theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Apr 22, 2009 7:07:58 GMT -5
Exorcist, I think you misunderstood me a bit. 1. The comment you quoted... it wasn't meant to say those those things highlighted are a tenet, but I do think there are degrees. Certain things are central to the religion and haven't changed over the centuries. Some are part but not central. When talking about your religion, should the focus be entirely on non-core elements? I don't think so. 2. The Catholic Church has never been a literalist, and has always viewed the Church as an interpration device. Furthermore, stated infalliability in all things is a myth -- from my understanding the Church is well aware that people are interpreting and that it has changed its mind over the years. Every priest, nun, etc., I've ever talked to... none has ever expected 100% agreement or compliance from me. We all have doubts and disagreements. Maybe they were just being nice. Is there a point where you aren't really Catholic? I suppose, but somehow I bet Jesus and the Church would just view us as lost sheep. Good points. On both of them, I'm always wary of the approach that says "well, a real moral God would be OK with me doing X - the Church is just wrong here". According to the doctrine of papal infallibility, the Church isn't wrong. On #2, there are issues which I disagree with the Catholic tradition, including how I vote and how I conduct my life. I consider myself Catholic, and therefore accept that St. Peter is going to tell me that I've sinned when I've told him that I've been in favor of the death penalty. I don't imagine that St. Peter is going to tell me that he's cool with it. On the areas of Church focus, this is always the more complicated one. I can't really think of a place of worship from any faith that doesn't become involved in social issues, and since Hoya Blue chanted "Faith and Good Works!" at the Oral Roberts game a few years ago, working for "the last, the least, and the lost" is particularly important for Catholics. Efforts on these - especially fighting on abortion, which, at least in the Catholic belief system, involves standing up for the most defenseless, seem integral. If you say that you believe that all life is precious, and you don't stand up to oppose abortion, the easy charge that gets leveled against you is that you're a hypocrite.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,731
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Apr 22, 2009 7:57:40 GMT -5
Good points. On both of them, I'm always wary of the approach that says "well, a real moral God would be OK with me doing X - the Church is just wrong here". According to the doctrine of papal infallibility, the Church isn't wrong. Apparently, you don't understand the doctrine at all. It has been used only once since it was formalized in 1870, and is about papal teaching ex cathedra, not the Church as a whole. (Doesn't Georgetown teach this basic concept anymore?)
|
|
CAHoya07
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,598
|
Post by CAHoya07 on Apr 22, 2009 8:40:36 GMT -5
Good points. On both of them, I'm always wary of the approach that says "well, a real moral God would be OK with me doing X - the Church is just wrong here". According to the doctrine of papal infallibility, the Church isn't wrong. Apparently, you don't understand the doctrine at all. It has been used only once since it was formalized in 1870, and is about papal teaching ex cathedra, not the Church as a whole. (Doesn't Georgetown teach this basic concept anymore?) This was my understanding too, that the pope is infallible, but the Church is not. I didn't learn this at Georgetown, but somewhere along the line during my childhood of attending Catholic school. This is one of the things I disagree with the Church on, however - how can a human being be infallible? Perhaps I don't understand it fully.
|
|
sead43
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 796
|
Post by sead43 on Apr 22, 2009 11:05:59 GMT -5
Apparently, you don't understand the doctrine at all. It has been used only once since it was formalized in 1870, and is about papal teaching ex cathedra, not the Church as a whole. (Doesn't Georgetown teach this basic concept anymore?) This was my understanding too, that the pope is infallible, but the Church is not. I didn't learn this at Georgetown, but somewhere along the line during my childhood of attending Catholic school. This is one of the things I disagree with the Church on, however - how can a human being be infallible? Perhaps I don't understand it fully. that's not quite it either, CA. as DFW said, the pope is only infallible when he speaks ex cathedra, which is very rare. it has only happened once since 1870 (Pius XII on the Assumption of Mary). so, for example, nothing John Paul II or Benedict XVI has ever said or done has been considered "infallible"...and certainly none of the teachings we're talking about here (abortion, etc.) have ever been taught infallibly.
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Apr 22, 2009 11:18:33 GMT -5
This was my understanding too, that the pope is infallible, but the Church is not. I didn't learn this at Georgetown, but somewhere along the line during my childhood of attending Catholic school. This is one of the things I disagree with the Church on, however - how can a human being be infallible? Perhaps I don't understand it fully. that's not quite it either, CA. as DFW said, the pope is only infallible when he speaks ex cathedra, which is very rare. it has only happened once since 1870 (Pius XII on the Assumption of Mary). so, for example, nothing John Paul II or Benedict XVI has ever said or done has been considered "infallible"...and certainly none of the teachings we're talking about here (abortion, etc.) have ever been taught infallibly. So why is it that people are willing to adopt ALL of the Church's teachings as though they are the end-all and be-all of Catholic truth? Is there another principle that explains why someone should accept all of the Church's teachings, even those that admittedly might be wrong?
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,731
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Apr 22, 2009 12:36:42 GMT -5
So why is it that people are willing to adopt ALL of the Church's teachings as though they are the end-all and be-all of Catholic truth? Is there another principle that explains why someone should accept all of the Church's teachings, even those that admittedly might be wrong? The roots of your question are generally in the Magisterium and the direct authority given to St. Peter and his successors in Matthew ch. 16. (But on a lighter topic, how about that NFL draft...)
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,732
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Apr 22, 2009 16:43:39 GMT -5
The Assumption of Mary is the only time (or was there one more) where Papal Infallibility has been invoked -- but there are other issues that the Church claims infallibility through via the Magisterium.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,732
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Apr 22, 2009 16:46:09 GMT -5
Also, I think you find relatively few American Catholics agree 100% with the Church (and I doubt elsewhere as well).
Even Ed apparently disagrees with the edict against torture.
My issue with the Church -- and this is an example of what I was saying above -- is that the perception out there is that the Church claims 100% infallibility, for example. It doesn't, and in fact doctrine encourages thinking. It's not a biblical literalist Church, and many of the greatest thinkers over the years have been Catholic.
|
|