Catholics less nutty than Protestants: more evidence

[maurile]

<font color="red">Vatican wants to end battle with science (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9913712/)</font>
Cardinal says unreasonable religion can fall prey to fundamentalism

VATICAN CITY - A Vatican cardinal said Thursday that the faithful should listen to what secular modern science has to offer, warning that religion risks turning into “fundamentalism” if it ignores scientific reason.

Full story . . . (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9913712/)

[hmkpoker]

Enrollment's down.

Better kiss some more ass.

Damned child-molesting priests.

[beset7]

[ QUOTE ]
Enrollment's down.


[/ QUOTE ]

wrong

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
The atomic bomb and the possibility of cloning human beings are fruit of a reason that wants to free itself from every ethical or religious link

[/ QUOTE ]The a bomb and human cloning. Ok I get the abomb thing but cloning?? come'on.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The atomic bomb and the possibility of cloning human beings are fruit of a reason that wants to free itself from every ethical or religious link

[/ QUOTE ]The a bomb and human cloning. Ok I get the abomb thing but cloning?? come'on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nuclear weapons have probably saved more human lives than any invention in history. J. Robert Oppenheimer should have gotten the Nobel Peace Prize.

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red">Vatican wants to end battle with science (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9913712/)</font>


[/ QUOTE ]

is that an unconditional surrender?

[maurile]

Update:

<font color="red">Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html)</font>

THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.

The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible.

“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture.

The document is timely, coming as it does amid the rise of the religious Right, in particular in the US.

Full story . . . (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html)

Wow. I'd like to hear some of the Catholics on here give thoughts on this. It's... amazing to me.

[BluffTHIS!]

What the bishops meant, and which is clear if you read their document (which does not even teach for the entire church by the way), is that the bible is not primarily a book whose purpose is to teach history or science. Thus God sometimes chose to teach by way of allegory or through a "story" which has a religious point. Great care must be taken to differentiate that which is in fact historically accurate though, and the church is the authentic interpreter of same. Many fundamentalists, while lacking an authentic teaching authority by virtue of the basis of protestantism, i.e. competence of individual interpretation, maintain it to be literally true in all respects despite the contradictions this causes and also despite the fact that they really are in fact selective about their literalness (ask the Baptists where their bishops are).

Yep, exactly, except that those teachings have been floating around the Catholic Church since at least when I was still one.

But thanks for linky linky, it's a very timely article.

For more shocking antics... walk up to your neighborhood bishop and ask the church's opinion on marijuana legalization /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
For more shocking antics... walk up to your neighborhood bishop and ask the church's opinion on marijuana legalization /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt that it is a pressing matter of spiritual concern to him.

I understand that, hell, it's part of my point!

That last statement goes to the title of the thread.

[maurile]

Update:

Vatican Official Refutes Intelligent Design (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051118/ap_on_re_eu/vatican_evolution)

VATICAN CITY - The Vatican's chief astronomer said Friday that "intelligent design" isn't science and doesn't belong in science classrooms, the latest high-ranking Roman Catholic official to enter the evolution debate in the United States.

The Rev. George Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, said placing intelligent design theory alongside that of evolution in school programs was "wrong" and was akin to mixing apples with oranges.

"Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be," the ANSA news agency quoted Coyne as saying on the sidelines of a conference in Florence. "If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science."

Full article . . . (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051118/ap_on_re_eu/vatican_evolution)

[ QUOTE ]
What the bishops meant, and which is clear if you read their document (which does not even teach for the entire church by the way), is that the bible is not primarily a book whose purpose is to teach history or science. Thus God sometimes chose to teach by way of allegory or through a "story" which has a religious point. Great care must be taken to differentiate that which is in fact historically accurate though, and the church is the authentic interpreter of same. Many fundamentalists, while lacking an authentic teaching authority by virtue of the basis of protestantism, i.e. competence of individual interpretation, maintain it to be literally true in all respects despite the contradictions this causes and also despite the fact that they really are in fact selective about their literalness (ask the Baptists where their bishops are).

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup.

[Peter666]

This is partly true because the modern hierarchy has been screwing around with doctrinal matters for 40 years to appease Protestants and other religions. All to their own integral demise.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
Nuclear weapons have probably saved more human lives than any invention in history. J. Robert Oppenheimer should have gotten the Nobel Peace Prize.

[/ QUOTE ]

I knew we had some common ground Boro.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
This is partly true because the modern hierarchy has been screwing around with doctrinal matters for 40 years to appease Protestants and other religions. All to their own integral demise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Note to others: Peter666 belongs to a sect of catholicism not in full communion with Rome. Thus this viewpoint.

pro multis what??

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The atomic bomb and the possibility of cloning human beings are fruit of a reason that wants to free itself from every ethical or religious link

[/ QUOTE ]The a bomb and human cloning. Ok I get the abomb thing but cloning?? come'on.

[/ QUOTE ]


Nuclear weapons have probably saved more human lives than any invention in history. J. Robert Oppenheimer should have gotten the Nobel Peace Prize.

[/ QUOTE ]I'd imagine that imuunization has saved at least as many live as nuclear weapons. I could list more, and will do so if you can tackle that one.

Also I'm not sure that the nuclear weapons story has been fully told. Nuclear weapons in selfish and rational hands good, even the thought that nuclear weapons may fall into unrational hands has caused a war and WILL cause more. I'm not of course transfering the blame to nuclear weapons, instead I'm only stating that the great power of these weapons can be used to save lives or destroy them. Any technology is niether evil or good, it's only in how it's used. Some are just more able to destroy lives, than others. Nuclear weapons are like crack, no one needs that much power, or needs to get that high.

[Peter666]

To be in full communion with modern Rome is not to be in full communion with Catholicism. Excuse me while I go to read "Ut Unum Sint" for my daily laugh.

[Bigdaddydvo]

[ QUOTE ]
To be in full communion with modern Rome is not to be in full communion with Catholicism. Excuse me while I go to read "Ut Unum Sint" for my daily laugh.

[/ QUOTE ]

Peter, if you could explain the difference between you, and say, Luther, I'd love to hear it. People have left the Church for the last 1,000 years by insisting that a version of Christianity (or in your case, Catholocism) is spiritually, scripturally or dogmatcially correct. These folks are known as "Schismatics." Regrettably, schismatics no longer belong to the same Church Christ instructed St. Peter to found which is currently sheparded by his 265th successor, Pope Benedict XVI.

[Peter666]

My position is simply that there are certain members of the current Church hierarchy who are heretics or suspects of heresy. I would include the late JP II in the latter group but not the current Pope.

Unlike a schismatic, I fully acknowledge the rightful authority of the Pope, even if he is wrong.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Unlike a schismatic, I fully acknowledge the rightful authority of the Pope, even if he is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Acknowledgement=obedience. You can't honestly say that you and the Society of St. Pius X give that to the Holy Father. Because among other things that would mean acknowleding the validity of the "new" Mass even while taking advantage of the indult to continue yourselves to use the Tridentine. Unless of course you interpret canon law as you please and not according to the interpretation of the pope.

[Peter666]

"Acknowledgement=obedience"

That's an extremely dangerous statement. Blind obedience is never owed to a human authority. One must have reasoned obedience. And when one Pope contradicts another Pope, one must make a decision based on reason, as the authority of one Pope does not supersede the authority of another at any point in time.

The Society of St. Pius X has never declared the new mass as invalid.

As for Canon law, the Pope is subject to error. His final verdict cannot be overturned by any power on Earth even when wrong, but it is still not true according to the law of God.

[BluffTHIS!]

In the church, canon law primarily is about obedience and the correct way to do things. And the pope is the supreme legislator in this. Thus his canonical opinion is always right since canon law really doesn't deal with doctrinal matters.

[ QUOTE ]
as the authority of one Pope does not supersede the authority of another at any point in time

[/ QUOTE ]

This is simply untrue. No ifs, ands or buts. The current pope has the final say in matters of canon law and liturgical practice not having to do with doctrine. His predecessors cannot bind him in that, only on doctrinal matters infallibly decreed. And Pius V's institution of the Tridentine Mass was a canonical liturgical decree. Surely you see the logical circle you put yourself in by asserting otherwise since obviously Pius V changed one form of the Mass himself into another.

Thus canon law is necessarily not in error when the pope defines it to mean something not to do with doctrine, which canon law isn't about. And one of the fundamental principles of canon law is that all legislation is to be interpreted according to the mind of the legislator.

[Peter666]

"His predecessors cannot bind him in that, only on doctrinal matters infallibly decreed."

That is precisely the assertion I am making. I do not argue his authority to institute a new mass or make canonical decrees. I am speaking specifically of doctrinal matters.

But the Pope cannot make one NOT celebrate the Latin Mass anymore than he cannot make one NOT pray the Rosary. If he were to excommunicate anyone for disobeying him on these matters, he merely separates them from his own irreligion.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
But the Pope cannot make one NOT celebrate the Latin

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a purely liturgical and thus a canonical rather than doctrinal matter. Period. And the rubrics state that the Mass may be said in latin or "another approved language". However that does not mean you can use any certain form of the Mass in either language without proper authority. Thus for example, the ancient english Sarum rite is no longer permitted, although an exception was made in the last couple years to celebrate its anniversary.

And of course since in my diocese for example the Trid is lawfully allowed in a certain parish, that means you would go to it rather than needing to go to a nearby SSPX chapel right?

[Pinlifter]

[ QUOTE ]
My position is simply that there are certain members of the current Church hierarchy who are heretics or suspects of heresy. I would include the late JP II in the latter group but not the current Pope.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not yet anyways.

Pinlifter

[Peter666]

If one is under the legal authority of the diocese then one would have to celebrate the mass that is prescribed in that diocese. But the SSPX does not belong under the jurisdiction of any diocese, nor does it claim to, nor does it set up its own counter diocese claiming that the other dioceses are invalid (like the schismatic Orthodox). It is a self sufficient brotherhood and does masses where the faithful have asked them to come.

"And of course since in my diocese for example the Trid is lawfully allowed in a certain parish, that means you would go to it rather than needing to go to a nearby SSPX chapel right?"

Unfortunately, even though the Latin Mass in your parish is in itself good, it gives rise to scandal. The scandal is that the Tridentine Mass is morally and faithfully as good as the New Mass, and choosing one or the other is merely a matter of personal preference. This is NOT the case. The priests who celebrate the Tridentine Rite under Ecclesia Dei (a document suspected of heresy) must also concelebrate or celebrate the New Mass at the whim of their diocesan Bishop. To disobey would put them in the same boat as the SSPX to begin with (OR even worse, because they will be seen as flip flopping on the issue).

[David Sklansky]

"If one is under the legal authority of the diocese then one would have to celebrate the mass that is prescribed in that diocese. But the SSPX does not belong under the jurisdiction of any diocese, nor does it claim to, nor does it set up its own counter diocese claiming that the other dioceses are invalid (like the schismatic Orthodox). It is a self sufficient brotherhood and does masses where the faithful have asked them to come.

"And of course since in my diocese for example the Trid is lawfully allowed in a certain parish, that means you would go to it rather than needing to go to a nearby SSPX chapel right?"

Unfortunately, even though the Latin Mass in your parish is in itself good, it gives rise to scandal. The scandal is that the Tridentine Mass is morally and faithfully as good as the New Mass, and choosing one or the other is merely a matter of personal preference. This is NOT the case. The priests who celebrate the Tridentine Rite under Ecclesia Dei (a document suspected of heresy) must also concelebrate or celebrate the New Mass at the whim of their diocesan Bishop. To disobey would put them in the same boat as the SSPX to begin with (OR even worse, because they will be seen as flip flopping on the issue)."

I will now list all those who think that there is no reason to care about this stuff.

1. Atheists

2. Agnostics

3. Jews.

4. Buddhists

5. Hindus

6. Liberal Protestants.

7. Not Ready

8. 90% of Catholics

9. Jesus Christ

10. God

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]

I will now list all those who think that there is no reason to care about this stuff.

1. Atheists

2. Agnostics

3. Jews.

4. Buddhists

5. Hindus

6. Liberal Protestants.

7. Not Ready

8. 90% of Catholics

9. Jesus Christ

10. God

[/ QUOTE ]

That leaves 100 million people who do care about this stuff.

Stu

[Peter666]

100 million plus #9 and #10.

I assure you Sklansky, this is of the utmost importance for those who are serious about saving their souls. Issues that #1 through #8 find critically important in their daily lives are really non-issues in the eyes of God. The issue being discussed here relates directly to the worship that God insists on.

[David Sklansky]

100 million plus #9 and #10.

I assure you Sklansky, this is of the utmost importance for those who are serious about saving their souls. Issues that #1 through #8 find critically important in their daily lives are really non-issues in the eyes of God.

And of that 100 million, a high percentage, if I'm not mistaken, believe your position is wrong. That means that what, maybe 20 million are even ELIGIBLE for heaven?

[Peter666]

Everybody on Earth is technically eligible for Heaven. I am sure most of those 100 million are of good faith, and that there are people of good faith outside of that group, plus lots of baptized infants who will die before the age of reason. So more like 300 million give or take. But yes, the rest will probably not go to heaven these days.

Going to Heaven is such a great thing relatively speaking that even if only 1 person in all the population of the world was able to make it and everybody else went to Hell, the existence of the Universe would have been worth it.

This is due to the infinite nature of God and the finiteness of everything else.

[BluffTHIS!]

See David, I've told you before Peter is a catholic version of Not Ready. It's seen in their limited views of salvation, in the details, and in taking some of their arguments to an extreme to see either logical contradictions in NR's case, or logical/sophistical acrobatics in Peter's.

[ QUOTE ]
See David, I've told you before Peter is a catholic version of Not Ready. It's seen in their limited views of salvation, in the details, and in taking some of their arguments to an extreme to see either logical contradictions in NR's case, or logical/sophistical acrobatics in Peter's.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excuse me BluffTHIS,

It seems to me that "logical contradictions and logical/sophistical acrobatics" are needed features of a believer in an omniscient, omnipresent, loving god!? It could not be otherwise.

[IronUnkind]

Who is the arbiter of what is "doctrine" and what is "canon law?"

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Who is the arbiter of what is "doctrine"

[/ QUOTE ]

The church through definitive statements made by councils of bishops and which are confirmed by the pope, and also the pope himself directly when he makes a rarely used ex cathedra definition of a doctrine.

[ QUOTE ]
and what is "canon law?"

[/ QUOTE ]

A code based, as opposed to law + common law + precedent based, system of rules that detail how the church and the things to do with it, is administered. There are canon lawyers who specialize in such things, and the bishops of each diocese normally decide any disputes in canon law, although certain cases can be appealed to various departments of the Vatican Curia or the Pontifical Commission for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts. A large part of canonical cases deal with petitions for annulments of marriages. Very dry and boring stuff.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
I assure you Sklansky, this is of the utmost importance for those who are serious about saving their souls.

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't hijack. This thread is supposed to be about how Catholics are less nutty than Protestants.

If you are going to keep providing evidence that Catholics are in fact more nutty, please start a new thread.

[Peter666]

For future reference, which classification do you fall under: heathen, infidel, or apostate?

[maurile]

All three.