Quote:
Originally posted by tw
Doctrine meaning that it is an interpretation by a religious bureacracy; not the teachings of that religion's god.
First, if the pope was really infallible, then it says so in the bible. The bible does not make that claim. Instead a religious bureacracy invents a claim that the pope is infallible. IOW the bureacracy has brainwashed its weaker followers. Better (thinking) Catholics need not believe that bureaucratic decree.
|
There are two sources of Catholic Church doctrine. One is the Bible, the other is tradition. From the beginning of the Church, it has been accepted that the Pope cannot make a mistake when it comes to certain rulings. This tradition has been carried by the Church from the past to present, as have many others. It is consistent with scripture, as all the doctrine should be.
Catholicism stands on two legs. The people of the Church are the caretakers of handed down tradition. Both scripture and tradition define Catholicism and _cannot_ be separated from it. If you argue that all you need is scripture, then you have broken away from the Catholic Church and are now in some Protestant denomination.
You love the word bureaucracy, and you seem to think that being one somehow invalidates everything it generates. Yes, the Church is a structured organization (bureaucracy) and it suffers from the problems of large scale human groups, but that would not change the fact that if it was inspired by God it would have a form of divine guidance. As a Catholic, you are supposed to follow Jesus, and then His apostles. The apostles founded the Catholic Church, they didn't just wander around creating mini-religions scattered to the wind, they created a unified whole.
Quote:
Originally posted by tw
Second, i the Pope is infallible, then the pope would be a god. But a "god pope' violates the 1st commandment about false gods. Therefore the pope must only be a man - and therefore is fallible. The bureacracy's doctrine is wrong either way - either by being in conflict with the 1st commandment (god's decree) or because statement was made in error by a fallible man called a pope.
[/b]
|
This does not follow. Infallibility does not make one omniscient or omnipotent. It does not even make one a holy or a good person, because these are separate things. And God is the only one to be worshipped, not an infallible human that obeys God. Infallibility is bestowed on the Popes by God, it is not something they have innately, and it does not make them a god. It is a declaration that on very specific questions of faith, the Pope cannot make a mistake because God won't let him.
You are saying God can't make someone infallible? I would think that is well within His powers. Now getting tw to understand is outside God's realm because of Divinely created free will and all that jazz.
Quote:
Originally posted by tw
Devout Catholics need not believe interpretations from a bureacracy - concepts that are not even based on the bible. Instead devout Catholics hold concepts fundamental in Catholic religion above anything a church bureaucracy may invent - the infallible pope.
[/b]
|
You are basically saying Catholics can ignore the Church and just go with what they believe, and then this is somehow what it means to be a true Catholic. How would that work?
Please tw explain then. What should a devout Catholic believe? Are there any beliefs whatsoever that are set in stone and should be common to all Catholics, or is absolutely everything open to interpretation? Master, who has Catholic nature?
________
Not all Catholics dispute this infallibility claim. It is their right to believe the pope is infallible.
-------------
One group of Catholics broke off from the RCC and became the Orthodox Church on argument about the Pope's infallibility. Note what I have said before, if you disagree, go make your own religion. To be Roman Catholic you follow the Bishop of Rome and accept his divine mandate to rule the Church and set the rules.
Quote:
Originally posted by tw
It is their right to believe doctrine if they want - including bureacracy decree that priests cannot marry because god says so. Just more doctrinefrom the bureacracy that is not found in any fundamental Catholic concepts. Devout Catholics believe in the religion before they believe inventions from a religious bureacracy.
[/b]
|
What fundamental Catholic concepts? What religion? From who? From scripture? And where did this Bible come from? It was compiled by the early Church. By using that Bible you are validating the Church and its ability to make at least some decisions regarding a Catholic's faith. If you want to separate yourself totally from all Church influence you are going to have to find yourself another book to read.
Quote:
Originally posted by tw
Conclusion: devout is simply an interpretation of that person about himself - having no relationship to what the church bureacracy says or fears. You cannot tell me I am or are not devout. I cannot make a valid claim on you. To do so would violate the principles of religion - a relationship between one person and his god(s).
[/b]
|
If you call yourself a devout Jainist and I see you eating steak, I can call you a bad Jainist because it goes against the most basic fundamentals of Jainism. If you call yourself a devout Catholic and I see you going against its most basic fundamentals I can call you a bad Catholic. Claiming to be part of a religion implies you follow its precepts. Following 59 out of 60 rules still means you are breaking one rule.
There are many Catholics that believe many church teachings but disagree on several points. They have to ask themselves is their point of contention a fundamental part of Catholic teaching and dogma, or is it a secondary point.
If they disagree on a basic Catholic tenant yet still believe all the others, I would think they should consider carefully why they put so much faith in so many other things and yet can’t accept the one. I’ve heard from a devout Catholic -an honest to God real one that does her best to be a true Catholic- the solution to this, and it is not pretty. Obey the Church anyway, even if you think it is wrong on that issue, then pray to understand.
Tw, you say that it is the individual that makes the rules of their religion, so if they disagree with a rule of the religion they profess, they can declare it not to be a valid rule to begin with. That works with people that follow ‘pick and choose’ personal spirituality. If you choose to follow an established religion, you are accepting its teachings as your own. If you pick some and reject others, you are not completely joining that established religion, you are staying at its edges.
Yes absolutely a person has the right to choose their religion, or even parts of several religions, or no religion at all, but once you call yourself a follower of a particular religon you are accepting that you are playing by an outside set of rules, and unlike a democracy, you might not be able to vote to change that rule you don't like. Whether or not you follow that rule is your call, but then you have to consider what you really believe.