Albert Cipriani

Dear Phillip,
You equivocate “Church” when you say: The Church may not, but Churchmen may… do, did, and always will.

That Churchmen are disobedient to the Church.

The crusaders crusaded out of all manner of good and evil motives. But that’s irrelevant. Even if the Popes called forth the crusades out of all manner of evil or good motives, that, too, is irrelevant. Point is, every act of Church governance represents its pastoral judgment, and as such, it is not infallible nor irreformable and is as subject to error as is the political judgments of our secular leaders.

Then why did Christ send his apostles out girded with a sword two by two? Why did Christ use a whip on the moneychangers in the temple? Why did Christ marvel at the faith of the Roman centurion and heal his servant and not rebuke him for living by the sword? And have you not read of all the Old Testament wars fought in Yahweh’s name with His blessing?

No quotation out of the bible qualifies as a dogma. The bible-as-dogma is an irrational premise accepted only by fundamentalist Protestants.

It’s what the Church says it is. There’s well over 2,000 of ‘em detailed in Henry Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

John Page

Interesting how god has disappeared out of the equation here considering the OP.

1. All quotations from the bible can be taken as dogma (by anyone).
2. The Catholic church doesn't do what the Catholic church says! The Catholic Church is a hypocrite.
3. Most importantly, you neglect that the Catholic Church is comprised of people, so disavowing the acts of churchmen disavows the integrity of the organization they form part of. (If you going to hang it all the pope, don;t bother, there's been some really nasty popes).
4. I don't know who Denzinger is - how did he get to decide what dogma is? I'll bet he got it from the churchmen.

Summary, we're expected to swallow what Albert C says without reference to the works of the Catholic Church, the ministers of its dogma or god - with whom you apparently have negotiated some exclusive deal. Oh yes, my questions to you in my previous post has remained ananswered:

"As I alluded in my previous post, why should I bet in favor of one of a bunch of inconsistent religions? Why shouldn't I bet on the chances of god being proven to be a figment of your imagination?"

Cheers, John

Tenek

So basically what you're saying is that young people are wrong. Odd. My age shouldn't have anything to do with the validity of the argument.

You can't possibly tell me that I have a belief in a personal and perfect God. But I still seem to have morality. Curious, that. Maybe you don't have a clue, maybe I don't. But I'm not going to pretend that there is a god without one hell of a good reason.

And as for the Bible calling my good works 'filthy rags'... Couldn't care less. It seems long on instruction and short on justification.

(edited for clarity and civility, apologies)

Philosoft

Gentlemen (Tenek, this means you too), please endeavor to keep the discussion civil, avoiding ad hominem and other unnecessarily inflammatory comments. This is an "upper forum" and we prefer our discourse civil. Thank you.

~Philosoft, EoG mod

phillip millar

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Albert Cipriani
[B]Dear Phillip,
You equivocate “Church” when you say......:

Dear Albert,

I'm not sure what shade of meaning you apply to the word 'equivocate'. I am not wittingly a sophist, liar or deciever. Could you please elaborate?

In any case the words 'which is Christ's body' are not originally mine at all. They are those of Paul, an apostle whose writings are apparently, (and paradoxically ) revered by the Catholic church and Protestant fundamentalists alike. (Incidentally I am neither Protestant or Fundamentalist)

I have referred more than once to the crusades as campaigns endorsed by the Vatican. Could you tell me in your opinion, as a traditional catholic if these campaigns constituted acts of disobedience to the church? I know I've already asked a question of this genre but have not received an unambiguous answer. (Its not unknown for me to be slow on the uptake!!)

What or who is the final authority within the Catholic Church? Is it:
The Pope?
The Vatican Curia?
The College of Cardinals?
Churchmen?
All of the above?
None of the above?
A selected combination?

Could I also ask in your opinion, given the choice between NT apostolic teaching (which apparently does not qualify as dogma) and dogma as detailed in Henry Denzinger's Enchiridion Symbolorum, which would take precedence?

You have asked a number of questions yourself which I will endeavour to answer . In response to my suggestion that the pastoral activities of Christ and His apostles are not emulated in bloody crusades you asked the following:

'Then why did Christ send his apostles out girded with a sword two by two....'?

I'm not aware that he did Albert. Do you have details? Is it recorded what the swords were used for? Were they to facilitate forced conversion? Did not the Christ the Catholic church and others claim to worship not rebuke one of his own disciples for using a sword to mutilate the servant of the Jewish high priest?

'Why did Christ use a whip on the money changers in the temple...?'

I understand it was because they were a brood of religious hypocrites who fleeced the common people for their own financial ends. Strictly it was a whip comprising 'small chords'. This is a rather measured response when compared to the brutality meted out by various religious sects.

'Why did Christ marvel at the faith of the Roman Centurion and heal his servant and not rebuke him for living by the sword...?'

My guess is that he marvelled at his faith because he could'nt find much of it within the established religion that claimed to be the administrators of divine truth. As to why he did not rebuke him at that time for (as you assert) living by the sword I do not know. Interestingly enough, if my memory serves me correctly the Christ did I think instruct one Roman soldier (I'm not sure if he was a centurion or not) to 'do violence to no man and be content with your wages'

In summary, it seems to me that a considerable degree of extrapolation is required to use biblical quotations such as these as a basis for the barbarism of unbridled world religion.

'And have you not read of all the Old Testament wars fought in Yahweh’s name with His blessing?

Yes I have Albert. I've read every one of them (I assume you have also). Whatever 'Yaweh's' reasons I do not hesitate to say that the judgements meted out were dreadful and terrible. However there does appear to be a clear dichotomy between the old and new testaments. I can't readily see the NT precedent for one nation or collection of nations church or organisation being instructed to act as the executioners of divine wrath.

I understand Philiosoft is a litle concerned regarding the civility of the debate (though I prefer the word discussion). Be assured that none of my comments are designed to be personal,inflammatory, spiteful or malicious in any way. If my comments suggest otherwise then I apologise. I'm in a bit of a hurry so apologies if my posting doesn't read too fluently!

In the meantime I remain;

Yours sincerely

Phillip

Albert Cipriani

Dear Phillip,
Equivocation is the logical fallacy whereby one word is used in two different senses. In your case, “Church” could be taken in the sense of a divine institution or in the sense of the churchmen running that divine institution. Ergo, the “Church” in the sense of its churchmen may act independently of the Church’s head which is Christ. But the “Church” in the sense of its doctrines and its sacraments may never be contrary to or independent of the wishes of the Church’s head, which is Christ. I would not dream of accusing you of being a sophist or deceiver.

The crusades constituted a pious response to a request by churchmen. A request may be declined without disobeying. Thus, non-crusaders did not disobey the churchmen calling for the crusades. Even if the pope had commanded them to join the crusade, their refusal would only constitute their disobedience of a pope, not disobedience of the Church. There is not a one-to-one correspondence between what a pope proclaims and what the Church proclaims.

The pope when he speaks ex cathedra, from the chair. Ecumenical councils (there’s been 20 of them), when approved by the pope, are just as authoritative.

Scripture is the source of dogma but it is not dogma itself. Vatican II ecumenical council put to rest the age-old question of what has precedence, tradition or scripture. It ruled neither. Likewise, neither Scripture nor the dogmas of the Church as detailed in Denzinger’s takes precedence. Indeed, the comparison is a comparison between unlike things.

As difference between your and my extrapolation of the NT passages illustrates, the Bible is not dogma. For it to obtain that high standard of infallible truth, for it must be infallibly interpreted. Ergo the justification for an institutional infallible Church. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

John Page

Posted by Philip:
What or who is the final authority within the Catholic Church?

So god doesn't enter into it as the final authority?

You are claiming that the Catholic church is an infallible authority (through its infallible interpretation of the bible). Now, the bible claims god is the ultimate, infallible, authority and not the rags that the church writes. How do you resolve this contradiction in your dogma?

Cheers, John

FarSeeker

Ask any Jew who survived a Nazi Death camp whether he/she would rather have died there, or suffered and survived to tell the world about them.

Many abused children have survived and grown to at least contribute to society; I believe some have even done great things. Therefore, it is better to have survived suffering than to
have died. I consider life is worth living, "warts and all."

This concept of "death before suffering," that is nearly ubiquitous among Atheists, frightens me.

So much for your compassion for the suffering.

Tenek

False analogy, anybody?

The Jews were already there. They already existed. Even if they had died, that still would have left a mark. The issue of abortion is whether or not you can consider a lump of cells a human being. I will not be so arrogant as to state that *any* pregnant woman is carrying some*one* without a decent amount of evidence for it.


As for your shock & awe story, that was a third-trimester abortion. This is the point at which it becomes a grey area. Very, very few abortions are in third trimester simply because the decision is usually made long before that. Past that, to be blunt, it's a practical issue. Banning third-trimester abortion only results in a ton of problems with actually enforcing it. Banning all abortion would indicate that a fetus (how long does it take to get to that stage, anyways? I'm not sure, so I'll just said term for all developing stages) a few *hours* old has more of a right to live than your average household pet.

I think that third trimester would be a half-decent cutoff, but there's no way it's going to be enforceable.

Besides, it's a free ticket to heaven in the kid *does* have a soul, isn't it? If born, then they might go to Hell, at which point we get into the idea that eternal suffering is worse than death - oh lookie here, that's odd, I think you just criticized such a viewpoint. Uh oh.

Philosoft

What are you talking about? All atheists will endure some or other degree of suffering before wishing for death.
Now, you posted that story without citing your source; that makes me suspicious. And this gem: "The delivery room staff felt that life-support would be futile, so they wrapped the baby in a bassinet without attendance." That's almost farcical. Please tell me it doesn't come from some abortion propaganda site.