"As it harm none, do what you will"

[CFLarsen]

As I have been pointing out for some time now, "decrees" doesn't mean anything. People believe however they happen to believe. They may or may not agree with the supposed authority, whether they or the authority knows it or not. If it turns out that 99% of "believers" in a religion actually hold opinions on some of the teachings that are directly contradicting the official teachings of the church, are they still just "opinions"?

The Church is the authoritative body that makes decrees. The religion is what the faithful believe. The two are not the same thing, whether they are in harmony or not.

You have not read up on it, then. The Catholic religion is what the Catholic church decrees.

As I've already pointed out, the pope would not approve of people disagreeing with him. The question is therefore ridiculous.

It does not mean that there aren't priests and cardinals and bishops who disagree with him. But of course such wouldn't have his approval.

Thank you. The Pope decrees what the religion is, and that's the end of that.

 

[CFLarsen]

Papal infallibility is a relatively new addition to Catholicism, and characterizing it as a "basic tenet" is open to argument.

Anyway, the pope only claims infallibility when speaking ex cathedra, which is not done with frequency.

I recommend reading up on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

It is completely irrelevant how old it is. Today, it is a basic tenet of the Catholic Church. And it is not open to argument among Catholics.

You have admitted this, since you were unable to name just one Catholic priest or cardinal who - with the approval of the Pope - says "Oh, well, the Pope doesn't really mean that bit about homosexuals...." So, it's a mute point.

It is also irrelevant how often the Pope claims infallibility. The point is that he does. Again, a mute point.

 

[CFLarsen]

So Catholics DO have opinions in spite of what their faith decrees?

But Wiccans don't ?

No, that's not my point. My point is that there is no "Wiccan" belief. It is everything to everyone, and therefore, nothing.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Do you know what an "imperative" means?

not to be avoided or evaded : NECESSARY

Will you now ask that I provide evidence of what "ten" means?

You said " thou shalt not kill " is meant to be taken literally.. By whom ?


The same entity, just a few pages over said


"Anyone who attacks his father or his mother must be put to death. "

Perhaps you have a theory about how this would be accomplished without killing someone..



Let's re-focus..


Why should we feel that all Wiccans ( do or should ) take the Wiccan credo literally .. ( or imperatively ? )

 

[Mercutio]

No, that's not my point. My point is that there is no "Wiccan" belief. It is everything to everyone, and therefore, nothing.

It is not everything to everyone, it is an unattainable ideal. There is a difference. "Everything to everyone" is nondirectional, and could be used to justify anything at all. The unattainable ideal is directional--it asks you to harm none. It is impossible, but it is a far cry from "what the hell, harm anyone you want to with my blessing." Which would be closer to "everything to everyone."

Do you have any credo that you live by, Claus?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

No, that's not my point. My point is that there is no "Wiccan" belief. It is everything to everyone, and therefore, nothing.

That seems to be your belief, and you have presented no evidence that it is valid..



Evidence Claus, Evidence...


I will not ask again, if you can show me where you have exused someone else, for not presenting evidence for their claim/s...

 

[TragicMonkey]

You have not read up on it, then. The Catholic religion is what the Catholic church decrees.

No, it's not. The Church thinks that to be the case, but it isn't. Religions are made up of the beliefs of the believers, regardless of who thinks they are in control. This is how schisms and reformations and splinters occur. Authority is always putative; teachings are followed by choice, and the choice can always go the other way.

Thank you. The Pope decrees what the religion is, and that's the end of that.

No, it's not. You asked if the pope ever approves of people contradicting the pope. Naturally, that is not the case. That doesn't mean people don't disagree with him.

Again, the pope may feel he is in charge of the faith as much as he pleases. That doesn't make it so. At most, he owns the trademark. That will not stop the shareholders from doing as they please, or leaving the company, or forming a new one.

You seem to have a great love of characterizing everything as absolutes. Why on earth do you take the Church hierarchy's word on authority at face value? They can stamp their feet and decree til they're blue in the faith, but they have zero control if the believers decide to rebell on a minor issue, a major issue, or on everything.

The truth is that authority always comes from the consent of the governed. If they follow authority, it is because they have chosen to do so. If they chose not to, authority is powerless.

 

[TragicMonkey]

It is completely irrelevant how old it is. Today, it is a basic tenet of the Catholic Church. And it is not open to argument among Catholics.

Your interpretation of "basic" differs from others'. And it isn't open to argument says the pope. Do you see the difference, here? You are the one accepting the pope's absolute authority over Catholicism. Not all Catholics do, whether they realize it or not.

Birth control, divorce, abortion, and the death penalty. You'll find a considerable number of Catholics in favor of, and actively using, all of them, despite the Church. They still consider themselves to be Catholics.

You have admitted this, since you were unable to name just one Catholic priest or cardinal who - with the approval of the Pope - says "Oh, well, the Pope doesn't really mean that bit about homosexuals...." So, it's a mute point.

For the last time, it was a stupid question. The pope will not approve of people disagreeing with him. The significance of that? The pope won't approve of people disagreeing with him. You seem to think he has magical powers to enforce his wishes, or that people who disagree with him cease to be Catholics. That is not the case.

It is also irrelevant how often the Pope claims infallibility. The point is that he does. Again, a mute point.

"Moot". And no it's not. Popes are generally not stupid. They know very well if they overuse the ex cathedra decrees, they'll lose more and more of the flock.

The pope has exactly the authority the faithful allow him.

 

[Mercutio]

Now, I admit I did not pay much attention to the papal election, but NPR certainly did, and I tend to have that on. I recall (but would defer to more knowledgeable posters) hearing that many of the bishops who are geographically removed from Rome were rather miffed at what they viewed as a Roman power grab over the past several papacies. The Pope's title, if I recall correctly, is Bishop of Rome, and there are currently a good many other bishops who do not recognize Rome as having any sort of ultimate authority over them. They see the pope as a figurehead and leader, but not a master.

 

[CFLarsen]

You said " thou shalt not kill " is meant to be taken literally.. By whom ?


The same entity, just a few pages over said


"Anyone who attacks his father or his mother must be put to death. "

Perhaps you have a theory about how this would be accomplished without killing someone..

I am very aware of the downright idiotic and cruel thumbs-of-rule in the Old Testament. But what, in the Christian faith, takes precedence? The 10 Commandments.

You are free to argue the opposite, but I think you'll find that a bit difficult.

Let's re-focus..

Why do we feel that all Wiccans should take the Wiccan credo literally .. ( or imperitively ? )

I've addressed this. You can pretend that I haven't, but that doesn't make you right.

 

[CFLarsen]

It is not everything to everyone, it is an unattainable ideal. There is a difference. "Everything to everyone" is nondirectional, and could be used to justify anything at all. The unattainable ideal is directional--it asks you to harm none. It is impossible, but it is a far cry from "what the hell, harm anyone you want to with my blessing." Which would be closer to "everything to everyone."

I am going with what I hear from Wiccans. I can't tell them what their faith is, I have to go with what they tell me. And that tells me that it is everything to everyone.

Do you have any credo that you live by, Claus?

.....evidence?

 

[CFLarsen]

That seems to be your belief, and you have presented no evidence that it is valid..

Evidence Claus, Evidence...

I will not ask again, if you can show me where you have exused someone else, for not presenting evidence for their claim/s...

I am not going to provide evidence what "ten" means.

Buh'bye.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I am very aware of the downright idiotic and cruel thumbs-of-rule in the Old Testament. But what, in the Christian faith, takes precedence? The 10 Commandments.

You are free to argue the opposite, but I think you'll find that a bit difficult.



I've addressed this. You can pretend that I haven't, but that doesn't make you right.

Sure you have addressed it..

But you haven't produced any evidence that your observations are valid...

You have, in fact produced contrary evidence, by pointing out that other religions do not take their credos literally..

 

[CFLarsen]

No, it's not. The Church thinks that to be the case, but it isn't.

No, it's not. You asked if the pope ever approves of people contradicting the pope. Naturally, that is not the case. That doesn't mean people don't disagree with him.

Again, the pope may feel he is in charge of the faith as much as he pleases. That doesn't make it so. At most, he owns the trademark. That will not stop the shareholders from doing as they please, or leaving the company, or forming a new one.

You seem to have a great love of characterizing everything as absolutes. Why on earth do you take the Church hierarchy's word on authority at face value? They can stamp their feet and decree til they're blue in the faith, but they have zero control if the believers decide to rebell on a minor issue, a major issue, or on everything.

The truth is that authority always comes from the consent of the governed. If they follow authority, it is because they have chosen to do so. If they chose not to, authority is powerless.

My point is that the Catholic Church decrees what Catholicism is about. You can say that it really isn't so, that doesn't change the fact that it does.

You can stomp your until you are blue in the face. It doesn't change facts.

 

[CFLarsen]

Your interpretation of "basic" differs from others'. And it isn't open to argument says the pope. Do you see the difference, here? You are the one accepting the pope's absolute authority over Catholicism. Not all Catholics do, whether they realize it or not.

Birth control, divorce, abortion, and the death penalty. You'll find a considerable number of Catholics in favor of, and actively using, all of them, despite the Church. They still consider themselves to be Catholics.

You are simply not listening to me. You are not paying any attention to what I am saying.

I am not accepting the Pope's absolute authority over Catholicism, I am saying that this is so within the Catholic faith.

For the last time, it was a stupid question. The pope will not approve of people disagreeing with him. The significance of that? The pope won't approve of people disagreeing with him. You seem to think he has magical powers to enforce his wishes, or that people who disagree with him cease to be Catholics. That is not the case.

It doesn't matter what people consider themselves as, what matters is what the Church decrees.

Get it? I have said this repeatedly, so I really don't see any need to repeat it once more. If you don't understand - for whatever reason - what my point is, then I can't help it.

"Moot".

I stand corrected. I don't know where that came from.

And no it's not. Popes are generally not stupid. They know very well if they overuse the ex cathedra decrees, they'll lose more and more of the flock.

The pope has exactly the authority the faithful allow him.

BEEP! Wrong. You simply don't understand the tenets of Catholicism. Catholicism is not a democracy, it is not whatever people think the Papacy should think.

I'm done discussing this. It's a moot point.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I am going with what I hear from Wiccans. I can't tell them what their faith is, I have to go with what they tell me. And that tells me that it is everything to everyone.

I can only go by what believers in Ghosts tell me. And that tells me that what they believe, must be what all believers in Ghosts believe.. If that's not evidence, I don't know what is..

 

[TragicMonkey]

Clearly, Claus, we must agree to disagree. My point is that the Catholic religion is more than just the Church. You feel differently. Fine. I guess I've just known more "cafeteria Catholics" than the other kind.

As to your question about the gay issue and priests and the hierarchy disagreeing, Claus, I can't believe I didn't think of it sooner. Among my mother's many cousins were one Jesuit priest, one nun, and one "regular" priest. The Jesuit left the Church during the whole civil rights struggle (and went to work on Bobby Kennedy's campaign!) because he thought the Church was betraying the teachings of Jesus by not getting more involved in civil rights. The nun left the convent at a great old age, and I'm not sure what her reasons were (allegedly she told my grandmother she was "fed up").

The regular priest, however, didn't leave the Church, despite the fact that he was a practicing homosexual and for fifteen years lived with his boyfriend, in an apartment, with matching rings and a joint checking account. The boyfriend was also a priest. Clearly they disagreed with the pope. And so must their bishop, who certainly knew about it, but did nothing against them. He may have been morally opposed but compromised because he couldn't afford to lose two qualified priests in the current decline. I don't know how high up the chain people knew, whether the archbishop knew or not (probably did) or whether anyone told the cardinal (probably not). Both continued in their jobs and fulfilled their duties, including dispensing the sacraments, with the knowledge of their bishop, which is certainly against official Church rulings. The lesson is, practicality sometimes requires turning a blind eye, and bureaucracies do not scorn practicality.

I'd give you names, except that while my mother's cousin is dead, his boyfriend is still alive and still practicing (presumably both homosexuality and priesting) and I don't want to get him in trouble. I met him several times, and he seemed thoroughly decent.

Another example of bishops and above ignoring Church teachings would be my confirmation class. The entire program was run by a volunteer, who was divorced and remarried. Not only did she take the sacraments, but she was given complete authority over training young Catholics in one of them, with the full knowledge and approval of the priests, the bishop, and the archbishop. (Nobody else would do the job.) I doubt they saw fit to inform Rome. Why would they? The Vatican can't be bothered with every little operational detail.

 

[LW]

The Wiccan credo.

Claus, let's examine your recent excursions to the real of religions.

First, you started a thread how the Catholic church is in contradiction because of your interpretation of the Galilei affair. It then turned out that your interpretation wasn't compatible with actual church doctrine.

Then, you started a similar thread where you argued that the Catholic church is in contradiction because of your interpretation of the church stamentens on Evolution. It then turned out that your interpretation was not compatible with actual church doctrine.

Now, you do offer us your interpretation of Wiccan beliefs. Do we have any reason to suppose that your interpretation is this time more correct than it was before?

 

[CFLarsen]

Clearly, Claus, we must agree to disagree. My point is that the Catholic religion is more than just the Church. You feel differently. Fine. I guess I've just known more "cafeteria Catholics" than the other kind.

But no names.

As to your question about the gay issue and priests and the hierarchy disagreeing, Claus, I can't believe I didn't think of it sooner. Among my mother's many cousins were one Jesuit priest, one nun, and one "regular" priest. The Jesuit left the Church during the whole civil rights struggle (and went to work on Bobby Kennedy's campaign!) because he thought the Church was betraying the teachings of Jesus by not getting more involved in civil rights. The nun left the convent at a great old age, and I'm not sure what her reasons were (allegedly she told my grandmother she was "fed up").

The regular priest, however, didn't leave the Church, despite the fact that he was a practicing homosexual and for fifteen years lived with his boyfriend, in an apartment, with matching rings and a joint checking account. The boyfriend was also a priest. Clearly they disagreed with the pope. And so must their bishop, who certainly knew about it, but did nothing against them. He may have been morally opposed but compromised because he couldn't afford to lose two qualified priests in the current decline. I don't know how high up the chain people knew, whether the archbishop knew or not (probably did) or whether anyone told the cardinal (probably not). Both continued in their jobs and fulfilled their duties, including dispensing the sacraments, with the knowledge of their bishop, which is certainly against official Church rulings. The lesson is, practicality sometimes requires turning a blind eye, and bureaucracies do not scorn practicality.

But no names.

I'd give you names, except that while my mother's cousin is dead, his boyfriend is still alive and still practicing (presumably both homosexuality and priesting) and I don't want to get him in trouble. I met him several times, and he seemed thoroughly decent.

But no names.

Another example of bishops and above ignoring Church teachings would be my confirmation class. The entire program was run by a volunteer, who was divorced and remarried. Not only did she take the sacraments, but she was given complete authority over training young Catholics in one of them, with the full knowledge and approval of the priests, the bishop, and the archbishop. (Nobody else would do the job.) I doubt they saw fit to inform Rome. Why would they? The Vatican can't be bothered with every little operational detail.

But no names.

You don't have any names, do you? Why do you think you have a case, then?

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus, let's examine your recent excursions to the real of religions.

First, you started a thread how the Catholic church is in contradiction because of your interpretation of the Galilei affair. It then turned out that your interpretation wasn't compatible with actual church doctrine.

Then, you started a similar thread where you argued that the Catholic church is in contradiction because of your interpretation of the church stamentens on Evolution. It then turned out that your interpretation was not compatible with actual church doctrine.

Now, you do offer us your interpretation of Wiccan beliefs. Do we have any reason to suppose that your interpretation is this time more correct than it was before?

I don't mind being wrong on other subjects. I would, however, appreciate not just links, but also evidence that I am wrong in this case.

Einstein (no comparison!) was wrong on several points. That doesn't mean he is wrong when he is not.