|
|
Post by The New Guy on May 8, 2009 14:41:10 GMT -5
Hi New guy In the gospels, Christ says specifically, blessed are those who give up everything, including natural marital rights for the kingdom of God. So it has a clear biblical context, but the Catholic bishops, received their authority from the apostles, and decided what was bible and what was not bible, though the scriptures are very reliable historically, and it would have been virtually impossible to suddenly introduce something new and weird. As has been pointed out that is not from the teachings of Jesus, nor from anywhere in the Bible. In fact the first Letter of Paul to Timothy the Bible clearly states: Which in fact clearly supports that Bishops may be married with children. And this is from Paul, who was a big fan of the celibate lifestyle (in his first letter to the Corinthians, 7:7-8: "I would that all men were even as myself [celibate] — but every one has his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. But I say to the unmarried and the widows. It is good for them if they so continue, even as I.") One could even argue that the Bible - strictly speaking - prohibits out and out celebacy. It proscribes marriage in some cases as a responsibility (a man has a duty to marry his dead brother's widow), and thus becoming celibate is a violation to the Law of Moses (the answer to which is, according to the First Council of Jerusalem, that the Mosaic Law no longer applied the same way it did before Christ and that certain portions of it could be ignored). Celibacy is a sign of the spiritual. Spiritual ..in a human being, refers to one's human free will and the intellect which operations do not appear reducible to mere physics. We experince our freedom of will, even as we type words here. That's one of the key and obvious ways that I find attempts to reduce everything to accidental dust swirls, just utterly inadequate. Modern philosophy got lost with first Descartes and then Hume and finally Kant. Most peoplels ideas of what causes are and truth is are messed up with their mistakes. But back to the topic. If something about us has free will, and is not ultimately determined, then such a thing cannot be physical. If not physical, it is not subject to decomposition, hence eternal life. Material ends are not final, so a true religion would naturally and reasonably express that. It also shows a very powerful commitment to the truth and ideally to service, I for one, while I can certainly agree with some aspects of your point being quite reasonable, have a strong preference for celibacy as being the better road to travel. This incidentally, is not a matter of faith or infallibility either, but is a discipline that can be changed if the church were to feels so inclined, but I think the earlier experience of married clergy led to quite a few problems as you intimate. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Is becoming celibate a "beautiful" thing to offer to God to show your dedication to the church? Sure. Is it the only thing one has to offer? No. Is it the only thing a priest has to offer? No. There are lots of things one can do to show their devotion to the church. Saying that "you must offer celibacy" is akin to telling all Nuns that they must go and spend the better part of their lives amongst the poor of Calcutta because it's a beautiful thing to do. As for the problems - well, as I mentioned those problems were extant more than a milennia ago. 1000 years ago all the masses were said in Latin too, and you weren't allowed to touch the Host with your hands and a woman caught wearing pants was a crossdresser and burned at the stake. Most of those rules have been updated.... |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on May 8, 2009 14:52:53 GMT -5
On celibacy and Catholic priests. First of all, people act as if this is some bizarre Catholic ritual, unknown and incomprehensible to any other religion. It’s not of course; Buddhist monks are also celibate, and Gandhi, a Hindu, famously tested his own celibacy by lying with women. Many cultures throughout time espoused the celibacy and/or virginity of its priests and priestesses. And lots of religions (well, older religion - not so much nowadays) practiced human sacrifice too. The commonality of the habit does not make it a good idea. So it’s not a whacky Church thing. Second of all, I actually attended a school taught by Jesuits, and this discussion came up on numerous occasions. Their logic was both simple and impeccable; priests are married to the Church, and as such have an obligation to the communities to which they are assigned. They cannot meet those obligations if they also have obligations to their own families. Put it this way; a priest has a wife and a kid. One night, his kid is very sick. On the same night, a parishioner is also very sick, dying in fact, and needs/wants Last Rites. Where does the priest go? Does he stay with his sick child and deny somebody last rites? Or does he go to the bedside of his dying parishioner? Wouldn’t that make him a lousy father? What if his son isn’t sick, but just has a big baseball game? What if the parishioner isn’t dying, but is just an elderly widow who wants somebody to talk to? Ahh the Jesuits. I was lucky - my school was run by the Sisters, not the Jesuits. Every once in awhile we'd have one come in and talk to us about hellfire and brimstone though. As for their reasoning, it's hooey. A priest may often times be called upon to make choices that might not always have an obvious answer. Ask yourself a question - would you miss your son's Baseball game to finish a big project at work? Do you not go to the office every time your kid is sick? However it goes further than that - you use the sacrement of Extreme Unction (lookout world, I know the fancy name for Last Rites) to punctuate your point - but really he's not denying anyone anything. The Church provides that any member of the Catholic church, man or woman, who has recieved the Sacrement of Confirmation may perform any Sacrement (except the following: Marriage, Confirmation, Holy Orders) in a time of need. That means that any Catholic may perform "Last Rites". What if it’s his wedding anniversary? Would he be a lousy husband if he put his parish in front of her needs? Forsaking all others the vows say. How can you be 100% committed to both a family and your community? The logic is simple; you cannot have two families. Pick one. Not all religions have the same philosophy, and I’m not saying they are wrong, but I can’t really see anything overtly wrong with the Catholic logic. Do you think a Priest does not now occasionally put his own needs before that of his parish? And you can easily have two families. The continued existance of those Protestant faiths which permit their church leaders to marry (and hell, the Mormons who permit their men to marry many, many times) proves it. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 8, 2009 15:07:10 GMT -5
it would have been virtually impossible to suddenly introduce something new and weird. Something like . . . say . . . Pope Pius IX declaring [in 1854] that Mary had been born without sin . . . something the Bible doesn't say; just the theocracy of the church. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on May 8, 2009 15:33:07 GMT -5
unmarried did not mean celibate. Actually, celibacy does mean the state of being unmarried. It's come to include sexual abstinence. Sexual abstinence is called chastity (or just sexual abstinence). It's like the old "chomping at the bit" and "old stomping grounds". It's champing and stamping. Popular usage has made it okay....a big beef of George Carlin's. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on May 8, 2009 15:57:50 GMT -5
unmarried did not mean celibate. Actually, celibacy does mean the state of being unmarried. It's come to include sexual abstinence. Sexual abstinence is called chastity (or just sexual abstinence). It's like the old "chomping at the bit" and "old stomping grounds". It's champing and stamping. Popular usage has made it okay....a big beef of George Carlin's. *cough-cough* Actually celibacy is, in fact, the state of being unmarried (actually it means to renounce marriage - slightly different). However sexual abstinence is called continence, not chastity. Chaste means conforming to sexual morality. This means Arthur can be both celibate (unmarried) and unchaste (becuase he has sex with everyone anyways). A priest must be both celibate and chaste. The more you know.... |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 8, 2009 16:44:20 GMT -5
ya, I blew it -- mind elsewhere and all that. But I stand by my position that it wasn't always that way!  |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on May 8, 2009 16:50:17 GMT -5
Actually, celibacy does mean the state of being unmarried. It's come to include sexual abstinence. Sexual abstinence is called chastity (or just sexual abstinence). It's like the old "chomping at the bit" and "old stomping grounds". It's champing and stamping. Popular usage has made it okay....a big beef of George Carlin's. *cough-cough* Actually celibacy is, in fact, the state of being unmarried (actually it means to renounce marriage - slightly different). However sexual abstinence is called continence, not chastity. Chaste means conforming to sexual morality. This means Arthur can be both celibate (unmarried) and unchaste (becuase he has sex with everyone anyways). A priest must be both celibate and chaste. The more you know.... Splitting hairs here....(wish there was a better term for this subject.....) According to dictionary.com.....apparently everybody's correct. 
chaste (châst)
adj. chast·er, chast·est
Not having experienced sexual intercourse; virginal.
Abstaining from unlawful sexual intercourse.
Abstaining from all sexual intercourse; celibate.
Synonyms:
1. continent.I know what you mean, though. That's why I love this board....learn something new every day. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on May 8, 2009 18:39:32 GMT -5
On celibacy and Catholic priests. First of all, people act as if this is some bizarre Catholic ritual, unknown and incomprehensible to any other religion. It’s not of course; Buddhist monks are also celibate, and Gandhi, a Hindu, famously tested his own celibacy by lying with women. Many cultures throughout time espoused the celibacy and/or virginity of its priests and priestesses. And lots of religions (well, older religion - not so much nowadays) practiced human sacrifice too. The commonality of the habit does not make it a good idea. Nor does it make it a bad idea either. A lot of religions have prohibitions against murder after all, a habit most think is a rather a good idea. Ahh the Jesuits. I was lucky - my school was run by the Sisters, not the Jesuits. Every once in awhile we'd have one come in and talk to us about hellfire and brimstone though. I must have had the cool Jesuits then, because I never got the stick in the muds everybody seems to think they are. They ran kick ass football teams, swore like sailors ("swearing's not sin," they said, "it's just vulgar."), and were much better at discussing sex than my parents were. They also rarely, if ever, mentioned hell, and certainly no brimstone. Sure you weren't visited by Baptists? As for their reasoning, it's hooey. A priest may often times be called upon to make choices that might not always have an obvious answer. Ask yourself a question - would you miss your son's Baseball game to finish a big project at work? Do you not go to the office every time your kid is sick? Of course. Similar to CH's "two dying parishioners" argument we threw those at the Jesuits too. "Can an ER doctor treat two dying patients at the same time? Can a police officer chase two suspects at the same time? Can a teacher answer two questions at the same time?" It's not a perfect system, nobody every said it was. There will always be exceptions, outliers, untenable situations that can't be easily remedied. Bridges too far, best laid plans, imperfect mouse traps. So what? When I finish the big project at work I'm consoling myself with the belief that I can't be a good father without my job, and therefore I must put aside my familial duties in the short term, for the good of the family in the long term. It's a balancing act. Some religions accept it, others, like the Catholic Church, prefer to try an minimize the effect. Priesthood is a calling, not a job. The 87 year old church secretary who is scared and alone at her last moments probably doesn't want the hospital janitor performing her last rites; she wants the priest there, and expects that he will be. Yes, it's true; sometimes he can't be. Sometimes there is a dying 98 year old down the hall at the same time. He does his best, and the less possible interruptions he has, the better (in the eyes of the Church). However it goes further than that - you use the sacrement of Extreme Unction (lookout world, I know the fancy name for Last Rites) to punctuate your point - but really he's not denying anyone anything. The Church provides that any member of the Catholic church, man or woman, who has recieved the Sacrement of Confirmation may perform any Sacrement (except the following: Marriage, Confirmation, Holy Orders) in a time of need. That means that any Catholic may perform "Last Rites". And any person can make a citizen's arrest too. Or perform an emergency trachectomy. Or fight a fire that he happens to be walking by. But that's not their job. Indeed, even an off-duty cop has a duty to make an arrest - it's not what they do, it's who they are. What if it’s his wedding anniversary? Would he be a lousy husband if he put his parish in front of her needs? Forsaking all others the vows say. How can you be 100% committed to both a family and your community? The logic is simple; you cannot have two families. Pick one. Not all religions have the same philosophy, and I’m not saying they are wrong, but I can’t really see anything overtly wrong with the Catholic logic. Do you think a Priest does not now occasionally put his own needs before that of his parish? And you can easily have two families. The continued existance of those Protestant faiths which permit their church leaders to marry (and hell, the Mormons who permit their men to marry many, many times) proves it. Doesn't prove anything. So they think differently. My original post said that I didn't feel one way was better than the other. They're just different. There is no statistical data that says Mormons can devout just as much time to their flock as Catholic priests do, or that married Protestant priests save more souls or that Catholic priests, on a quantitative level, place less/more emphasis on their own personal needs than other faiths. Nothing has been "proven." Different religions have different approaches. Quel surprise. The Catholic church believes that it's members should be "married" to their communities. I'm not sure why people think its a radical and dangerous idea... |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 8, 2009 19:12:17 GMT -5
Doesn't prove anything. So they think differently. My original post said that I didn't feel one way was better than the other. They're just different. There is no statistical data that says Mormons can devout just as much time to their flock as Catholic priests do, or that married Protestant priests save more souls or that Catholic priests, on a quantitative level, place less/more emphasis on their own personal needs than other faiths. Nothing has been "proven." Different religions have different approaches. Quel surprise. The Catholic church believes that it's members should be "married" to their communities. I'm not sure why people think its a radical and dangerous idea... I think, BC, that its not a "horror of horrors, look at those weirdos" , but a reaction to THab saying that the Catholic Church -- and only the Catholic Church -- has it right, and really owns the Christian franchise [the other guys . . . um, me . . . really don't have a clue and have turned our backs on the truth Pope]; Catholics have been in charge since day one [historically, no, but that doesn't seem to get in the way] . . . and implies that quoting the Bible is all well and good if you want to go that far, but remembrances are good enough, as are papal council dictates which are spuriously based on the Bible at best. |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 8, 2009 23:13:42 GMT -5
Most scholars consider the gospels, carefully considered within the historical critical analyses appropriate, to be historical biography of high historical value. As to the identity of Christ, most historians considering the resurrection story come down on the side of it being an actual event. I personally find that other attempts at explaining away the events, history of the early church and the utterly transforming influence of Christianity in the world to be seriously deficient in argument. As to it being used to control people, I get a kick out of that. Do you think that anybody from the pope on down 'has' to be a Catholic? Why on earth would that be? From what I have seen of atheistic materialist regimes and other enlightenment inspired regimes, I'll take the religious one any day of the week for respecting my freedoms. I suspect you have an affection for the so-called black legends. As to the bible, with apologies to Franko, it is the book of the Catholic Church and comes from her tradition which began with Christ. Now you may think that some eleven of the initial apostles got themselves murdered for something they actually knew to be false and that there weren't a lot of witnesses to the resurrection, but this does not seem at all plausible to me. The Bible is full of too many contradictions to be considered a "historical" account for my liking. The church would have us all believe that it is a error-free book, with no contradictions. You talk to me as if I am a poor misguided , uneducated soul ... I have studied the Bible. And IMO it was solely lacking. For staters, Genesis 32:30 states ".for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." Yet, in the New Testament John 1:18 states "No man hath seen God at any time." So which is it? Both those passages can not be true. And that's just one example of errors in the Bible. You can say there is an error of translation ... either way there is an error, whether it be of fact or translation, so there are errors in the Bible, it is not an error-free book, and therefore NOT the word of God, for God is infallible. You see I believe that a man can hold a conversation with God no matter where he is ... my prayer at home is no more, nor no less, significant as your prayer in church. The church, which I termed "organized religion" (maybe incorrectly) would have you believe that you should attend regularly to achieve salvation .... which I disagree with. I have no religion ... just a rule I try to live my life by - the Golden Rule. And for me, it works. Too many errors of fact and contradictions for me ... not realism. And therefore the Bible is not infallible. That's just Pascal's Wager. I don't believe anybody is condemning anyone. And for the record, I think you misunderstand me when you say I have an "affection for the blask legends". I am not talking Knight's Templar here ... I am saying the Bible is fallible and therefore not God's word. Skilly It's apparent from your quoting a supposed contradiction in Scripture that you would have it that Christianity is about biblical literalism, that it is not the apostles and their successors who were commanded and authorized to teach, and I suppose you would have it that the billion and a half or so who aren't literalists but who hold a completely rational point of view just aren't towing your line. You earlier mentionned the idea of your being condemnded for not believing and I simply pointed out that this was never the case in Catholic thought and still isn't. Some protestant groups do teach such things but I would maintain as would the church that this is an insufficiently nuanced perspective. Your insistence that there are too many contardictions to be considered history is simply a failure to apprehend the different intentions and voices of gospels. But to deny historical intent in many, many instances is simply a significantly false opinon., one not shared by the vast majority of scholars. Again when you say the bible is not infallible, you seem to be referring to your own personal religion, certainly not the one most of Christianity has been talking about for a couple of thousand years. Did you never hear of St. Augustine some 1600 years ago? His ideas on evolution, and rejection of literalist readings of Genesis accounts as attempts at phyisical cosmology. It is clear that you hold that the apostles some 11 of whom were martyred (for their historical claims in part) the ones who saw Christ after the crucifixon and burial, who made claims of appearances to some five hundred persons in one instance...an easily refutable statement if false... just failed to understand his institution of the mass, the sacrament of reconciliation, baptism, holy orders etc etc etc. Well you obviously have your opinions which seem quite at variance with the actual history and doctrines as they have developped over the centuries, and that's fine with me, but I don't think that there is much substance behind your opinions in these matters and the fundementalist framework you seek to impose, supposedly on such as me, is just false. Lastly, I don't have a problem with private prayer, and it's clear that you hold yourself as a more respectable and reliable source on religious and spiritual matters than Christ , His apostles, and His church. You'll forgive me for finding the other sources of religious insight more compelling, and your portrayal of religious observance as some kind of servile dominance game, is a little absurd. One would have to be more than a little stupid and dishonest to accept the eminently reasonable claims of Christ and the church and the sacraments and then completely ignore them. You are of course at least practically free to colour religious faith and commitments in your particular style, but these are not views shared by very many religious persons of my acquaintance. Lots of people see a lot of value in the bread that comes down from heaven. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on May 8, 2009 23:18:35 GMT -5
Nor does it make it a bad idea either. A lot of religions have prohibitions against murder after all, a habit most think is a rather a good idea. True. I'm just saying it's not necessarily a good thing because it's got a lot of people do it. I must have had the cool Jesuits then, because I never got the stick in the muds everybody seems to think they are. They ran kick ass football teams, swore like sailors ("swearing's not sin," they said, "it's just vulgar."), and were much better at discussing sex than my parents were. They also rarely, if ever, mentioned hell, and certainly no brimstone. Sure you weren't visited by Baptists? Maybe we just got the bad ones, or maybe I'm remembering incorrectly. I was in Grade Six the last time I had to deal with the Nuns (the High School was a Roman Catholic school, with prayer and blessings and whatnot, but the teachers were strictly teachers) and such, so my visions are a little distant. Or maybe they were just hellfire and brimstone to the young ones. Probably wasn't the Baptists though. Of course. Similar to CH's "two dying parishioners" argument we threw those at the Jesuits too. "Can an ER doctor treat two dying patients at the same time? Can a police officer chase two suspects at the same time? Can a teacher answer two questions at the same time?" It's not a perfect system, nobody every said it was. There will always be exceptions, outliers, untenable situations that can't be easily remedied. Bridges too far, best laid plans, imperfect mouse traps. So what? So it removes it as a logical reason for supporting priestly celibacy. It's like saying we don't want you to shoot anyone, so we're going to take away your revolver - never mind that you have a shotgun. If the reason for asking priests to remain celibate even today is to prevent untenable situations that require Priests to make tough choices, and those situations are going to exist anyways, then maybe you need to go back and revisit that rule. Especially if it is making the situation worse in other ways (and by forcing the priesthood to be celibate they could indeed be making it worse - if celibacy drives away prospective priests. then those fewer priests who are willing to make that sacrifice are going to have to deal witha greater number of parishioners, making scheduling problems more likely). When I finish the big project at work I'm consoling myself with the belief that I can't be a good father without my job, and therefore I must put aside my familial duties in the short term, for the good of the family in the long term. It's a balancing act. Some religions accept it, others, like the Catholic Church, prefer to try an minimize the effect. Priesthood is a calling, not a job. The 87 year old church secretary who is scared and alone at her last moments probably doesn't want the hospital janitor performing her last rites; she wants the priest there, and expects that he will be. Yes, it's true; sometimes he can't be. Sometimes there is a dying 98 year old down the hall at the same time. He does his best, and the less possible interruptions he has, the better (in the eyes of the Church). But that's kinda the point. For all its attempts to minimize (and I don't know if that's especially the case - celibacy of the priesthood was instituted to prevent priests from passing church land unto their children and heirs more than anything else) it does nothing, and might in fact be making it worse. Because I can tell you that, when my grandmother wanted Last Rites performed on her she was unable to summon the priest. Because he was running three parishes due to a lack of priests, and was at the time an hour or so away. Hell, I happen to know in some areas of the north (Iqaluit) they don't even have a full time priest. They have some guy who flies in once every two months or so from Yellowknife. And any person can make a citizen's arrest too. Or perform an emergency trachectomy. Or fight a fire that he happens to be walking by. But that's not their job. Indeed, even an off-duty cop has a duty to make an arrest - it's not what they do, it's who they are. Ahh... but as a Catholic you are, I believe, obligated to perform these rites in the absence of a priest if asked. It's your duty as a good Catholic. But that's splitting hairs.... Doesn't prove anything. So they think differently. My original post said that I didn't feel one way was better than the other. They're just different. There is no statistical data that says Mormons can devout just as much time to their flock as Catholic priests do, or that married Protestant priests save more souls or that Catholic priests, on a quantitative level, place less/more emphasis on their own personal needs than other faiths. Nothing has been "proven." Different religions have different approaches. Quel surprise. The Catholic church believes that it's members should be "married" to their communities. I'm not sure why people think its a radical and dangerous idea... I think you're missing my point here. I've never said that it's radical. And it's dangerous only to the church itself, as it is one of the reasons why there is a crippling shortage of priests. So, if the church wants to fix that problem, one would think that it would try to eliminate the non-scriptural, unnecessary barriers that are placed in people's way. In my youth I was fairly heavily involved with the church. I was a reader (though only infrequently - mostly to fill in for other people who were sick), a choir leader and a sacramental minister. And so, unsurprisingly my parish priest spoke to me at some length about becoming a priest. Now, I have since come to question much of the pomp and circumstance of the church, and for that reason alone I figure I would've made a horrible, horrible priest. But at that time I was willing to sit and think about it for a bit. However even then, without my present outlook, I knew it wasn't for me. I had a steady girlfriend (whom I eventually married) and the thought of giving up that kind of relationship with someone (and not just the physical relationship - but everything else that comes with it) just didn't sit well with me. I knew I wanted to get married and to have a family and what not. I knew I wanted to share my life with someone (and despite her nagging me to get off the computer and go to bed I still do). And so I quickly and easily ruled out the life or a priest. Now as I said it was for the better in my case. I became a jaded, lapsed Catholic and my wife became an agnostic/atheist/secular humanist amalgam. I would not have made a very good priest. But how many good potential priests out there feel the same way? |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 8, 2009 23:40:04 GMT -5
Hi New guy In the gospels, Christ says specifically, blessed are those who give up everything, including natural marital rights for the kingdom of God. So it has a clear biblical context, but the Catholic bishops, received their authority from the apostles, and decided what was bible and what was not bible, though the scriptures are very reliable historically, and it would have been virtually impossible to suddenly introduce something new and weird. As has been pointed out that is not from the teachings of Jesus, nor from anywhere in the Bible. In fact the first Letter of Paul to Timothy the Bible clearly states: Which in fact clearly supports that Bishops may be married with children. And this is from Paul, who was a big fan of the celibate lifestyle (in his first letter to the Corinthians, 7:7-8: "I would that all men were even as myself [celibate] — but every one has his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. But I say to the unmarried and the widows. It is good for them if they so continue, even as I.") One could even argue that the Bible - strictly speaking - prohibits out and out celebacy. It proscribes marriage in some cases as a responsibility (a man has a duty to marry his dead brother's widow), and thus becoming celibate is a violation to the Law of Moses (the answer to which is, according to the First Council of Jerusalem, that the Mosaic Law no longer applied the same way it did before Christ and that certain portions of it could be ignored). Celibacy is a sign of the spiritual. Spiritual ..in a human being, refers to one's human free will and the intellect which operations do not appear reducible to mere physics. We experince our freedom of will, even as we type words here. That's one of the key and obvious ways that I find attempts to reduce everything to accidental dust swirls, just utterly inadequate. Modern philosophy got lost with first Descartes and then Hume and finally Kant. Most peoplels ideas of what causes are and truth is are messed up with their mistakes. But back to the topic. If something about us has free will, and is not ultimately determined, then such a thing cannot be physical. If not physical, it is not subject to decomposition, hence eternal life. Material ends are not final, so a true religion would naturally and reasonably express that. It also shows a very powerful commitment to the truth and ideally to service, I for one, while I can certainly agree with some aspects of your point being quite reasonable, have a strong preference for celibacy as being the better road to travel. This incidentally, is not a matter of faith or infallibility either, but is a discipline that can be changed if the church were to feels so inclined, but I think the earlier experience of married clergy led to quite a few problems as you intimate. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Is becoming celibate a "beautiful" thing to offer to God to show your dedication to the church? Sure. Is it the only thing one has to offer? No. Is it the only thing a priest has to offer? No. There are lots of things one can do to show their devotion to the church. Saying that "you must offer celibacy" is akin to telling all Nuns that they must go and spend the better part of their lives amongst the poor of Calcutta because it's a beautiful thing to do. As for the problems - well, as I mentioned those problems were extant more than a milennia ago. 1000 years ago all the masses were said in Latin too, and you weren't allowed to touch the Host with your hands and a woman caught wearing pants was a crossdresser and burned at the stake. Most of those rules have been updated.... Hi New guy. You are conflating two aspects. Christ exemplified the priesthood personally of course, and while it is quite true that one can indeed be married and a priest, the so-called evangelical counsels of poverty, chastity and obedience are the completely orthodox practice and teaching of the church. Neither am I suggesting perversely that being a good father and teacher or public works labourer , or hockey player isn't a wonderful thing. Celibacy frees for service and dedication. It is a longstanding and long recognized discipline that is well founded in scripture and praxis. There is a difference between doctrinal and custom based reasons for certain disciplines. I try to remember and fairly often do remember not to eat meat on Friday, which is a spiritual exercise, a discipline under the discretionary purvue of the local bishop. It's not because there's something funny about meat and Fridays. Customs of fashion are much more serioiusly punished in civil society than they are in the church, an people do an awful lot of things for money that they sure wouldn't do for the proverbial "love of God". Incidentally, as for women burned at the stake for crossdressing, it was the most rigorous leagal protections in the world at the time, the priniples of inquisition, that resulted in Catholic countries not getting into the witch-burning frenzies. Common in Europe. The church largely resisted this superstitious practice, which like the grossly exagerated abuses of that black legend known as the Spanish Inquistion, are issues brought up inaccurately and unhistorically. For instance, the Spanish Inquisition was not about the persecution of non Catholics at all and came about after the slaughter of 12,000 by Turks in the mediteranean coastal town of Otranto as a way to find false converts or 'conversos' who might open the city gates to the armies of the huge superpower of the day which had already taken by force about two thirds of the Christian world. In the 350 years of the inquisition the meticulous records of this civil procedure designed to protect the innocent from false prosecution, is claimed by different historians to have caused the deaths for from 800 to 3 or 5 thousand persons. I don't remember exactly. Most of those conversos who were given over to the civil authority incidentally, were located in that area of the still divided country that was under the contol of the Moors. In like manner, the Crusades were entirely a defensive response initiated by the plea for help from the church in Constantinople. North American culture is just stupid on these issues incidentally. |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 9, 2009 0:12:24 GMT -5
Somewhere someone is singing "Every Sperm is Sacred" I'm sure.  The interesting thing is that there is no biblical support prohibiting contraception. The "best" reference is Genesis 38, where Onan spilled his seed on the ground [this passage is also used to prohibit masturbation -- fwiw, I've never read the "you'll go blind" think in the Bible] -- a stretch at best. Onan's "sin" was that he did not want to sire a child for his dead brother. Contraception is a philosophical debate, not spiritual/theological [then again, I'm one of the "departed brethren" and think contraception is fine, so I may have to pull out of the discussion]. a thread on its own!!! A euphemism. Dogs were low on the chain. One rabbinic prayer read "I thank God I am not a woman, a slave, or a dog" . . . dogs being the lowest of the low [sodomites therefore as low as you can go]. Ya, but why would he listen to me, the father of the . . . well, let's not go there. I'm going to let Revenue Canada deal with it. Sorry to get to this after a couple of weeks, but I certainly disagree that the case against contraception is not the longterm consistent position of not just Catholicism, but most of protestantism too, until quite recently. It is of course wrong in princile to interfere with the natural healthy operation of any part of the human body, and contraceptinon is the only instance where this is condoned. It refutes nature itself. The pill is a potential abortifacient as well, and it was pointed out decades ago that it would lead to abortion and contribute mightily to the breakdown of the relationships between men and women. So it has done in spades. Natural family planning is effective, and licit when carried out for good reasons, and is not at all the same thing as taking contraceptive devices. It't interesting to see the studies pointing out that the pill probably contributed to the breakdown of millions of relationship for an odd reason. It apparently also dramatically reduced testosterone in women who took it, and testosterone plays a critical role in a womans being attracted to and sexually attracted to and responsive to a male. I wonder how many dead relationships this caused. |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 9, 2009 0:30:22 GMT -5
it would have been virtually impossible to suddenly introduce something new and weird. Something like . . . say . . . Pope Pius IX declaring [in 1854] that Mary had been born without sin . . . something the Bible doesn't say; just the theocracy of the church. Why should it surprise you that Mary the mother of Christ , should be born without sin? The bible is the book of the Catholic church; its canon and its interpretation is their role, not mine. I realizer that it is awkward to discuss fundamental religious understandings, but one either accepts apostolic succession or one does not. One accepts that Christ promised to keep the church free from error in matters of faith and morals or one does not. One either accepts the sacraments and the keys to the kingdom as given to Peter as attested by early church documents, or one does not. One accepts sola scriptura and private interpretation of these books of the Christian chruch or one does not. Bluntly, a church not tied to the historical church and not in apostolic succession is a church outside of the teaching authority of the church. This is not to deny your faith and presumed good conscience, but this idea I have is the idea of the vast majoriy of confessing Christians in history and today. I think the theology of the reformation was simply wrong. If Christ was divine and gave the command to teach with the promise to send the paraclete to guide to all truth, then, when the pope or councils, intending infallabile guidance, then that's it. As Saint Augustine said in response to a disputed question in the fourth century, " Rome has spoken, the matter is ended" We have different understandings of what God has revealed in Christ, and the means of this transmission. There's not much that can be done about that. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on May 9, 2009 1:01:45 GMT -5
Hi New guy. You are conflating two aspects. Christ exemplified the priesthood personally of course, and while it is quite true that one can indeed be married and a priest, the so-called evangelical counsels of poverty, chastity and obedience are the completely orthodox practice and teaching of the church. Neither am I suggesting perversely that being a good father and teacher or public works labourer , or hockey player isn't a wonderful thing. Celibacy frees for service and dedication. It is a longstanding and long recognized discipline that is well founded in scripture and praxis. But you hit the nail on the head don't you. It is not solely scriptural (yes, Joshua Bar Joseph probably didn't get married - however he also didn't eat potatoes or live in Rome - things Catholics have no trouble doing these days). In fact scripture supports a stance against this. But the Bishops and Popes and what have you have set it up as a "discipline" as you call it (quite correctly, if memory serves me, but it's an annoying name). However it is a discipline which prevents the church from bettering itself. Did not Jesus himself break the rules by healing the sick on the Sabbath? Should we not perhaps, for the sake of the church and the slowly withering priesthood, do the same with an old rule which has far, far less scriptural basis then "Keep Holy the Sabbath"? There is a difference between doctrinal and custom based reasons for certain disciplines. I try to remember and fairly often do remember not to eat meat on Friday, which is a spiritual exercise, a discipline under the discretionary purvue of the local bishop. It's not because there's something funny about meat and Fridays. Once again, to the point. It's a discipline, and a harmful one at that. It's unlikely that a wholesale prohibition of eating meat or driving nails on Friday would result in a significant loss to the strength of the church. The discipline of priestly celibacy can and does. Customs of fashion are much more serioiusly punished in civil society than they are in the church, an people do an awful lot of things for money that they sure wouldn't do for the proverbial "love of God". Incidentally, as for women burned at the stake for crossdressing, it was the most rigorous leagal protections in the world at the time, the priniples of inquisition, that resulted in Catholic countries not getting into the witch-burning frenzies. Common in Europe. The church largely resisted this superstitious practice, which like the grossly exagerated abuses of that black legend known as the Spanish Inquistion, are issues brought up inaccurately and unhistorically. I was actually going for St. Joan of Arc (who was burned at the stake for wearing men's trousers to prevent her from being raped by her English captors. I suppose I should have known better and suspected the Inquisition, but I frequently lose track of my Monty Python references. I didn't want to debate theology anyways. I wanted to be.... a lumberjack! For instance, the Spanish Inquisition was not about the persecution of non Catholics at all and came about after the slaughter of 12,000 by Turks in the mediteranean coastal town of Otranto as a way to find false converts or 'conversos' who might open the city gates to the armies of the huge superpower of the day which had already taken by force about two thirds of the Christian world. In the 350 years of the inquisition the meticulous records of this civil procedure designed to protect the innocent from false prosecution, is claimed by different historians to have caused the deaths for from 800 to 3 or 5 thousand persons. I don't remember exactly. Most of those conversos who were given over to the civil authority incidentally, were located in that area of the still divided country that was under the contol of the Moors. There's a number of incorrect facts there. The inquisition actually started in Languendoc in France as a means of repressing the Albigensian heresy (and they had valid reasons for doing this at the time, but the inquisition the the crusade that followed it was quite brutal - although not so much given the time). However it faded from general memory until latched upon by the Spanish to give a basis for what was to come. The capture of Otranto by the Ottoman Empire occurred two years following the start of the Inquisition (the Inquisition was started by Ferdinand and Isabella in 1478, Otranto was captured by the Ottoman Empire in 1480). So it certainly did not all come about because of Otranto. In fact by the start of the Inquisition the Moops... err... Moors of Spain were all by defeated, with only the Kingdom of Grenada left in Iberia (and that would be conquered by 1490). Further to that the term "Conversos" refers to Jews who converted, and while the Jews probably weren't especially friendly with their new European overlords, the going back to the Moors probably wasn't in their interests either. The term "Moriscos" refers to Muslims who converted to Christianity. The Spanish Inquisition was/is just another case of a government trying to control it's population. It was not under the oversight of the church and so the church remains largely blameless (except for ordaining Torquemada - married men can't be ordained by that lunatic can)? In like manner, the Crusades were entirely a defensive response initiated by the plea for help from the church in Constantinople. North American culture is just stupid on these issues incidentally. Oh the first one, perhaps. But how about that fourth one. Think the good folks of Constantinople wanted that one? But anyways - way off topic here..... |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on May 9, 2009 3:26:15 GMT -5
It is of course wrong in princile to interfere with the natural healthy operation of any part of the human body, and contraceptinon is the only instance where this is condoned. Contraception is not the only instance this is condoned (plastic surgery for an obvious one), and I'm interested to know what you mean by "natural healthy," an expression which is completely contradictory a lot of the time. Dentistry (a subset of medicine in general), for instance, is entirely intereference with the natural use and decay of your teeth. No, they're not meant to be white, sparkly and whole forever. They're intended to decay and fall out. As God made us, I suppose. But this is accepted practice, and unless I'm totally mistaken Catholics and Protestants alike visit the dentist, get braces and get their teeth whitened. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 9, 2009 8:12:22 GMT -5
But anyways - way off topic here..... I was thinking of this as I logged on . . . thought "you know, this has come a long way from the beginning" . . . remember . . . I'm really trying, honest. I know we have our murders, sociopaths and pyscopaths in Christendom. But to kill you blood for not wearing a piece of clothing is just plain wrong. Very hard to post this. Dad charged in teen's death[/size] Hijab can divide families The suggestion of violent disputes between a 16-year-old girl in Mississauga and her father over her desire to show her hair and live a "normal" lifestyle raises questions about tensions between parents and children in the Muslim community. [/quote] |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 9, 2009 8:17:37 GMT -5
Skilly It's apparent from your quoting a supposed contradiction in Scripture that you would have it that Christianity is about biblical literalism, that it is not the apostles and their successors who were commanded and authorized to teach, and I suppose you would have it that the billion and a half or so who aren't literalists but who hold a completely rational point of view just aren't towing your line. I just don't have time right now . . . and to be honest I'm losing the inclination to continue . . . but help me out here -- what's the philosophical term for what you are doing here? You know, the circular argument thing. Catholic theological leadership are the interpreters of the Bible. Why? Because the Bible says they are. How do we know the bible says they are? Because that's how they've interpreted it. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on May 9, 2009 13:28:02 GMT -5
But anyways - way off topic here..... I was thinking of this as I logged on . . . thought "you know, this has come a long way from the beginning" . . . remember . . . I'm really trying, honest. I know we have our murders, sociopaths and pyscopaths in Christendom. But to kill you blood for not wearing a piece of clothing is just plain wrong. Very hard to post this. Dad charged in teen's death[/size] Hijab can divide families The suggestion of violent disputes between a 16-year-old girl in Mississauga and her father over her desire to show her hair and live a "normal" lifestyle raises questions about tensions between parents and children in the Muslim community. [/quote][/quote] To me, justifying these kinds of decisions in the name of religion is too convenient. Extremist fundamentalism like this only gives the believer an convenient crutch to which he/she can divert their accountability. They needn't worry about any reprisals because their faith justifies their actions. Here we have laws that apply to everyone. Politicians in some European countries have already adopted Sharia Law. However, it's not about acknowledging Sharia law as much as it is about garnering votes. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 9, 2009 14:13:44 GMT -5
However, it's not about acknowledging Sharia law as much as it is about garnering votes. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 9, 2009 15:20:42 GMT -5
Skilly It's apparent from your quoting a supposed contradiction in Scripture that you would have it that Christianity is about biblical literalism, that it is not the apostles and their successors who were commanded and authorized to teach Gee, and here I thought Christianity was all about Jesus, the Christ. Yet here you are as close to condemning those who don't accept/believe Papal authority as one could possibly do. There -- fixed it. Interesting . . . you posit that the bible is fallible, but that interpretations done by men under the direction of the Spirit of God are not. And when a "splinter group" . . . say Protestants . . . disagree with the interpretation, the answer is that the Spirit gives Catholics the true interpretation. How do we know? The bible tells us so. or how these have been interpreted. Won't even begin to discuss transubstantiation, the Lutheran consubstantiation, or other belief systems, or how the idea of the Mass and how what the writers of the Gospels recorded has been taken from a simple blessing to a theological construct . . . oops, its OK to take the incident out of context because a theological hierarchy says so. Yes, yes, yes, you get it -- you admit it. Its clear you do the same. This, my friend, is santimonious bluster, and its attitude of intellectual and spiritual superiority does not answer the question but instead attacks the questioner, and does not further but rather hinders discussion and debate. One can reasonabley accept the claims of Christ in His words and yet refute the claims of those who seek to interpret them. Enough for now. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 9, 2009 15:32:34 GMT -5
It is of course wrong in princile to interfere with the natural healthy operation of any part of the human body, and contraceptinon is the only instance where this is condoned. It refutes nature itself. The pill is a potential abortifacient as well, and it was pointed out decades ago that it would lead to abortion and contribute mightily to the breakdown of the relationships between men and women. Well, if the pill were the only means of contraception then I'd agree with you. But it isn't. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 9, 2009 15:52:38 GMT -5
The bible is the book of the Catholic church; its canon and its interpretation is their role, And herein lies the crux of the debate: the Bible is not the book of any one church, no matter how much a member of said church or its hierarchy claims. Because . . . well . . . the Bible -- the basis of Christian belief . . . doesn't say so! It is a philosophical construct based on the need to by-pass a generation of original sin. Agree. One accepts one interpretation of one passage one way, or not. Acceptance or refutation lead in two different directions. Which is were we now are. *shrugs* . . . and asks where's the beef? [or if its Friday, where's the fish] Where does He say that? Earcly church documents also claim that Mary Magdelene married Jesus. So you have to say "selected church documents". I accpet sola scriptura. I accept private interpretation [within orthodoxy]. You, my friend [said with no nastiness, mods ;D ], do not seem to. Sola scriptura as interpreted by the Catholic hierarchy over 2 millenia, though . . . yes. Says . . . the church who wants to be in charge . . . who has failed the Christ in many different ways over the generations . . . who is not perfect and needed a call to renewal . . . fwiw, the denomination I am part of is actually part of the apostolic succession! We are an offshoot of the Church of England, which is an offshoot of the Roman Catholic church! mmmm . . . I don't think I need remind you that the Roman Church is on the wane . . . and that many members of her clergy believe that she has failed her parish [the world] and her God . . . for the sake of the Mitre. Which of Luther's thesis was/were wrong? That indulgences were indeed justifed, for example . Which others?
Does the Paraclete come on all flesh, or just on the theocracy? Was the Paraclete sent just on the councils?
And yet . . . matters have not come to an end. I may close my ears and my heart to further discussion . . . further discussion just carries on with out me.
Which, I think, brings the end of my involvement in discussion. At least we can agree to disagree. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 9, 2009 15:54:18 GMT -5
I didn't want to debate theology anyways. I wanted to be.... a lumberjack! btw . . . beauty! |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 9, 2009 20:38:19 GMT -5
I am not sure how you continually get away with personal attacks in your posts ... but hey .. I'm a big boy. But this will be my last post to you. Skilly It's apparent from your quoting a supposed contradiction in Scripture that you would have it that Christianity is about biblical literalism, that it is not the apostles and their successors who were commanded and authorized to teach, and I suppose you would have it that the billion and a half or so who aren't literalists but who hold a completely rational point of view just aren't towing your line. No where did I say that Christianity is about biblical literalism. I said the Bible is NOT the living word of God. God is infallible, the Bible is full of errors. I'm sure God knows that fowl have 2 legs ... the Bible says they have 4. You earlier mentionned the idea of your being condemnded for not believing and I simply pointed out that this was never the case in Catholic thought and still isn't. Some protestant groups do teach such things but I would maintain as would the church that this is an insufficiently nuanced perspective. At every point you try to put words in people's mouth or twist what they said. I am a believer. A believer in God. I don't put much stock in the Bible being the word of God and hence I question everything in it .... IMO, the Bible is a fancy story, and a good story, to show mankind a way to live their lives. It is full of stories, fables, errors, contradictions, but still a good story. Your insistence that there are too many contardictions to be considered history is simply a failure to apprehend the different intentions and voices of gospels. But to deny historical intent in many, many instances is simply a significantly false opinon., one not shared by the vast majority of scholars. The Bible can not even get simple facts right. Facts that people close to Jesus should know. For instance: MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.So, Matthew would have you believe that Jacob was Jesus' grandfather. However, LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.
So was it Jacob or Heli? That's historical fact is it not. How about something so easy as who was at the Empty Tomb? MAT 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
MAR 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
JOH 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.Three apostles could not agree on who was there. This is suppose to be history, ie fact. Lastly, I don't have a problem with private prayer, and it's clear that you hold yourself as a more respectable and reliable source on religious and spiritual matters than Christ , His apostles, and His church. You'll forgive me for finding the other sources of religious insight more compelling, and your portrayal of religious observance as some kind of servile dominance game, is a little absurd. One would have to be more than a little stupid and dishonest to accept the eminently reasonable claims of Christ and the church and the sacraments and then completely ignore them. You are of course at least practically free to colour religious faith and commitments in your particular style, but these are not views shared by very many religious persons of my acquaintance. Lots of people see a lot of value in the bread that comes down from heaven. Ahhh the lowest form of debate ... the personal attack. My opinion is absurd. I'm stupid because I once did accept the claims of the church, only to reject them upon reflection. I do not paint religious faith in any style. My contention in this whole debate is that the Bible (not religion, not people of religious faith..) is not the living Word of God. I see great value in God. Heck, I see great value in the Bible. But the Good Book is full of errors and contradictions. A poor document of history if you ask me.. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on May 10, 2009 10:20:49 GMT -5
>> But even now, with Vactican II half a century behind us, they still cling to a lot of the old outdated ideas that don't really mean all that much in today's world<< Since you are describing me accidentally, in this post, I am curious. I find Roman Catholicism to be the one and only institution that makes complete and utter sense of both the universe and human life, and further had this opinon strengthened by the study of philosophy at U of T. That's good THab. You see, while I don't agree with it, I respect this opinion wholeheartedly. I spent 23 years in uniform (not including cadets and militia) defending this concept. But, this is where you distance me from any debate, any discussion. But, I don't respect this opinion. If nothing else it smacks of intollerance, both religiously and personally. In my family just about everyone, cousins, aunts and uncles, were raised as Catholics. Now that everyone has grown up, most still practice Christianity albeit through different churches. Doesn't make them any less Christian than Catholics. You ask Skilly not to worry about your "sensibilities." Yet, through the thread you dismiss any and all other beliefs as "amusing" and "incoherent." If nothing else you're suggesting to me that if you're not Catholic you're nothing at all. It's all well and fine to defend your religious beliefs, but to do it by dismissing others' opinions and beliefs as incoherent garbage is not on. I am convinced this is not policy of the Catholic Church. Part of my responsibilities as a moderator IS to worry about such things. As I go through the thread I noticed a pattern to your methodology. You start off defending your position well enough, but then make judgments on people for their opinions and beliefs. At this point it is not longer a dispute, but a conflict; a disagreement with the person (conflict) instead of the opinion (dispute). And from there it becomes personal. We actually talked about this very thing a few years ago in a similar debate. Do you remember this by chance? Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on May 10, 2009 11:26:04 GMT -5
Just to be clear, "atheistic materialism" isn't the all-encompassing "religion" of those who don't follow Catholicism. I have no want nor desire to praise a God that needs praising, and instead follow (much like Skilly) my own path to righteousness which isn't based on material possession.
This discussion is interesting on a message board, but the holier-than-thou-because-I'm-Roman Catholic/Catholic/Protestant/Whatever-and-we're-better sentiment that's coming across in this thread frankly isn't something that would fly in a civil discussion face to face. For me, anyway.
Yes, I understand the irony of using the word holy in that sentence. Technically it's true. However I don't believe that those who follow an indoctrinated religion are -- on an individual level -- any "better" than anyone who doesn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 10, 2009 15:23:07 GMT -5
This discussion is interesting on a message board, but the holier-than-thou-because-I'm-Roman Catholic/Catholic/Protestant/Whatever-and-we're-better sentiment that's coming across in this thread frankly isn't something that would fly in a civil discussion face to face. Discussion and dogmatism are polar opposites . . . oftentimes it is difficult [when in the midst of involvement] to differentiate between the two. I would go even further, RS: those who follow [to use your term] an indoctrinated religion must be more generous, magnanamous, and open to the beliefs of others, and attempt to understand the alternative belief system . . . finally saying "I understand and accept our differences but still hold to mine" rather than saying "You're wrong and that's all there is to it". That stiffles -- quashes -- discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 12, 2009 20:16:44 GMT -5
Doesn't prove anything. So they think differently. My original post said that I didn't feel one way was better than the other. They're just different. There is no statistical data that says Mormons can devout just as much time to their flock as Catholic priests do, or that married Protestant priests save more souls or that Catholic priests, on a quantitative level, place less/more emphasis on their own personal needs than other faiths. Nothing has been "proven." Different religions have different approaches. Quel surprise. The Catholic church believes that it's members should be "married" to their communities. I'm not sure why people think its a radical and dangerous idea... I think, BC, that its not a "horror of horrors, look at those weirdos" , but a reaction to THab saying that the Catholic Church -- and only the Catholic Church -- has it right, and really owns the Christian franchise [the other guys . . . um, me . . . really don't have a clue and have turned our backs on the truth Pope]; Catholics have been in charge since day one [historically, no, but that doesn't seem to get in the way] . . . and implies that quoting the Bible is all well and good if you want to go that far, but remembrances are good enough, as are papal council dictates which are spuriously based on the Bible at best.Franko, I'm sorry to be as straightforward about this as I am, but I'm not saying you don't have a clue, or that you have turned your back on the truth, but surely you believe you are following Christ and at least in terms of your religious options have made the right and true decision. Why would you be surprised that I think Catholicism is the only outfit on the planet that got it all right insofar as matters of faith and morals are concerned or in her structure. No materialist philosophy has an answer to free will. The datum of experience is that we have free will. Propositions are not physical and purposefulness , moral purposefullness is a fundamental datum of experience. Folks are free to think that the principles of an isosceles triangle are physical, but they are clearly not and no actual triangle is determinate as the mental triangle is which precludes this kind of knowledge from being reducible to the material as well. Catholicism speaks to this aspect of being human, that which is an active power that is not reducible to matter, or as it is called, 'spiritual'. Christianity generally addresses the human condidtion uniquely, which does not nullify or undervalue other religious approaches, even budhism which is actually atheistic, but it is clearly distinct and to my mind logically necessary given the datum of experience. As to Catholicism being the real deal, she is apostolic and historically immediate to Christ. In the formation of doctrine it seems clear to me that a very large numnber of people came to know the apostles, their leadership and what they had to say as seems evident from reading the apostolic fathers. Even the office of the papacy seems pretty well supported in the earliest centuries of the church. I don't get how one can hear the promises of Christ to the church to lead to all truth and withstand the gates of hell, and not claim infallibility. I view Christ as having forbidden divorce. I look around for churches that forbid divorce. And the sacrament of reconciliation, formerly known as one of its elements, confession. I don't think this sprang up centuries later. Christ clearly held every person at every stage of life to be sacred; she stands up against the winds of indifference. Another administrative point, is that human beings benefit from figureheads, living, immediate leadership. God so loved the world He didn't send a committee. I can't imagine God failing to hand the keys to the kingdom to someone. This far from exhaustive, but simple logic shows conclusively that there can only be one completely true religion. One can attempt, unsuccessfully I think to argue that none have the fullness of what God offers, but obviously I think this an error. A common apologetic for protestantism generally is that the reformation carried on the true church after the Catholic church had (particularly after losing so many great souls who ministered to victims of the Black Death) become particularly corrupted . My take is however that while there is no question at all about some of the practices , as distinct from the teaching and sacraments , being corrupted, if Christ had allowed the church to teach fundamental error in matters of faith, then Christ failed the church, did not keep His promises and was therefore not divine. I studied the Catholic church for a long, long time, and mustadmit that at this point, I don't have a single point where I can see grounds for disagreement, even or perhaps even especially her insistence that she does not have the right to ordain women to the priesthood. In an age where it is common for teens to deny any releveance to sex, to view sex as a matter of genitalia only, and to not see how one's sex is intrinsic to every cell in the body and one's entire being, Catholicism continues to celebrate and hold sacred the male and the female, or the transcendent and immanent, the ying and yang. It was not by accident that the church ...men included is seen as the bride of Christ, and God reveals Himself as father. This sexual understanding is common througout the mythologies of the ancient world and are rooted in human experience. |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 12, 2009 20:42:12 GMT -5
Hi New guy. You are conflating two aspects. Christ exemplified the priesthood personally of course, and while it is quite true that one can indeed be married and a priest, the so-called evangelical counsels of poverty, chastity and obedience are the completely orthodox practice and teaching of the church. Neither am I suggesting perversely that being a good father and teacher or public works labourer , or hockey player isn't a wonderful thing. Celibacy frees for service and dedication. It is a longstanding and long recognized discipline that is well founded in scripture and praxis. But you hit the nail on the head don't you. It is not solely scriptural (yes, Joshua Bar Joseph probably didn't get married - however he also didn't eat potatoes or live in Rome - things Catholics have no trouble doing these days). In fact scripture supports a stance against this. But the Bishops and Popes and what have you have set it up as a "discipline" as you call it (quite correctly, if memory serves me, but it's an annoying name). However it is a discipline which prevents the church from bettering itself. Did not Jesus himself break the rules by healing the sick on the Sabbath? Should we not perhaps, for the sake of the church and the slowly withering priesthood, do the same with an old rule which has far, far less scriptural basis then "Keep Holy the Sabbath"? Once again, to the point. It's a discipline, and a harmful one at that. It's unlikely that a wholesale prohibition of eating meat or driving nails on Friday would result in a significant loss to the strength of the church. The discipline of priestly celibacy can and does. I was actually going for St. Joan of Arc (who was burned at the stake for wearing men's trousers to prevent her from being raped by her English captors. I suppose I should have known better and suspected the Inquisition, but I frequently lose track of my Monty Python references. I didn't want to debate theology anyways. I wanted to be.... a lumberjack! There's a number of incorrect facts there. The inquisition actually started in Languendoc in France as a means of repressing the Albigensian heresy (and they had valid reasons for doing this at the time, but the inquisition the the crusade that followed it was quite brutal - although not so much given the time). However it faded from general memory until latched upon by the Spanish to give a basis for what was to come. The capture of Otranto by the Ottoman Empire occurred two years following the start of the Inquisition (the Inquisition was started by Ferdinand and Isabella in 1478, Otranto was captured by the Ottoman Empire in 1480). So it certainly did not all come about because of Otranto. In fact by the start of the Inquisition the Moops... err... Moors of Spain were all by defeated, with only the Kingdom of Grenada left in Iberia (and that would be conquered by 1490). Further to that the term "Conversos" refers to Jews who converted, and while the Jews probably weren't especially friendly with their new European overlords, the going back to the Moors probably wasn't in their interests either. The term "Moriscos" refers to Muslims who converted to Christianity. The Spanish Inquisition was/is just another case of a government trying to control it's population. It was not under the oversight of the church and so the church remains largely blameless (except for ordaining Torquemada - married men can't be ordained by that lunatic can)? In like manner, the Crusades were entirely a defensive response initiated by the plea for help from the church in Constantinople. North American culture is just stupid on these issues incidentally. Oh the first one, perhaps. But how about that fourth one. Think the good folks of Constantinople wanted that one? But anyways - way off topic here..... Hi New guy I don't think the church weakens herself at all in insisting ordinarily upon celibacy for the priesthood. For me to accept the numbers argument would be like holding that the world would be better with 7, 435 Christs, and God for some reason just sent One. The evangelical counsels are a formal commitment in response to a calling that doesn't count the cost and lays down one's life for God and for one's fellow man. I think its by far the better way. Also, I get a little kick out of your telling the Catholic church what is 'scriptural'. The church is the mother of the book , not the book the mother of the church, and the authority to teach is not in the bible but in the apostolic authority exercised by priests under the local apostolic authority of the bishop. I believe that either you are incorrect with your date, or perhaps I am mistaking Otranto with the name of another coastal town in the Mediteranean that led, two years later to the petition to (Urban VI?) for an inquisition specifically due to the moorish presence and threat. As I understand it, historians claim between 800 and three to five thousand deaths under the Spanish Inquistition, and while I am aware of the earlier one with the Cathars, it is the Spanish Black Legend that is alive and well in the imaginations of English speaking people to the great injustice of Spain which was perhaps the most civilized of European nations at the time. Check out Elizabeth's inquisition. However, as I understand, and consistent with the fears of the Muslim Turkish superpower, most of the deaths resulting from the inquisition ..which was devised to protect the rights of the innocent, occurred around Granada for fear of the Muslim presence in Spain. If you have been to the south of Spain as I once had the immense pleasure of seeing, one can see North Africa with the unaided human eye across the straights of Gibralter. The fear and the threat were real, while many modern historians see the inquisition as but another part of the reconquista. You are right about my misuse of the term 'converso', though the principle was the same, as the Jewish people of the time according to prominent Jewish historians were in fact siding with the Moors against Castillle and Aragon. I will try to clear up the issue of the coastal town that saw the slaughter of 12000 who refused to 'convert' to Islam. I have two modern histories on the Inquisition, and I read of the incident from another historian, but I'll make sure I had the right town. My recollection is that there were two towns with quite similar names implicated in the early stages. Thanks for the correction. |
|
