Arrowman

There has been quite a lot of Pope/RCC discussion lately, and the above words from Ingersoll have been used in a couple of places. I posted a response to that quote in an RRP thread, but I think it might be worthy of a more serious discussion. My thoughts below: Any comments?

Actually, I must (rather nervously, I admit) disagree with the esteemed Mr Ingersoll on this one. My reasons are somewhat contradictory, but that doesn't matter - it just shows that there are multiple lines of reasoning which are imho equally plausible.

(Perhaps Ingersoll was thinking of the more anti-intellectual, Biblical fundamentalist protestants like the SBC, Lutherans etc. Perhaps he has a point there - but as a generalisation I think he is wrong.)

1. If you assume that the Bible is the Word of God, to whatever extent you wish to take it literally, then why is it necessary to add layer after layer of human-invented dogma to it? Since when does the Bible tell us to celebrate Sunday as the Sabbath? Since the Catholic Church decreed it, of course. Since when does the Bible tell us that not attending Catholic Mass every week will send you to hell? Since the Catholic Church decreed it, of course. When it comes to credibility, intellectual and otherwise, give me the religionists like Rev Joshua Villines over the Pope any day.

2. Popes are appointed by men, for largely political reasons. No, the Catholic Church is not inflicted with the same idiot forever - just a series of political figures, each of which has just as much chance of being idiot or savant as does a US President. And the Pope has ultimate authority - he is the Word Of God on earth. When was the last time a Pope took any intellectual advance which wasn't either (a) an absolutely minimal advance on pre-existing Catholic doctrine or (b) overturned later by a more conservative Pope?

Protestant churches, on the other hand, have their equivalent (eg the AB of Canterbury as head of the CofE) but they are largely governed by groups of people who [should] reflect the needs and wishes of the wider congregation. And they (Protestant churches) include in their number people like John Shelby Spong (who would never be tolerated in the RCC) who represent a broad range of theological views. They foment debate and argument.

Oh - and who ordains women? The RCC, or the Cof E? What was that about "intellectual advancement"?

Religiously of course I don't agree with any of them - but in the context of what Ingersoll is saying, I think it is valid to say that the Protestant churches (the CofE at least) are much more capable of "intellectual advancement" than the RCC - and it's because, not despite, the fact that they don't have a Pope.

I think Ingersoll got this one wrong.