, the laws are there to serve every1 equally and this doesnt go in perfectly with relegions who always want special benefeits/tax exempts/ability to preach and openly oppose etc/and yet dont want there to be any kind of LEGAL opposition to their actions because they think that the relegion is always JUST,

Fairness is based on your perspective. It wasn't fair to Hitler when we stopped him from conquering Europe. But it also wasn't fair to europe when Hitler tried to conquer it. IT wasn't fair to the Americans when the british started to tax them rediculus amounts for everything. It wasn't, however, fair to the British when the americans revolted and claimed independence. It wasn't fair to the slaves that they were forced to work on the Plantations. Howecer, it wasn't fair to the Plantation owners when they had to free them either.

I don't think it is fair that people are trying to stop me from teaching about the one that I believe to be Lord and Savior of our world, even though it does tread on a few toes. But it appears that you see it as unfair that I can openly teach about him BECAUSE it treads on a few toes.

Jack Daniels
to answer the question ( IMO) NO saint peter may have been chosen but following ANY ONE MAN these days against the laws of your country not a good thing as far as I remember from sunday school...(as long as following those country laws arent making you break a commandment)
And by the way future catholic leaders changed the sabbath day from Sat to Sun thus ordering people to break a commandment...(that is discussion for another thread though)so no I wouldnt follow the pope versus my country but Im U.S. citizen and bush sux too so all just my opinion...lol

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by Jack Daniels
to answer the question ( IMO) NO saint peter may have been chosen but following ANY ONE MAN these days against the laws of your country not a good thing as far as I remember from sunday school...(as long as following those country laws arent making you break a commandment)
And by the way future catholic leaders changed the sabbath day from Sat to Sun thus ordering people to break a commandment...(that is discussion for another thread though)so no I wouldnt follow the pope versus my country but Im U.S. citizen and bush sux too so all just my opinion...lol

The Pope didn't change it, the Bible says a few times that the apostles gathered on "the Lords day" to break bread i.e. Eucharist. The Lord's Day is a Sunday.

Jack Daniels
The last supper was not the sabbath day...Jesus did not say to change the sabbath to his last supper day????Im confused by that last statement...perhaps they meant they were gathering on there lord Jesus last supper day to celebrate his life ...that needs research but Ive never ever heard or seen where Jesus told the apostles or anyone else they could change the day of rest he said he did not come to change the law...it was a commandment...and also the roman catholic church did admit to changing the day..digging up those publications would take a little time but I have researched that in the past so has one of my catholic friends they were shocked

Grand_Moff_Gav
Jesus worked on the Sabbath, the Apostles came together on the Lords day. Also, even if the Church did change the day it is fully within their authority to do so.

Jack Daniels
if Jesus did not come to change the law then how in this world can men change it as they feel the need...Gods 10 laws are not to be changed

Placidity
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
However, thats about weighing up the possibilities.

Question: Follow the Pope before the State?

Outcome 1: The Pope is not Christ's representative and thus your punishment in jail for breaking the law is not going to be compensated. You may loose your liberty or life and all for nothing.

Outcome 2: The Pope is Christ's representative and thus your punishment in jail for breaking the law will be compensated. You may loose your liberty or life but you will receive tenfold in heaven.

Or

Outcome 3: The Pope is not Christ's representative and thus your punishment in jail for breaking the law is not going to be compensated.

In fact, Religion X was the one true religion, not Catholicism. Hence all non-believers of Religion X spend eternity in hell.

You will loose your liberty and life, and all for nothing.

*Religion X could be one of many, so good luck with the right one.

Jack Daniels
then again God can see if you stick to your faith (keyword there faith) those with the knowledge and refuse it are condemned correct? Those without the knowledge but stick to there faith should be okay....(yeah yeah I know my religion says use moderation dont whistle at hotties etc..Im not a christian poster child) but thats my view guess thats outcome 4?...lol

superr
The doctrine of infalibility only applies to matters of faith and morals concerning the whole church. on any other subject the pope can talk as much rubbish as any one else. when did a pope last tell catholics to dissobey civil laws.Each catholic and everyone else has his/her own conscience.
or in the words of J C render unto ceasar---

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by superr
The doctrine of infalibility only applies to matters of faith and morals concerning the whole church. on any other subject the pope can talk as much rubbish as any one else. when did a pope last tell catholics to dissobey civil laws.Each catholic and everyone else has his/her own conscience.
or in the words of J C render unto ceasar---

It is within the Pope's authority to instruct the faithful how to act in ALL aspects of their life.

RocasAtoll
The Pope is only infallible on matters of church doctrine and faith. If the Pope told you to go kill the Jews, it would not be sin to abstain because the Pope has no authority on such a subject.

Grand_Moff_Gav
Actually...yes he does. The Pope has stated many times before the absolute authority he wields- Jesus said "what you bind on earth I will bind in heaven" he didn't say, "oh but I limit it to spiritual matters".

RocasAtoll
The Church has though. It's the rationale that allows them to ignore the shitty popes and the crusades.

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
The Church has though. It's the rationale that allows them to ignore the shitty popes and the crusades.

That doesn't change the fact that the Pope is, in Catholicism, the Supreme Head of pretty much everything...

Jack Daniels
I have a question about the pope and catholic religion in general...does not the pope or at least past popes and some catholics...bow to the statue of mary when praying??...your not suppose to bow to any statue right?? idol whatever...I'm gonna pick back up on my research I think but I totally welcome responses from all who are knowledgeable in this area...its interesting what can I say

Grand_Moff_Gav

RocasAtoll
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
That doesn't change the fact that the Pope is, in Catholicism, the Supreme Head of pretty much everything...
It changes the fact he doesn't have absolute authority to tell you to break a law.

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
It changes the fact he doesn't have absolute authority to tell you to break a law.

Yes he does...

It would be a simple fact of him saying something along these lines...

"This law is against the laws of God...I as God's earthly representative know what laws he wants...this one is contrary to his nature...therefore you must disobey it under pain of excommunication."

RocasAtoll
And that will be considered null and void by the next pope or the pope or by someone else later on. The Pope has authority as long as it is in reason. Telling people to break law under threat of excommunication is not within reason.

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
And that will be considered null and void by the next pope or the pope or by someone else later on. The Pope has authority as long as it is in reason. Telling people to break law under threat of excommunication is not within reason.

I'm sorry but, where in Catholic Theology does it say that?

RocasAtoll
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I'm sorry but, where in Catholic Theology does it say that?
I honestly have no idea where, but I've heard it from priests when I brought up the renaissance popes and the crusades. The pope's were not representative because they only have infallibility in matters of faith.

Devil King
Personally, I think it's nutty to transfer the expectations one has of a god-made-man on to a man made god. And I also find it a bit hypocritical of a man who admits his own human shortcomings to accept the mantle of the mouth piece of god.

If things don't work out for McCain in november, maybe he should run for Pope.

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
I honestly have no idea where, but I've heard it from priests when I brought up the renaissance popes and the crusades. The pope's were not representative because they only have infallibility in matters of faith.

I think those priests should be informed the sacraments they have performed are illicit as they are clearly schismatic or they are trying to avoid the difficult question that is the crusades.

Jack Daniels
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
The Pope is only infallible on matters of church doctrine and faith. If the Pope told you to go kill the Jews, it would not be sin to abstain because the Pope has no authority on such a subject.

God did give man a mind and allowed them to decide for themselves ....and if a pope tells you to kill then that goes against God's law and most of us know that would be messed up.....you then know the pope is smokin somethin.....lol...so I agree he does not have the authority to tell anyone to kill anyone!.....Im not sure how far his authority goes but his authority over me is none...I will bow to Jesus and God...I will not bow to any man on this earth till Jesus returns...then you can bet Im bowing..lol..

socool8520
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
The question is:

Should Roman Catholic's follow the Pope before the Head of State of their country?

In my opinion, your not a true Catholic if you don't accept that the Pontiff is the successor to Saint Peter and therefore Jesus' appointed representative on Earth.

Thusly, I would put the decrees of the Holy Father before that of the House of Commons or the Queen. Is this unreasonable?

No.

Mandos
I think the USA should invade Vatican and send the Pope and his Cardinals to Guantanamo.

socool8520
Originally posted by Mandos
I think the USA should invade Vatican and send the Pope and his Cardinals to Guantanamo.

We are already fighting one religious based (on their part), we don't have room for anymore right now big grin

Mandos
laughing

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by Mandos
I think the USA should invade Vatican and send the Pope and his Cardinals to Guantanamo.

It would be amusing to see if they had an exit strategy.

Jack Daniels
oofta

Strangelove
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Yes he does...

It would be a simple fact of him saying something along these lines...

"This law is against the laws of God...I as God's earthly representative know what laws he wants...this one is contrary to his nature...therefore you must disobey it under pain of excommunication." I'm quoting the Catholic Encyclopedia here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#IIIB

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by Strangelove
I'm quoting the Catholic Encyclopedia here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#IIIB
Thats great, however it is fully in his capacity to expand that infallibility to all things...as has been done in the past, namely Boniface VII.

However, even though your quote was totally irrelevant I will indulge it with...the Catechism.

Strangelove

Grand_Moff_Gav

Storm
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Thats great, however it is fully in his capacity to expand that infallibility to all things...as has been done in the past, namely Boniface VII.

However, even though your quote was totally irrelevant I will indulge it with...the Catechism.
Boniface VII, described as "horrid monster" who "in criminality, surpassed all the rest of mankind" and who is not regarded as a valid pope today (antipope).

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by Storm
Boniface VII, described as "horrid monster" who "in criminality, surpassed all the rest of mankind" and who is not regarded as a valid pope today (antipope).

Sorry, i meant Boniface VIII

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
That Jesus quote is nice but easily worked around for any Canon Lawyer. (Namly by saying it was a clever dodge, however it had double meaning...since everything is God's- even Caesar's cones are God's.)

When you have to hire specially trained lawyers to "work around" the words of Jesus I think you're straying pretty far.

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
When you have to hire specially trained lawyers to "work around" the words of Jesus I think you're straying pretty far.

I disagree, I think it proves how easy things are open to interpretation, and ofcourse who is the one person with the authority to give a final judgment on the meaning of a biblical verse- the Pope!

inimalist
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
When you have to hire specially trained lawyers to "work around" the words of Jesus I think you're straying pretty far.

yes

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by inimalist
yes

What does that prove though?

inimalist
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
What does that prove though?

nothing

I'm just not a fan of loop holes

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I disagree, I think it proves how easy things are open to interpretation, and ofcourse who is the one person with the authority to give a final judgment on the meaning of a biblical verse- the Pope!

. . . how about Jesus? Besides it's open to interpretation which means that the Pope has pretty much no claim to be able to give the right one considering that who the Pope is keeps changing. I'll admit that for a Catholic the Pope's interpretation is absolute but you can hardly expect the rest of us to accept that, let alone the opinions of lawyers hired to resolve every inconvinient thing that Jesus says.

Transfinitum
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
. . . how about Jesus? Besides it's open to interpretation which means that the Pope has pretty much no claim to be able to give the right one considering that who the Pope is keeps changing. I'll admit that for a Catholic the Pope's interpretation is absolute but you can hardly expect the rest of us to accept that, let alone the opinions of lawyers hired to resolve every inconvinient thing that Jesus says.

Matthew 16:18:



1: Peter's name literally translates to "rock"

Christ gave the pope the ability to "bind in heaven"; that is to teach infallibly when using the doctrine of infallibility. If you believe in Christ and His word in the Holy Bible; this is positive proof of the Pope's infallibility.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Transfinitum
Matthew 16:18:



1: Peter's name literally translates to "rock"

Christ gave the pope the ability to "bind in heaven"; that is to teach infallibly when using the doctrine of infallibility. If you believe in Christ and His word in the Holy Bible; this is positive proof of the Pope's infallibility.

I can see the argument of founding the Papacy. The rest is a huge stretch.

Strangelove
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Yes I have, and I myself am Catholic.

That Jesus quote is nice but easily worked around for any Canon Lawyer. (Namly by saying it was a clever dodge, however it had double meaning...since everything is God's- even Caesar's cones are God's.)

Yes it can lead to corruption that doesn't dilute the fact that Papal Infallibility can extend to all matters and ever matter on earth. Regardless of your personal opinion, I find it hard to believe that in good conscience that the Pope could use his supposed infallibility to, say, renounce the governments of their home countries. That has no bearing on morals, faith, or indeed anything to do with religion. Would every Catholic be obliged to obey, in your opinion?

I read your quote from the Catechism thoroughly, and nowhere does it say that his infallibility is absolute. I says "To the Church belongs the right always and everywhere to announce moral principles, including those pertaining to the social order"

Moral principles. The Catechism itself limits the infallibility of the Pope. I can see how that can be seen very broadly, but what if, say, the Pope, as was mentioned before, said it was the "moral duty" to kill all the Jews. Would anyone in their right mind consider it Moral? Would the Pope's judgment be suspect?

Transfinitum
Originally posted by Strangelove
Regardless of your personal opinion, I find it hard to believe that in good conscience that the Pope could use his supposed infallibility to, say, renounce the governments of their home countries. That has no bearing on morals, faith, or indeed anything to do with religion. Would every Catholic be obliged to obey, in your opinion?

I read your quote from the Catechism thoroughly, and nowhere does it say that his infallibility is absolute. I says "To the Church belongs the right always and everywhere to announce moral principles, including those pertaining to the social order"

Moral principles. The Catechism itself limits the infallibility of the Pope. I can see how that can be seen very broadly, but what if, say, the Pope, as was mentioned before, said it was the "moral duty" to kill all the Jews. Would anyone in their right mind consider it Moral? Would the Pope's judgment be suspect?

Infallibility is, by the very definition of the word, absolute. If it is not or ever can be false (definition of infallible) then it is redundant to say that infallibility is infallible in the catechism.

On the second point, while it is true that infallibility only extends to moral or dogmatic issues; the expounding upon that teaching can involve going against governments and organizations. Furthermore, the doctrine of infallibility only extends to when the Pope speaks authoritatively to the Church, explicitly stating the infalibility of the statement.

There is another form of infallibility, which is enacted through repeated Church traditions and councils which do not need to be explicitly stated, but that is not what is being referred to here.

But hypothetical questions about infallibility are pointless because of the nature of those questions. Any sort of thing could be infallible, but that in no way implies that it is infallible. In response to your question, the Pope's judgement would be "bound in heaven" as it was "bound on earth"; making the statement inherently true, no matter what it was.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Transfinitum
Any sort of thing could be infallible, but that in no way implies that it is infallible.

Which would mean nothing can claim infallibility . . .

Transfinitum
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Which would mean nothing can claim infallibility . . .

Without express command of the Papacy or the precedent of the church, correct. But remember "loose on earth", "bound in heaven"

Just think of it like a mantra wink

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Transfinitum
Without express command of the Papacy or the precedent of the church, correct. But remember "loose on earth", "bound in heaven"

The Papacy only "could" be infallible just like everything else.

Have you considered that maybe Jesus just knew Peter was into bondage and was promising him hot man on angel sex? Or that perhaps he was only giving the right to Peter and not the succession of Popes? Or that "bound in heaven" has to be taken quite creatively to mean "you're now infallible"?

One more thing, if the Pope declared he could lift anything and then failed to lift a really big rock would reality be at fault?

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Just think of it like a mantra wink

Nonsensical and without meaning until you choose one to focus through it?

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
. . . how about Jesus? Besides it's open to interpretation which means that the Pope has pretty much no claim to be able to give the right one considering that who the Pope is keeps changing. I'll admit that for a Catholic the Pope's interpretation is absolute but you can hardly expect the rest of us to accept that, let alone the opinions of lawyers hired to resolve every inconvinient thing that Jesus says.

I didn't ask you too accept it, in fact I expected you not too.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Regardless of your personal opinion, I find it hard to believe that in good conscience that the Pope could use his supposed infallibility to, say, renounce the governments of their home countries. That has no bearing on morals, faith, or indeed anything to do with religion. Would every Catholic be obliged to obey, in your opinion?

Yes he can and yes if a Catholic wished to remain in Communion with the Church they would have to accept the Pope's ex cathedra statement, of course not all Catholics agree with what the Church says on many things- abortion being one of them.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Moral principles. The Catechism itself limits the infallibility of the Pope. I can see how that can be seen very broadly, but what if, say, the Pope, as was mentioned before, said it was the "moral duty" to kill all the Jews. Would anyone in their right mind consider it Moral? Would the Pope's judgment be suspect?

The Pope has the authority to define morality, indeed in my opinion every judgement involves some moral implication. Economic Policy involes morality. Social policy involves morality. So, if he said it (and Pope's have done it before) then yes it probably would be suspect by many Catholics...but he is still the Pope.

Transfinitum
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The Papacy only "could" be infallible just like everything else.

Not true; if the Son of God incarnate gives you the ability to "bind in heaven" then by the very definition of the perfection of heaven; your statement must, by definition, be true. This is what separates the Church's infallibility from heathens who try to claim it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Or that perhaps he was only giving the right to Peter and not the succession of Popes?

Unfortunately for your position, Apostolic Succession is biblically supported in Acts 1:20



So, in effect there is evidence of this statute in Holy Scripture, which is the Word of God and his laws and commands.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Or that "bound in heaven" has to be taken quite creatively to mean "you're now infallible"?

See above; if you can bind in heaven, you must speak the truth as per the definition of heaven.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
One more thing, if the Pope declared he could lift anything and then failed to lift a really big rock would reality be at fault?

Again another stupid presupposition, infallibility only extends to statements declared infallible. Without the statement of infallibility, we do not know if something is true or could ever be, so speculation upon what "could" be infallible is pointless and worthless.

leonheartmm
^r u claiming that there has never been any inconcistancy of decisions or teachings or the direction in which to take the catholic church between popes?! cause if theyr ALL infalliable, then there shudnt be right?

Transfinitum
Originally posted by leonheartmm
^r u claiming that there has never been any inconcistancy of decisions or teachings or the direction in which to take the catholic church between popes?! cause if theyr ALL infalliable, then there shudnt be right?

There has never been a contradiction in the doctrine of infallibility, sure popes have held differing personal beliefs; but never when teaching infallibly.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Transfinitum
...This is what separates the Church's infallibility from heathens who try to claim it...

And how did the church in it's infallibility deal with the "Heathens"? "Kill them all and let god sort them out".

Originally posted by Transfinitum
...So, in effect there is evidence of this statute in Holy Scripture, which is the Word of God and his laws and commands...

The bible is not evidence; The bible is a book written by humans.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Transfinitum
Not true; if the Son of God incarnate gives you the ability to "bind in heaven" then by the very definition of the perfection of heaven; your statement must, by definition, be true. This is what separates the Church's infallibility from heathens who try to claim it.

. . .

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Unfortunately for your position, Apostolic Succession is biblically supported in Acts 1:20

So, in effect there is evidence of this statute in Holy Scripture, which is the Word of God and his laws and commands.

See above; if you can bind in heaven, you must speak the truth as per the definition of heaven.

You didn't define heaven or give particularly relevant quotes, IMO.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Again another stupid presupposition, infallibility only extends to statements declared infallible. Without the statement of infallibility, we do not know if something is true or could ever be, so speculation upon what "could" be infallible is pointless and worthless.

Okay, the same thing but this time he says it's infallibly true.

leonheartmm
cudja give me a list of all statement on whic INFALLIABILITY has been declared{and btw, ur admitting that the pope is falliable, only a limited number of statements are infalliable}

lord xyz
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
The question is:

Should Roman Catholic's follow the Pope before the Head of State of their country?

In my opinion, your not a true Catholic if you don't accept that the Pontiff is the successor to Saint Peter and therefore Jesus' appointed representative on Earth.

Thusly, I would put the decrees of the Holy Father before that of the House of Commons or the Queen. Is this unreasonable? The Pope is the head of their country. Well, he's the head of a country.

Strangelove
Originally posted by Transfinitum
But hypothetical questions about infallibility are pointless because of the nature of those questions. Any sort of thing could be infallible, but that in no way implies that it is infallible. In response to your question, the Pope's judgement would be "bound in heaven" as it was "bound on earth"; making the statement inherently true, no matter what it was. Pardon me if I find that absolutely ridiculous. And I was raised Catholic.

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by leonheartmm
cudja give me a list of all statement on whic INFALLIABILITY has been declared{and btw, ur admitting that the pope is falliable, only a limited number of statements are infalliable}

Exactly, he has the ability to declare things which are infalliable and it has been done only twice.

Once, concerning the Immaculate Conception and again concerning the Assumption of Mary.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Pardon me if I find that absolutely ridiculous. And I was raised Catholic.

You can find it ridiculous all you want, its still Catholic Theology.

RocasAtoll
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Exactly, he has the ability to declare things which are infalliable and it has been done only twice.

Once, concerning the Immaculate Conception and again concerning the Assumption of Mary.
Yes, and both of those are so much like undermining a government.



Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
You can find it ridiculous all you want, its still Catholic Theology.
Not the way you're trying to twist it. A Pope is infallible on a clearly defined and narrow parameter. If a Pope overstepped that parameter, there would be repercussions against him. No matter if he is vicar, he is still a man and if he oversteps his power, it will not be listened to anymore in this day and age.

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Yes, and both of those are so much like undermining a government.

...that means nothing.




Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Not the way you're trying to twist it. A Pope is infallible on a clearly defined and narrow parameter.
Which he has, by biblical constitution the power to expand at any moment of time.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
If a Pope overstepped that parameter, there would be repercussions against him.

Quite possibly, but that wouldn't stop him from doing it though would it?

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
No matter if he is vicar, he is still a man and if he oversteps his power, it will not be listened to anymore in this day and age.

He cannot overstep his power because his power is absolute. (Theoretically) However, you are correct people would probably ignore him or act against him yet, what the majority of people do doesn't necessarily reflect the right action or indeed what God wants.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
...He cannot overstep his power because his power is absolute. (Theoretically) However, you are correct people would probably ignore him or act against him yet, what the majority of people do doesn't necessarily reflect the right action or indeed what God wants.

No human should ever have that much power.

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No human should ever have that much power.

Well, if they are guided by God...then I'm sure its OK.

However, your concern is valid yet, even if I agreed with it- it doesn't give me or any Catholic the ability to change Catholic Theology.

Bouboumaster

Grand_Moff_Gav
What do you mean "behind"?

I think your mistaken, I don't know how its possible for me to make a decision on the death penalty, war, foreign aid and many other issues without reviewing what I believe in. I can't help it- I really can't.

Bouboumaster
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
What do you mean "behind"?

I think your mistaken, I don't know how its possible for me to make a decision on the death penalty, war, foreign aid and many other issues without reviewing what I believe in. I can't help it- I really can't.

By "behind", I mean that we were living in a old conservative systems.

I think (it's my point of view, and only mine) that philosophy is of a greater help when we have to decide great decisions, like Death Penality, War, Gay marriage, etc.

Oh, and sorry. I am limitate in my respons, because I have difficulty to really say what I mean. I usually speak french, so... And sorry about my ortograph too.

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by Bouboumaster
By "behind", I mean that we were living in a old conservative systems.

I think (it's my point of view, and only mine) that philosophy is of a greater help when we have to decide great decisions, like Death Penality, War, Gay marriage, etc.

Oh, and sorry. I am limitate in my respons, because I have difficulty to really say what I mean. I usually speak french, so... And sorry about my ortograph too.

Just because something is new or widely accepted does not mean that its good or the correct corse of action. I mean, many world leaders rejected Communism even when it was a new and fledgling ideology...are non-communist countries behind?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Bouboumaster
great decisions, like Death Penality, War, Gay marriage, etc.

One of these things is not like the others . . .

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
One of these things is not like the others . . .

I wonder if he/she will be able to figure that one out. laughing

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
One of these things is not like the others . . .

I would say they all are...

Bouboumaster
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Just because something is new or widely accepted does not mean that its good or the correct corse of action. I mean, many world leaders rejected Communism even when it was a new and fledgling ideology...are non-communist countries behind?

New idea isn't always good, I agree.

But most of them. ^^

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by Bouboumaster
New idea isn't always good, I agree.

But most of them. ^^

Eugenics?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I would say they all are...

Two involve deciding life and death . . . there is pretty much no moral system in which that's is equaled by guy banging each other.

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Two involve deciding life and death . . . there is pretty much no moral system in which that's is equaled by guy banging each other.

No doesn't have to be "equaled" but then again, the Death Penalty being a moral decision doesn't mean other more simple moral choices are any less "moral".

This argument is simple:

Pope is infalliable on moral matters.
Pope defines what matters are moral.
Pope is therefore infallible on all matters he deems to be moral.
Pope is therefore infalliable on everything should he deem himself to be.

(According to Catholic Theology that is)

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
No doesn't have to be "equaled" but then again, the Death Penalty being a moral decision doesn't mean other more simple moral choices are any less "moral".

Not the point. Gay marriage isn't on the level of declaring war or deciding on the death penalty.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
This argument is simple:

Pope is infalliable on moral matters.
Pope defines what matters are moral.
Pope is therefore infallible on all matters he deems to be moral.
Pope is therefore infalliable on everything should he deem himself to be.

(According to Catholic Theology that is)

I get it. No offense but that is not a very good system, although it's done pretty well over all.

Bouboumaster
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
No doesn't have to be "equaled" but then again, the Death Penalty being a moral decision doesn't mean other more simple moral choices are any less "moral".

This argument is simple:

Pope is infalliable on moral matters.
Pope defines what matters are moral.
Pope is therefore infallible on all matters he deems to be moral.
Pope is therefore infalliable on everything should he deem himself to be.

(According to Catholic Theology that is)


Maybe I'm in the error, but I would NEVER let anybody, even the Pope himself, decide for me, and my destiny.

The Popes made mistakes in the past.
Can we blame them? They are just human, like us.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
No doesn't have to be "equaled" but then again, the Death Penalty being a moral decision doesn't mean other more simple moral choices are any less "moral".

This argument is simple:

Pope is infalliable on moral matters.
Pope defines what matters are moral.
Pope is therefore infallible on all matters he deems to be moral.
Pope is therefore infalliable on everything should he deem himself to be.

(According to Catholic Theology that is)

What if the pope does something totally insane? Like has a vision of Jesus telling him to kill all the Muslims. Then he proclaims that all Christians must kill all the Muslims in the world. Would you run out and kill a Muslim?

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not the point. Gay marriage isn't on the level of declaring war or deciding on the death penalty.

Sometimes, allowing the little things to pass leads to the weakening of the entire position and thus, the bigger things can pass too.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I get it. No offense but that is not a very good system, although it's done pretty well over all.

See, it wouldn't be a very good system if it was just what the Pope said on split decisions. However Catholic's believe that his ex cathedra statements are done with the full backing of God and thus cannot be in error...therefore the idea of a Pope becoming a dictator is unfeasible. If a Catholic questions the Pope's infallibility they are questioning Roman Primacy and are thus in danger of schism. Its not based on loopholes and lawyers as I think I mistakenly implied above, its based on biblical analysis and Christian Tradition. The only check on the Pope's power is the belief that he only uses it if God wills it.

Originally posted by Bouboumaster
Maybe I'm in the error, but I would NEVER let anybody, even the Pope himself, decide for me, and my destiny.

The Popes made mistakes in the past.
Can we blame them? They are just human, like us.

Maybe you are in error, maybe your not.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What if the pope does something totally insane? Like has a vision of Jesus telling him to kill all the Muslims. Then he proclaims that all Christians must kill all the Muslims in the world. Would you run out and kill a Muslim?

If the Pope, again, declared the need for a crusade on muslims then I suppose I would accept that it was the right thing to do- however I probably wouldnt do it myself, too much of a coward. However, thats an extreme example...what if he didn't go insane but say, ordered all Catholics NOT to take part in the genocide of a people in a state. Would that be wrong?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Sometimes, allowing the little things to pass leads to the weakening of the entire position and thus, the bigger things can pass too.

Gay marriage isn't go to cause a massive pro-war movement or the institutionalized worship of Satan.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
The only check on the Pope's power is the belief that he only uses it if God wills it.

But the only one that gets to talk to God in the Catholic tradition is the Pope so that isn't a check at all.

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Gay marriage isn't go to cause a massive pro-war movement or the institutionalized worship of Satan.

There are many many people who would disagree.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But the only one that gets to talk to God in the Catholic tradition is the Pope so that isn't a check at all.

Everyone gets to talk to God in Catholic Tradition. However, the faith in God is what makes Catholics believe that the Pope will always make the correct ex cathedra teaching.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
...If the Pope, again, declared the need for a crusade on muslims then I suppose I would accept that it was the right thing to do- however I probably wouldnt do it myself, too much of a coward. However, thats an extreme example...what if he didn't go insane but say, ordered all Catholics NOT to take part in the genocide of a people in a state. Would that be wrong?

And in WWII the pope failed on that one.

Mandos
The problem with past popes is that they used the Bible to justify their dictaturial actions. However, I do not beleive that such things could be possible nowadays. Before, the Pope had an army to make evryone respect his will. What GMG is suggesting is on another matter. If one man leads, wouldn't it be less confusing than many with killer differences? I would gladly lend some freedom in order for the world to work as best it can.

There is only one perfect servitude, and it is God ruling the humans. Since God hjas left us to decide how we were to act, wouldn't the best option be to serve God's first human servant on this Earth?

Of course, it is impossible now. The world is much too divided.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
There are many many people who would disagree.

And I would respectfully consider them morons.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Everyone gets to talk to God in Catholic Tradition. However, the faith in God is what makes Catholics believe that the Pope will always make the correct ex cathedra teaching.

Meh.

inimalist
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Everyone gets to talk to God in Catholic Tradition. However, the faith in God is what makes Catholics believe that the Pope will always make the correct ex cathedra teaching.

wasn't one of the core arguments made by Luther that the church was corrupt specifically because individuals needed to have their relationship with God mediated by a priest?

or was this more with relation to forgiveness and the like, rather than just normal communication?

I guess this is all hedged by the fact that most people were illiterate and the Bible was written in Latin until the invention of the printing press, meaning it was essentially moot if a person had direct communication if all the access was in a different language which only the priest spoke.

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And in WWII the pope failed on that one.

Failed...or secretly succeeded in his agenda?

Originally posted by inimalist
wasn't one of the core arguments made by Luther that the church was corrupt specifically because individuals needed to have their relationship with God mediated by a priest?

or was this more with relation to forgiveness and the like, rather than just normal communication?

I guess this is all hedged by the fact that most people were illiterate and the Bible was written in Latin until the invention of the printing press, meaning it was essentially moot if a person had direct communication if all the access was in a different language which only the priest spoke.

The people were uneducated and probably couldn't understand what the Bible meant anyway- even if they could read it. However, Luther didn't like what he saw as the trimmings of Christianity and wanted rid of the sacraments, including confession.

Mandos
I don't feel reading the first 5 pages. What's the debate about? Where are we in this pursuit of truth?

inimalist
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
The people were uneducated and probably couldn't understand what the Bible meant anyway- even if they could read it. However, Luther didn't like what he saw as the trimmings of Christianity and wanted rid of the sacraments, including confession.

no, totally

However, just about the communication, it had always seemed to be a very effective social control to keep people essentially powerless in understanding their own lives and fate, keep them dependant on the church system.

I'm sure there probably is good scriptural reference that says people have that direct line, I just thought the idea that people needed the priest was one that harkens back to the day where the church was pervasive in everything people did.

Mandos
Originally posted by inimalist
no, totally

However, just about the communication, it had always seemed to be a very effective social control to keep people essentially powerless in understanding their own lives and fate, keep them dependant on the church system.

I'm sure there probably is good scriptural reference that says people have that direct line, I just thought the idea that people needed the priest was one that harkens back to the day where the church was pervasive in everything people did.

I'm talking; The world would be a better place without country sovereingty and different political parties. We're getting played by every governements right now. We could all be played by one governement instead. At least there would be less wars in the world. Umm, I'll change the sentence: There's a more proper establishment to start achieving world's peace.

RocasAtoll
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
...that means nothing.
It means calling for a genocide is nothing like how the power has been used.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Which he has, by biblical constitution the power to expand at any moment of time.
And people also have the power to ignore him expanding and oppose, and also the Pope would not be allowed by the Cardinals. If he tried to expand it to the point of overstepping his job as a spiritual leader, he would be reprimanded.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Quite possibly, but that wouldn't stop him from doing it though would it?
It wouldn't matter. If a Pope abused his position he would be completely discredited.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
He cannot overstep his power because his power is absolute. (Theoretically) However, you are correct people would probably ignore him or act against him yet, what the majority of people do doesn't necessarily reflect the right action or indeed what God wants.
He can overstep his power because he is a spiritual leader, not a politician. The Church as a whole would see that and said Pope would not be followed or respected as a vicar of God.

Mandos
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
He can overstep his power because he is a spiritual leader, not a politician. The Church as a whole would see that and said Pope would not be followed or respected as a vicar of God.

The Bible teaches that you must be aware of different evils on this Earth. One or them is politics. Why would the Pope enter a dimension condemned by God?. Doesn't make any sense.

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
It means calling for a genocide is nothing like how the power has been used.

And people also have the power to ignore him expanding and oppose, and also the Pope would not be allowed by the Cardinals. If he tried to expand it to the point of overstepping his job as a spiritual leader, he would be reprimanded.

It wouldn't matter. If a Pope abused his position he would be completely discredited.

He can overstep his power because he is a spiritual leader, not a politician. The Church as a whole would see that and said Pope would not be followed or respected as a vicar of God.

Everything you said is how it might work in reality, but that has no baring or ability to change in terms of the Catholic Theology...so what you said is irrelevant.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Everything you said is how it might work in reality, but that has no baring or ability to change in terms of the Catholic Theology...so what you said is irrelevant.

So, Catholic Theology has nothing to do with reality?

RocasAtoll
Originally posted by Mandos
The Bible teaches that you must be aware of different evils on this Earth. One or them is politics. Why would the Pope enter a dimension condemned by God?. Doesn't make any sense.
Sorry, meant can't.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Everything you said is how it might work in reality, but that has no baring or ability to change in terms of the Catholic Theology...so what you said is irrelevant.
What are you talking about? Reality is what matters, not a loophole in Catholic Theology that wouldn't be exploited because no one would allow it to be.

Mandos
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Reality is what matters, not a loophole in Catholic Theology that wouldn't be exploited because no one would allow it to be.

Could they not be the same, reality and theology? Couldn't we live better, you think?

inimalist
Originally posted by Mandos
I'm talking; The world would be a better place without country sovereingty and different political parties. We're getting played by every governements right now. We could all be played by one governement instead. At least there would be less wars in the world. Umm, I'll change the sentence: There's a more proper establishment to start achieving world's peace.

considering how effective national governments are, I would caution against putting all of your eggs in that basket

imho, you are better believing in anarcho-primitivism than in that type of facism

Mandos
Originally posted by inimalist
considering how effective national governments are, I would caution against putting all of your eggs in that basket

imho, you are better believing in anarcho-primitivism than in that type of facism

laughing I guess you are right. I would think that anarcho-primitivism could lead to a better set of life that what we have now (more in about 25 years or so). But giving all the power to the Church, who has no political power, no army, nothing but the words of God. Would it not be reassuring?

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, Catholic Theology has nothing to do with reality?

When discussing things Shaky you get

In Theory

and

In Practice

Now, what should happen In Theory will not often happen In Practice, but that doesn't change the way it should happen In Theory.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
When discussing things Shaky you get

In Theory

and

In Practice

Now, what should happen In Theory will not often happen In Practice, but that doesn't change the way it should happen In Theory.

If theory does not translate into practice then there is something wrong with the theory.

Mandos
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
When discussing things Shaky you get

In Theory

and

In Practice

Now, what should happen In Theory will not often happen In Practice, but that doesn't change the way it should happen In Theory.

You're talking about religion or chemistry? stick out tongue

inimalist
Originally posted by Mandos
laughing I guess you are right. I would think that anarcho-primitivism could lead to a better set of life that what we have now (more in about 25 years or so).

While this goes way beyond the scope of this thread, I fail to see how life reverted back to a feral state could possibly improve the situation of any humans, including those living in some of the worst conditions in the world.

If you want, hit me with your thoughts via PM, I'd be interested in why you want to give up everything that makes you human.

Originally posted by Mandos
But giving all the power to

You can actually stop there. I don't believe in giving power to anyone, as I believe that authority is inherently immoral and leads to human suffering.

Originally posted by Mandos
the Church, who has no political power, no army, nothing but the words of God. Would it not be reassuring?

With specific regard to the church:

I am a scientist. The idea that any ridiculous superstition is given more authority than observable, verifiable fact is absurd and in my opinion one of the reasons why the western world faces so much challange from India and China. Neither have such ridiculous religiously imposed prohibitions on research or censorship of science based on religious grounds, and in fact, are investing massively in R&D. Science undermines religious authority, and you should be damned well happy for it.

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If theory does not translate into practice then there is something wrong with the theory.

Or there is something wrong with the world.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Mandos
laughing I guess you are right. I would think that anarcho-primitivism could lead to a better set of life that what we have now (more in about 25 years or so).

Funny thing is, the system we have now could get us the same thing. Totalitarianism is the only system that can give any gaurentee of success because the only thing it needs is a competent leader. All other systems--communism, democracy, anarchy, libertarianism--need the people or a group to do the right thing.

Mandos
Originally posted by inimalist
If you want, hit me with your thoughts via PM, I'd be interested in why you want to give up everything that makes you human.


Maybe everything we have now makes us less human.

RocasAtoll
Originally posted by Mandos
Could they not be the same, reality and theology? Couldn't we live better, you think?
Some amount of theology, but not all.

Mandos
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Funny thing is, the system we have now could get us the same thing. Totalitarianism is the only system that can give any gaurentee of success because the only thing it needs is a competent leader. All other systems--communism, democracy, anarchy, libertarianism--need the people or a group to do the right thing.

Amen. Just create an easy way to take power from the leader if incompetent and you have yourself a pretty good ''government''.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Or there is something wrong with the world.

I think it is a simpler idea that the theology of humans is flawed, then to say that a human's idea is right and the world is wrong.

inimalist
Originally posted by Mandos
Maybe everything we have now makes us less human.

roll eyes (sarcastic)

and maybe the things that make red are REALLY BLUE!!!!!

what definition of human are you using?

because to me, humanity is defined by culture, art, subjective expression, philosophy, awareness of our condition, curiosity, innovation.

Living back in the forest seems to remove all of the advances we as a species have made on all of these fronts.

inimalist
Originally posted by Mandos
Amen. Just create an easy way to take power from the leader if incompetent and you have yourself a pretty good ''government''.

thats the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard

There is no compotent fascist leader

the sufering imposed by having someone able to make absolute descisions about truth based on a whim are not only detrimental to a society but also to individuals in their everyday life.

And one cannot have any free inquirey, be it journalistic, philosophical, scientific or even theological in a society where truth is imposed top- down, as all free inquirey is the antithesis to power.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by inimalist
thats the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard

There is no compotent fascist leader

the sufering imposed by having someone able to make absolute descisions about truth based on a whim are not only detrimental to a society but also to individuals in their everyday life.

And one cannot have any free inquirey, be it journalistic, philosophical, scientific or even theological in a society where truth is imposed top- down, as all free inquirey is the antithesis to power.

Not about truth but about policy. There's no inherent human goodness or intelligence to fall back on. That's been tried all over the world for a long time and caused plenty of suffering. A totalitarian regime doesn't need people to be intelligent or good, it just needs one person who can do that which is far more realistic.

Mandos
Originally posted by inimalist
roll eyes (sarcastic)

and maybe the things that make red are BLUE!!!!!

what definition of human are you using?

because to me, humanity is defined by culture, art, subjective expression, philosophy, awareness of our condition, curiosity, innovation.

Living back in the forest seems to remove all of the advances we as a species have made on all of these fronts.

Purely subjective.

In the Bible, humanity God wishes us to have is not defined as any of those.

Maybe we don't need all these advanced technologies. It simplifies our life now, but I wonder how much time we have left before we taste the salty side of it.

Mandos
Originally posted by inimalist
thats the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard

There is no compotent fascist leader

the sufering imposed by having someone able to make absolute descisions about truth based on a whim are not only detrimental to a society but also to individuals in their everyday life.

And one cannot have any free inquirey, be it journalistic, philosophical, scientific or even theological in a society where truth is imposed top- down, as all free inquirey is the antithesis to power.

Good statements, foolish tone. And yet even the statements fail to their usage. Come back when you are less narrow-minded. You are a scientist? So am I.

inimalist
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not about truth but about policy. There's no inherent human goodness or intelligence to fall back on. That's been tried all over the world for a long time and caused plenty of suffering. A totalitarian regime doesn't need people to be intelligent or good, it just needs one person who can do that which is far more realistic.

indeed, I was not proposing an alternative, simply iterating a point about truth in a totalitarian society.

Likely, there is no Utopian system. However, an absolute centralized authority is clearly an idea that longs for the waste bin.

A solution for the modern world? Why not radical federalism?

or technocracy :P

Originally posted by Mandos
Purely subjective.

In the Bible, humanity God wishes us to have is not defined as any of those.

Maybe we don't need all these advanced technologies. It simplifies our life now, but I wonder how much time we have left before we taste the salty side of it.

what qualities are those of humanity in the bible and how would living in a forest bring them out more?

Originally posted by Mandos
Good statements, foolish tone. And yet even the statements fail to their usage. Come back when you are less narrow-minded. You are a scientist? So am I.

awwww, dismissiveness from a fascist

aside from empty rhetoric, why don't you use your big sciency brain to tell me which of my points fall short and for what reason?

For instance, what authoritarian society engages in free inquirey? Or that maybe people don't suffer from lack of liberty?

Mandos
Originally posted by inimalist

what qualities are those of humanity in the bible and how would living in a forest bring them out more?


awwww, dismissiveness from a fascist

aside from empty rhetoric, why don't you use your big sciency brain to tell me which of my points fall short and for what reason?

For instance, what authoritarian society engages in free inquirey? Or that maybe people don't suffer from lack of liberty?

I don't know, maybe Jesus was secretly a scientist! Knowledge is nothing if you don't have the right attitude that goes with it. And Jesus wasn't lucky to have lived in a forest, there was damned deserts all arround him. But you get my point stick out tongue.

confused And I'm not a fascist.

Your points don't fall short, your state of mind does. You said very interesting things, but it's only perspectives. As are my thoughts about free inquirey or lack of liberty.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by inimalist
Likely, there is no Utopian system.

Absolutely. As long as people are people utopianism (which has a great etymology by the way) is impossible. No one is going to be happy all of the time, at best you can hope to keep most of the people content most of the time. There's a quote from Transmetroplitan that goes something to the effect "if I wake up and 51% of this country is breathing and has a TV, I'm doing my job".

Originally posted by inimalist
However, an absolute centralized authority is clearly an idea that longs for the waste bin.

I disagree. It's the only system in which it is possible for a person to be objective. An absolute leader has no constituency to appease and stands to gain nothing.

Originally posted by inimalist
Why not radical federalism?

In-fighting.

Originally posted by inimalist
or technocracy :P

The Evitable Conflict.

inimalist
EDIT

Mandos
Originally posted by inimalist
EDIT

Thank you stick out tongue

<< THERE IS MORE FROM THIS THREAD HERE >>