I agree. It would be a bit like joining a Golf club, playing a few rounds a few times a year, but using the fairway to play football the rest of the time...If I was a member of a religious congregation I'd probably find it objectionable for people to avail of the religious marriage just for the sake of convenience or for atmosphere.
I don't think that too many people will disagree with you there.I'd probably be a religious fundamentalist if I wasn't a secular one!
ClubMan said:
ClubMan said:Actually Limbo is still an official Catholic doctrine even if many so called adherents to that faith probably don't know that - or even what it is supposed to be in some cases. Ask a few average Catholics what transubstantiation is all about and I'll bet that you'll get some blank stares.
You can't be a "good" Catholic and question Papal infallibility, or the existence of Limbo (until Pope Ben downgrades or abolishes it), or the Trinity or lots of other things that are standard doctrine. These must be accepted without argument and one must suspend critical/logical faculties when it comes to these or face the supposed consequences.casiopea said:Just because an average Catholic cant answer this ClubMan doesnt mean they are good or bad Catholics, it doesnt prove anything. And just because we are members of the "club" (to use your term) doesnt mean we accept everything blindly, we do question things, its a good thing to do in every institution, for some people it might be limbo for others it might be celibacy etc.
ClubMan said:You can't be a "good" Catholic and question Papal infallibility, or the existence of Limbo (until Pope Ben downgrades or abolishes it), or the Trinity or lots of other things that are standard doctrine. These must be accepted without argument and one must suspend critical/logical faculties when it comes to these or face the supposed consequences.
No problem - there's no point in me criticising something if I don't understand something about it. I'm also just fascinated by the human need to create and believe in mysticism of all sorts.Purple said:ClubMan, for someone who doesn't believe in any God it seems you have a keen interest in the doctrine of the Catholic Church. Can I ask why? If that's too personal a question I apologise but I am interested in why you seem to dislike religion unlike those (like me) who just don't believe any of it.
I totally agree that the Bible (well, New Testament anyway) contains very laudable teachings. I even read it from time to time and and try to apply some of them in my own situation. This is not incompatible with a belief that This post will be deleted if not edited immediately was nothing other than an interesting historical figure and not the son of a deity that does not exist and that The Bible is simply an interesting book.I look at what I see as the fundamental kernel of the teachings of the New Testament, which are "Love your neighbour as yourself" and "Do onto others as you would wish them to do onto you". To me as an unbeliever these are still good moral datum’s to live your life by.
OK - here's a straight question: do you agree that Catholics must accept that the Pope is infallible on issues of docrtine and morals?casiopea said:Im not even sure we are talking about the same thing here ClubMan. You keep refering to papal infallability which I havent commented on or disagreed with - are you debating with yourself?
Whether you or anybody else likes it or not Papal infallibility is an issue of dogma and, as such, must be accepted blindly and not questioned by practising Catholics.icantbelieve said:Anybody who is a Catholic and does not accept Papal infallibility on all relevant matters of doctrine and morals is fooling themselves and/or a hypocrite
Your opinion and you are entitled to it, but just because you say it doesn't make it so. The history of the church proves your intolerant definition of its adherents to be wrong.
It doesn't irk me and I agree that it is their right to create and enforce their own rules (with the usual caveat being as long as no non consenting other is harmed by these rules or their expression). I just think it's logical to assume that people who claim to be adherents to a particular religious movement would adhere to the rules laid down by that movement. On the other hand I suppose logic doesn't necessarily apply in all cases in this context. However just as I respect an individual's right to believe in whatever they like I also respect an individual's right to act illogically or behave hypocritically. It doesn't mean that I respect the actual beliefs or behaviours themselves in either case.It may irk you that they don't enforce the rules as rigidly as you'd like but there you go, their choice to make, not yours.
No - I am an atheist/secularist so that is what motivates me in this context. I am not an atheist as any sort of rebellion against the church in case that's what you're asking.Is it the existence of such tolerance that influences your anathema to religion
Not sure what you mean?and does the secular inconsistency in the application of law bug you as much.
Again I don't really understand these comments. What accusations did I "fling" at you?Fair enough if it does, as for every "rules are there to be broken" outlook there's also the "rules are there to be obeyed" lobby and despite the accusations you fling at people like me, I can hardly espouse tolerance if I don't include you.
umop3p!sdn said:For example, how many people have conducted an experiment to prove to themselves that the Earth isn't flat?
ClubMan said:Anybody who is a Catholic and does not accept Papal infallibility on all relevant matters of doctrine and morals is fooling themselves and/or a hypocrite.
ClubMan said:OK - here's a straight question: do you agree that Catholics must accept that the Pope is infallible on issues of docrtine and morals?
which seems to dispute the fact that certain rules (e.g. Catholic dogma) must be accepted unquestioningly by adherents. Do you disagree?casiopea said:No ClubMan, I disagree. The church can be viewed as an instution and a religion. Rules in the institution do and have changed (vatican 2 being a good example). Issues like celibacy still exist in the catholic church for business reasons as oppose to religious reasons. This is something I hope will change in my lifetime. Me wanting this to change does not define my Faith.ClubMan said:You can't be a "good" Catholic and question Papal infallibility, or the existence of Limbo (until Pope Ben downgrades or abolishes it), or the Trinity or lots of other things that are standard doctrine. These must be accepted without argument and one must suspend critical/logical faculties when it comes to these or face the supposed consequences.
Not really such a straight question. The official Catholic Church position is that not everything the Pope says on doctrine and morals is infallible. Certain conditions must be met and then the infallibity doctrine will be declared and invoked. Any believing Catholic must subscribe to these doctrines. However, this has happened on only two occasions (the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption) The Church does not claim that matters such as women priests, celibacy, homosexuality etc are covered by papal infallibility.ClubMan said:OK - here's a straight question: do you agree that Catholics must accept that the Pope is infallible on issues of docrtine and morals?
The last line is significant. That which is decided to be true by the Magesterium must be believed.Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith" (Lumen Gentium 25).
That which is decided to be true has the backing of the Holy Spirit, and therefore is not in error.Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter."
For men to be saved, they must know what is to be believed. They must have a perfectly steady rock to build upon and to trust as the source of solemn Christian teaching. And that’s why papal infallibility exists.
OK - here's a straight question: do you agree that Catholics must accept that the Pope is infallible on issues of docrtine and morals?
Absolutely true! But (there's always a but!) you must take all possible steps to inform your conscience. This includes study of the relevant church teachings, consultation with spiritual advisor, prayer for guidance etc. If, after all that, you still think you are right and the church is wrong then your behaviour is not sinful. It also works the other way around. If your informed conscience tells you something is wrong but the official Church position says it's OK, then it would be sinful to follow the Church teaching rather than your conscience. (This could be very relevant in wartime, in the context of the Church's teaching on what constitutes "a just war")Purple said:My understanding is that outside of the two issues listed by Observer above the Catholic Church allows it's followers to make a moral choice, based on an informed conscience (informed by the teachings of the Church). Therefore if after taking into account what the Church teaches on (for example) homosexuality you still think that it's ok to live a homosexual lifestyle then you can do so without committing a sin.