Couple questions about Christianity

[RJT]

MG,

Thank you for clarifying the Buddhist context.

[ QUOTE ]
Unless, like there use to be an index, which doesn't exist any longer afaik, a catholic is not even allowed to enquire into philosophies except in a catholic approved context.

[/ QUOTE ]

For most of us this is not the case (does not apply.) Peter can answer for himself your question quoted here.

RJT

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps, science will one day answer such a hypothetical!

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, when I wrote this a few moments ago, I had no idea science would move so quickly:

Taken from Meromorphic’s link just posted”



[ QUOTE ]

...Recently psychologists doing research on the minds of infants have discovered... human beings come into the world with a predisposition to believe in supernatural phenomena...

[/ QUOTE ]

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
You make it sound like there is no objective truth. You are advocating that mere obedience to a higher authority will always lead one to the objective truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously since you and I differ on what that objective truth is in some cases the question is: how do we know what is correct? An authentic interpeter is required. That would be the Church, through its magisterial teaching authority. If not, then you are left with the protestant basis of individual interpretation, which is what you have basically adopted though you do not wish to call it that.

[ QUOTE ]
On a side note, did you agree with the invasion of Iraq even though pope John Paul II demanded that it should not be done?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't disagree with what you have said in the past that all opinions, even papal ones, are not by any means de fide. Thus JPII's moral judgement in that case is not binding on all catholics. And no I don't agree with it.

Similarly, every single statement in the CCC is not of the same level of certainty. But you and those in SSPX are straining to find minor points of doctrine, "details", in order to justify your liturgical and canonical disobedience and refusal of communion with Rome.

So why doesn't the SSPX just take the action logically consistent with its views. That is, electing its own pontiff and declaring that the rest of the church, with its 3000+ bishops and 100K+ priests, has basically broken off from it the true church with its 4 bishops and 50 priests?

[vulturesrow]

I wonder if Peter will be defending geocentrism next. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

For anyone lurkers who are interested in what some of this hoopla is about, here is a good article:

My Journey out of the Lefebvre Schism

vulturesrow,

I fail to see the "goodness" of the article. It seems to be very one-sided. I am absolutely not biased in any way. I find the discussions somewhat trite but amusing. That article is just a re-hash of one side of the argument, the way I see/understand it!?


I mean if I made the rules of a game of poker and they contained an ambiguity, and I would be the judge or referee at the same time, I guarantee you that I will win and clean you out.
I am missing something here?

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
vulturesrow,

I fail to see the "goodness" of the article. It seems to be very one-sided. I am absolutely not biased in any way. I find the discussions somewhat trite but amusing. That article is just a re-hash of one side of the argument, the way I see/understand it!?

I am missing something here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point, I shouldve been more specific about what the article had in it. So it s a good summation of why the SSPX is in fact in schism, the basis of that being some of the points that BluffTHIS has raised in this debate. This debate hasnt been aboutthe SSPX per se, although it has come up and Peter666 seems to be the epitome of the SSPX, splitting hairs in order to justify their lack being in communion with Rome. If your curiousity is in any way piqued, there is plenty of stuff to be googled.

Sorry vulturesrow,

I added the last paragraph to my previous post before you posted.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
I mean if I made the rules of a game of poker and they contained an ambiguity, and I would be the judge or referee at the same time, I guarantee you that I will win and clean you out.
I am missing something here?

[/ QUOTE ]

What exactly are you referring to? SSPX was not declared schismatic until their Archbishop consecrated new Bishops, which was clearly a usurpation of the powers of the Pope. Up to that point, SSPX was not in schism. As to ambiguity, Peter666's tactic is to create ambiguity where there is none.

But aren't you saying that the church set the rules as to when it is legitimate for him to consecrate new bishops. From Peter666 viewpoint it is the church that is in error and therefore he can legitimately consecrate bishops.

That's what I mean by setting the rules and then deciding when they apply.

I must say those are real byzantines or macchiavellian tricks and politics, to an outsider. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
That's what I mean by setting the rules and then deciding when they apply.

[/ QUOTE ]

That makes no sense. Strictly from an organizational standpoint dont all organizations set their rules and then enforce them? You seem to be implying that the Church is applying them in some random manner, is that the case?