Those six reasons to become a Carmelite should be considered "sick" reasons. How sad to use such a rationale to throw one's life away. She was sick in more than body.

-ToEbNS, The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is an issue that very neatly summarizes the churches ability to change it's mind. Either the See has been convinced by evidence or their interpretation of Genesis has changed over time (it's actually both of the above). This did not stop the See from inserting it's own absurdities but it's a baby step in the direction of leaving ignorance behind, so good for yall. Which, if tken as the only example of the Vatican changing it's mind (which it is not) would lead me to ask why you felt that it didn't? Why you felt so strongly that it didn't that you're next response was "No it doesn't". Well, Aiza, what do you think all of those councils and decrees were all about? Do you think that Catholicism sprang from the loins of St. Peter fully formed in is current state?


-I'm hung up on the platitude you offered, yes. It's meaningless, and completely unimportant unless you can demonstrate that it exists, and that if it does exist,that it is somehow important. Nevertheless you leveraged it in service of a criticism of protestants, and while I don't really like protestants any more than I like catholics, I'm pretty quick to defend the faith of any given one of you from the faith of the other. Please don't worry, I'm not a nice guy, I just like to watch the disparate groups of christian superstitions argue against each other.


-Yeah, the catholic encyclopedia is a great resource for catholic beliefs, I didn't ask you about catholic beliefs though did I, and this is the second time I've had to mention that. Sure sure, Saints aren't demi-gods at all, they just do things demi-gods might do, they share names with demi-gods, and gods, and are venerated in the same places that those pagan gods were venerated. Still, I let everyone claim their own fairy tales, I wouldn't want to steal yours from you and claim them for anyone else, so you can have your saints.

-The word "Pope" was, in it's own form, but the office wasn't. That's not how the early church viewed the bishop of Rome, and the importance of the bishop of Rome is tied to the importance of the city of Rome itself, not some magical story about a demi-god and his demi-god..er, saintly buddies. Yeah..speaking of, hows about those rumblings about the Petrine forgery btw, are we still pretending that they don't exist? (see, I can tell you've goggled it now) Your successor rationalization was handled before you ever posted it.

-What what? You didn't know that saints had magical powers, and that magic followed them everywhere they went, even after their deaths? Hell, it's a requirement...from your very own link on cannonization.

""Saint" (contracted "St" or "S.") To be canonized a saint, at least two miracles must have been performed after death."

I love the "at least bit" implying that any miracle had ever been formed in the first place is rich, but making the explicit claim that some of these magical people had performed multiple miracles, or that multiple miracles somehow attached to them after their deaths had occurred..well....that's beyond the pale. Wizards they were, and wizards they remain.

(I'm starting to agree with Shell, willfully obtuse.)

(Ah, as a small PS, what I said about not liking catholics isn't entirely true....I do like your gravitation towards paganism and magic, especially over those dreary protestant bastards)

(June 11, 2012 at 5:09 pm)Epimethean Wrote: Those six reasons to become a Carmelite should be considered "sick" reasons. How sad to use such a rationale to throw one's life away. She was sick in more than body.

How so, Epi?

(June 11, 2012 at 5:21 pm)Rhythm Wrote: -ToEbNS, The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is an issue that very neatly summarizes the churches ability to change it's mind. Either the See has been convinced by evidence or their interpretation of Genesis has changed over time (it's actually both of the above).

Hmm? The Church's position on evolution by natural selection is the same as it has always been, and there's never been a dogmatic interpretation of Genesis. In fact, the first metaphorical interpretations (afaik) go all the way back to St. Augustine of Hippo and possibly earlier.

Quote: Which, if tken as the only example of the Vatican changing it's mind (which it is not) would lead me to ask why you felt that it didn't? Why you felt so strongly that it didn't that you're next response was "No it doesn't".

Its a huge huge point when people even think that the Church may have "changed Her mind" to where there is extensive explanations for even the slightest deviations in practice (small t tradition, not big T Tradition). Evolution is not amongst them, because the Church has always noted it as an acceptable belief.

Quote:Well, Aiza, what do you think all of those councils and decrees were all about?

A variety of issues, none of which were changing one position of the Church to another position of the Church.

Quote:Yeah, the catholic encyclopedia is a great resource for catholic beliefs,

And Catholic history.

Quote: Sure sure, Saints aren't demi-gods at all, they just do things demi-gods might do, they share names with demi-gods, and gods, and are venerated in the same places that those pagan gods were venerated

On occasion some might share a name, though that doesn't make them demigods anymore than sharing a name with a Saint makes me a Saint. But no, no, not really. They certainly don't "do the same things".

Quote:That's not how the early church viewed the bishop of Rome, and the importance of the bishop of Rome is tied to the importance of the city of Rome itself, not some magical story about a demi-god and his demi-god..er, saintly buddies.

A "magical story" which just so happens to be part of the Christian canon, using a figure who is universally regarded in both Catholic and Orthodox traditions to be the founder of the Church in Rome. We don't have to choose between "important city" or "important figure" because the Pope has both.

Quote:Yeah..speaking of, hows about those rumblings about the Petrine forgery btw, are we still pretending that they don't exist?

They don't. I have googled it, and you still don't know what you are on about.

Quote: You didn't know that saints had magical powers, and that magic followed them everywhere they went, even after their deaths? Hell, it's a requirement...from your very own link on cannonization.

They don't have "magic powers".

If you meant to ask why so no recent Popes are Saints, we actually have quite a few in the making (along the canonization process)

Within the last 100 years
Servant of God: John Paul I, Paul VI
Venerable: Pius XII
Blessed: John Paul II, John XXIII
Saint: Pius X

It takes a while to be formally canonized. The process you describe, having at least 2 miracles post-death, is, as you note, for post-1983 canonizations only. The earliest Saints venerated were either martyrs or lead exemplary lives. Most of the earliest Popes died martyrs, and those that we don't know for sure--well, we assume they died martyrs too . (St. Peter being famously crucified upside down, from which we get the Petrine cross).

So if anything our Church has many more "wizards" now than it did before.

Eh, the Catholics got an excuse for everything. If the pope didn't say it from the comfy chair, according to them, it doesn't count. They have the most anal retentive theological excuses ever. "We have apostolic succession." Well who says that matters? "The pope does, whose authority is confirmed by apostolic succession." It's like the bible is true because it's the word of God, and its the word of God because the bible says so, only with a guy wearing a funny hat in the middle. Selling salvation to finance the pope's wild parties. Debauchery in the holy see. Burning people at the stake for daring to translate the bible into English. And they wonder why the peasants revolted? The utter cheek of it. Reading the history of the Catholic church, I'm inclined to agree with the Reformers that Catholicism and the holy see was what was wrong with Christianity, and those black hearted bastards in Rome (or France, or wherever the floating opera that was the papacy happened to be located) needed to be cut out of the picture to save the body of Christ, aka the Real Church, from being lost forever. And this dizzle is actually proud of the papacy? Oofda.

Get this, this is from a page devoted to St. Theresa:

WHY SAINT TERESA OF THE ANDES?

• Because dying at nineteen, Teresa of the Andes is a particularly attractive model of holiness for young people. She shows them where true happiness lies: God is infinite joy!
  

Yes folks! All you have to do is let God stick out his fickle finger of fate, fuck you in the ass with a horrible and fatal disease, and kill you before your prime, and you too can be a role model for the Hitler Youth, er, I mean Catholic Youth... God, I don't know what got into me there. I don't know how I could compare the Catholic Church to the fascism of Nazi Germany, I mean sure, they both sanctioned the theft of Jewish property and the wholesale slaughter of Jews, but beyond that, what possible similarity is there?

You know, I think I've got some pictures of Charles Manson's cell at Corcoran State Prison. You start the paperwork for Beatification, and I'll start writing Charlie's "I discovered Christ and Three Squares a Day in Prison" letters and start a fundraising drive. God knows it wouldn't be the first time the Catholic Church has declared a mass murderer holy.

I think apophenia covered the why fairly well, Aiza. When ignorance is inserted between reality and awareness, you have what might be called an intellectual anaesthetic.

-"The early Church Fathers taught creationism—though there was debate over whether God created the world in six days, as Clement of Alexandria taught,[8] or in a single moment as held by Augustine,[9] and a literal interpretation of Genesis was normally taken for granted in the Middle Ages and later, until it was rejected in favour of uniformitarianism (entailing far greater timeframes) by a majority of geologists in the 19th century."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Ch..._evolution

Eat crow. Not only has the catholic understanding of our origins changed, it has been changing, for centuries.

-LOL, OH? They never changed codified or swapped one tradition for another? So, elaborate on what those "variety of things" were then, if you please? Bonus points if you can eliminate the above. They wouldn't have :gasp: altered canon, would they? Popes don't reverse the churches position on matters decided upon by a previous Pope, now do they?

-Yes, catholic history, as opposed to any other history, the difference being that catholic history must toe the party line, and that's an article of faith.

-No Aiza, nothing makes them demi-gods, because there is no such thing as a demi-god, there are no miracles either, but that doesn't stop you people from printing saints.

-And? Many different traditions also believe in stories of Uncegila and that has precisely zero effect on whether or not sea monsters exist. You don't have to choose between either, and no one asked you too, but I am giving you a factually accurate account of the rise of Rome (as it pertains to what would eventually become the religion you recognize) and establishment of the papacy, and I could be more detailed about it if you really wanted to dive in. You are offering me fairy tales as though there were some choice to be made between them and history, there isn't.

-Oh, excellent, then you are prepared to definitively show that the Petrine passage is a part of the original manuscript whilst simultaneously removing any doubt as to the entire books authorship and dating? You know we don't often get scholars of your caliber here with such momentous and important discoveries to share, and to think that it will be shared with us, that we will be the first to see this accomplishment in action...I'm very very flattered that you've chosen to grace us with your opus, now lets see it?

-"Our magic isn't magical...it's miraculous" You know, that's a part of the catholic persuasion that I just don't understand, and perhaps you could help me with that. You guys really love magic, you perform it weekly, and it is codified as an article of your faith. So why do you cringe away the moment someone asks you about the magic? Why does it become less magical in the asking?

If someone asks, it opens the door for witchcraft and you daren't answer.

(June 12, 2012 at 2:06 am)apophenia Wrote: "We have apostolic succession." Well who says that matters? "The pope does, whose authority is confirmed by apostolic succession."

All of the pillars of the Church are supported by the others.

Quote: Selling salvation to finance the pope's wild parties.

The Church never ever sold salvation. If you are talking about indulgences, indulgences only remove temporal sin that you may spend less time in Purgatory. They certainly don't "grant salvation". For a brief period they were sold as a fundraising measure to fund the building of the Basilica, though that practice was banned.

Quote: Burning people at the stake for daring to translate the bible into English.

This did not happen either, the earliest English Bible translation ever was by St. Bede the Venerable. William Tyndale's translation was unapproved by the Church and furthermore he was a heretic (denounced prayer to Saints, supported "Sola fide" and believer's baptism), which is why he was killed. It still wasn't right to condemn him to death, but I always need to nitpick sentences like these.
[qupte]All you have to do is let God stick out his fickle finger of fate, fuck you in the ass with a horrible and fatal disease, and kill you before your prime[/quote]
She isn't a Saint because she died. She is a Saint from the beautiful writings and letters she wrote while she was alive, and her dedication to the Church.

Quote:I don't know how I could compare the Catholic Church to the fascism of Nazi Germany, I mean sure, they both sanctioned the theft of Jewish property and the wholesale slaughter of Jews

What? Catholics have killed Jews in the past, but to say the Church sanctioned their slaughter wholesale? When? Where? Most of the quotes from Popes I know of explicitly condemn violence aimed toward Jewish folk.

---

quote='Rhythm' pid='298581' dateline='1339506708']
-"The early Church Fathers taught creationism—though there was debate over whether God created the world in six days, as Clement of Alexandria taught,[8] or in a single moment as held by Augustine,[9] and a literal interpretation of Genesis was normally taken for granted in the Middle Ages and later, until it was rejected in favour of uniformitarianism (entailing far greater timeframes) by a majority of geologists in the 19th century."[/quote]
So...basically the Church Fathers taught a variety of things, none of which ever became dogma, and creationism was taken for granted until new geological discoveries were made introducing new ideas which are also allowed and also none of which ever became dogma? You don't say.

I mean, seriously, nothing you said here contradicts me in any way, and the fact that different Church Fathers thought different things sort of solidifies that fact, doesn't it?

Quote: They never changed codified or swapped one tradition for another? So, elaborate on what those "variety of things" were then, if you please?

No, they never swapped one Tradition for another. Sacred Tradition is integral to the Faith and held in common by the universal church. Small-t traditions can and do vary from place to place and are sometimes swapped out.

Church councils firstly clarify and discuss matters of dogma. For example, when the pill came out, some people argued that it should be allowed for Catholics based on the fact that it was an extension of a humans hormonal cycle. The Pope stepped in and ruled otherwise, that it divorced sex from its procreative aspect like any other artificial birth control. New issues and new discoveries create new implications for dogma.

Sometimes it defines dogma, turning common theological beliefs and recognizing them as established parts of the Faith. For example, it is a required belief of all Catholics that the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived without sin and was totally sinless throughout her whole life. This doctrine was not formally defined until relatively recently, but was always present in Tradition and the Church certainly never made a proclamation that the Blessed Virgin Mary was born with original sin, so its not at all a "change". This can also be done in response to a specific heresy: the rise of Arianism prompted the Church to formally define the Trinity.

Even more often they revise tradition. Such as Vatican II having more Holy Masses said in the language of the people. This is a small t tradition, as Latin wasn't actually an integral part of dogma: indeed, Eastern Catholics always preached in their own languages and earlier Christians did as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical_...l_councils

For many more.

Quote:You don't have to choose between either, and no one asked you too, but I am giving you a factually accurate account of the rise of Rome (as it pertains to what would eventually become the religion you recognize) and establishment of the papacy, and I could be more detailed about it if you really wanted to dive in. You are offering me fairy tales as though there were some choice to be made between them and history, there isn't.

We are talking about Christianity here. To you I am sure it is all ~fairy tales~ but to Christians its literal Scripture.

Quote:Oh, excellent, then you are prepared to definitively show that the Petrine passage is a part of the original manuscript whilst simultaneously removing any doubt as to the entire books authorship and dating?

The "Petrine passage" is present in every single known manuscript of Matthew always in the same place as well. When a verse is added in later, we end up with some early books not having it in, and when its a larger passage you often see it move around as different people inserted it in different areas. So its not a forgery by any legitimate opinion.

As for "authoriship" and "dating" I am not sure what you are even on about. The Gospel of Matthew has an unknown author and is commonly dated to around 80-90 or so. None of this is at all relevant to "the Petrine passage" or your imaginary "rumblings".

Quote:You guys really love magic, you perform it weekly, and it is codified as an article of your faith. So why do you cringe away the moment someone asks you about the magic? Why does it become less magical in the asking?

Because magic, in the religious sense, refers to appeals to the metadivine realm. Monotheists don't really believe in any power higher than God, making "magic", as it is religiously defined, impossible (indeed, even attempts at "magic" are seen as sin and trying to subvert the laws of nature/God). The Saints have no power on their own.

(June 12, 2012 at 10:08 pm)Aiza Wrote: So...basically the Church Fathers taught a variety of things, none of which ever became dogma, and creationism was taken for granted until new geological discoveries were made introducing new ideas which are also allowed and also none of which ever became dogma? You don't say.

I mean, seriously, nothing you said here contradicts me in any way, and the fact that different Church Fathers thought different things sort of solidifies that fact, doesn't it?

Yes, Aiza, basically, at different points in time the church and its leaders have had different party lines, these have changed with time, some being codified, some not, and this would directly contradict your hilarious (and at this point I'm willing to say knowingly false) claim that the church did not have a habit of changing it's mind, its teachings, it's policies, it's canon, etc. It did, and does to this very day.

Quote:
No, they never swapped one Tradition for another. Sacred Tradition is integral to the Faith and held in common by the universal church. Small-t traditions can and do vary from place to place and are sometimes swapped out.

You've already been made aware of at least once instance where a Pope reversed the rulings of a previous Pope in another thread. So apparently they are infallible, unless the next Pope is even more infallible. I'd say that's a problem with big t traditions (of which the infallibility of the pope is one, though it was not always, again, see the above)

Quote:Church councils firstly clarify and discuss matters of dogma. For example, when the pill came out, some people argued that it should be allowed for Catholics based on the fact that it was an extension of a humans hormonal cycle. The Pope stepped in and ruled otherwise, that it divorced sex from its procreative aspect like any other artificial birth control. New issues and new discoveries create new implications for dogma.

Not if the church can't change it's mind or reverse itself, no.

Quote:
Sometimes it defines dogma, turning common theological beliefs and recognizing them as established parts of the Faith. For example, it is a required belief of all Catholics that the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived without sin and was totally sinless throughout her whole life. This doctrine was not formally defined until relatively recently, but was always present in Tradition and the Church certainly never made a proclamation that the Blessed Virgin Mary was born with original sin, so its not at all a "change". This can also be done in response to a specific heresy: the rise of Arianism prompted the Church to formally define the Trinity.

Wait, you mean they brought down an unfavorable religious ruling against a competing religious provider? You don't say.......

Quote:Even more often they revise tradition. Such as Vatican II having more Holy Masses said in the language of the people. This is a small t tradition, as Latin wasn't actually an integral part of dogma: indeed, Eastern Catholics always preached in their own languages and earlier Christians did as well.

No they don't, you can't revise something without changing it, and they don't change things

Quote:We are talking about Christianity here. To you I am sure it is all ~fairy tales~ but to Christians its literal Scripture.

Fairy tales remain fairy tales whether it is a hindu, a christian, a muslim, or an atheist reading them.

Quote:The "Petrine passage" is present in every single known manuscript of Matthew always in the same place as well. When a verse is added in later, we end up with some early books not having it in, and when its a larger passage you often see it move around as different people inserted it in different areas. So its not a forgery by any legitimate opinion.

So you keep claiming, but I think I'll just hold out for that opus of yours.

Quote:As for "authoriship" and "dating" I am not sure what you are even on about. The Gospel of Matthew has an unknown author and is commonly dated to around 80-90 or so. None of this is at all relevant to "the Petrine passage" or your imaginary "rumblings".

Yes you are, but you don't actually have anything to offer.

Quote:Because magic, in the religious sense, refers to appeals to the metadivine realm. Monotheists don't really believe in any power higher than God, making "magic", as it is religiously defined, impossible (indeed, even attempts at "magic" are seen as sin and trying to subvert the laws of nature/God). The Saints have no power on their own.

So, again, "our magic isn't magical"? Channelers aren't limited to catholic superstition (and in fact the idea that a person with magical powers is merely channeling said power is quite common worldwide), it's still magic Aiza.

(June 12, 2012 at 10:35 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Yes, Aiza, basically, at different points in time the church and its leaders have had different party lines, these have changed with time, some being codified, some not,

Give me one example of the Church changing its canon, ever. Go on. We are discussing the actual doctrines of Catholicism, which have never once changed.

You are seriously complaining that different Church Fathers thought different things, while leaving the Faithful all the freedom to believe in whatever they like? The exact same thing is true today. Catholics can be single instant Creationists, they can be 7 day Creationists, they can believe in evolution. This has always been true. This example is particularly ridiculous because nothing here was defined, nothing here was changed, nothing here was a swap of "party lines". We went from "no official position because its irrelevant" to "no official position because its irrelevant".

Quote:You've already been made aware of at least once instance where a Pope reversed the rulings of a previous Pope in another thread.

What "rulings"? Popes are infallible in matters of Faith+morals when speaking in their office as a Pope. Give me a single example of this "ruling" being overturned.

Quote:No they don't, you can't revise something without changing it...

Small t tradition are just practices and expressions. The exact same beliefs, you just change what color the altar cloths are. It has absolutely nothing to do with actual doctrine, so this whole conversation just betrays your ignorance more than anything.

Quote:So you keep claiming, but I think I'll just hold out for that opus of yours.

No Rhythm, not so"I" claim. So every single bit of research we have claims. Please, find me any evidence of an early manuscript without this "Petrine passage" and then I will continue to humor you. Until then, no.



And while I am at it, this goes for all the stuff about the Church "changing its mind" as well. I don't want to do your homework for you. Give me a concrete example or I won't even pretend to humor you. This is just goofy and you come across as more ignorant by the post.

I would link you to the Enchiridion Symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum (phew!), which is pretty much the official list of all Catholic dogmas within a single list, but since the free English translation of the site is down, I can link you to some Catechisms instead which might give you an idea, albeit incomplete, of Catholic doctrine which we might use as a starting point for your alleged "changes" (especially Trent + the CCC since those come officially from the Church:

Catechetical Instructions of Thomas Aquinas (13th Century): http://www.basilica.org/pages/ebooks/St....ctions.pdf
Catechism of Trent (1566): http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/ma...tindex.htm
Vaux's Catechism (1583): http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/vaux.htm
Douay Catechism (1649): http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/DouayCat.htm
Baltimore Catechism (1886): http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/ma...bindex.htm
Catechism of St. Pius X (1908): http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/ma...pindex.htm
Catechism of the Catholic Church (1997): http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM